Alaska Legislature Determined To Give Alaska The Record

The headline in this morning's Alaska Dispatch News front page:

"GOP legislators eye health, education for cuts"

 The headline in Section B:

"High school graduation rate among worst in US

With a new round of education budget cuts, maybe Alaska can get ahead of Washington DC, Nevada, and New Mexico and be at the very bottom.  Way to go legislators, always thinking of ways to make Alaska stand out.


I would put some caveats in this though.

First, graduation rate is a tricky measure because it's something the schools can manipulate.  Teachers are told to pass marginal students.  Graduation standards can be reduced.  It's a good thing to increase, but the best measures aren't ones school districts can control.

That said, I'm not too sure what having a high school diploma actually means these days.  Not having one has big consequences.  But does it represent something significant enough to justify the stigma (particularly ability to get a job) not having one imposes?  For the clear cut cases, sure.  But the student who just barely misses it?  Not so sure.  But then GED's are available for those who finally get there stuff together.

Two more points.  Money alone doesn't make a better school.  How the money is used is important.  We have a basic system and it's hard to tinker with.  When I taught 6th grade for a year, I concluded that I could teach a lot more to each kid if I had only five in class.  The results would be significant enough that setting up school so that each kid only had academics for ten weeks would be more effective than having a class of 30 for forty weeks.  I'm not proposing that, but I am saying ways to tinker with education delivery could greatly impact output.  But all things being equal, if more money means smaller classes (rather than more highly paid administrators) more money is better than less.

Finally, there is a national conservative effort to get public education money diverted to private schools.  Vouchers, for example.  One way to achieve their goal is to make public schools so bad, that the public gets totally fed up and supports diverting public money to private schools, including religious schools.  I'm sure that some of the Republicans wanting to cut the education budget consciously or unconsciously have this goal.

Gov Wants Special Legislative Session To Do Three Things

Alaska's governor has sent the legislature an 'agenda' for the special legislative session that begins in Juneau on Saturday.  Here are the three key things he wants:

"The three items for consideration in this special session are: 
(1) passage of legislation lifting the tax holiday on real property leased from the State containing threshold volumes of gas in order to ensure that producers are incentivized to commit their gas to Alaska LNG, or to make gas available for purchase if Alaska LNG does not proceed with all current project participants on previously established timelines; 
(2)  an appropriation to pay TransCanada its development costs and terminate its participation in Alaska LNG, so that AGDC can take over TransCanada’s current equity position in the gas treatment plant (GTP) and pipeline;  and
(3) appropriations for the State to make cash calls on the GTP and pipeline components of Alaska LNG to continue pre-front end engineering and design (FEED) work necessary to reach a FEED decision, and for the other State agencies involved in Alaska LNG to fund the work to continue efforts to negotiate and reach final agreements necessary to reach a FEED decision."

He offers a little more detail in the rest of the letter, but no numbers.  That's coming later, the letter says.  If I were a legislator, I'd want as much time as possible to read all the numbers and try to figure out the implications, though in today's political climate, from the governor's perspective, that means more time for opponents to attack.  But really, we want all the questions to be asked and then answered. 

Item #1:  I think ending the tax holiday is easy to understand.  The gas is in the ground, but the oil companies don't have to pay property taxes.  The initial exemption from property taxes was that the oil companies would pump the gas.  But the governor argues, as have others in the past, that without the tax, they have no incentive to do anything.   

Item #2:  I generally like the idea that the state acts as a real partner in this and I guess buying out TransCanada's share is part of doing that.  But, how much does TC want to sell?  If they are happy to to get rid of it, shouldn't we be able to get a discounted price?  Are there any other potential buyers?

I also like that unlike Parnell and Murkowski, Walker seems to represent Alaska and not the oil companies.  That doesn't mean he's making good decisions, but it does mean he's not playing patsy to the oil companies. 

This is going to be big money.  And you need big money in the oil and gas business.  But the state has a history of bad investments in enterprises from the Matsu Dairy to the Seafood Processing Plant in Anchorage.   Is this different?  If so, what can the governor tell us to convince us?  How long will a pipeline take before gas flows?  Will it come on line before ice melts enough for tankers to just fill up directly on the North Slope? 

And, I for one, need assurance that Walker plans to run for reelection, so all this doesn't fall apart.  Should another oil company lackey become governor again, this would all be for naught. 

Item #3:  Some specifics and some numbers would help out here.


Now, the Republican majority in the legislature is full of oil company supporters, even some oil company employees.  Walker has to entice them to vote his way.  The special session on Medicaid expansion earlier this year wasn't exactly a show of bi-partisan support. 

But let's all remember that this is precisely what Walker campaigned on.  A politician who is keeping his promises.  From the EnergyWire last December:

During the campaign, Walker suggested that, if elected, he might renegotiate the gas line contracts to give the state a leadership role. Industry supporters warned that such a step could set the project back by a decade (EnergyWire, Nov. 6).
Continued tensions over the pipeline issue were apparent last month when Walker's team held a town-hall-style transition meeting in Anchorage to draft recommendations for the new administration.
During oil and gas panel discussions, industry representatives called for Walker to endorse the Alaska LNG contracts that Parnell signed with BP Alaska, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Exxon Mobil Corp. and TransCanada Corp.
But Walker supporters protested that the incoming governor shouldn't be asked to sign off on contracts that neither he nor the public has seen in their entirety. Instead, they wanted Walker to push the oil companies to guarantee they'll build the pipeline.
"We'd like to achieve a commitment to build because the agreements we have right now aren't binding," noted Anchorage energy attorney Robin Brena, who served as chairman for the transition conference's oil and gas panel.
Despite their differences, Walker spent the days after the final votes were counted reaching out to Alaska oil industry groups. He held private meetings with the Alaska Oil and Gas Association and the Alaska Support Industry Alliance.

At Least Ten Legislators attend Alaska Fiscal Forum

While some legislators and their staff are getting bad press for spending $400 and more per night in Seattle hotels and $90,000 altogether for the conference, other legislators are getting their education right here in Anchorage.  There's nothing wrong with going to conferences Outside.  That's how you connect with others and learn new ideas.  But it seems there should be a limit on hotel costs that the state pays and there are questions about why so many needed to go.

That said, I want to at least give credit to the legislators who took advantage of the Alaska Common Ground/ISER forum on Alaska's fiscal future last weekend.  I was able to count ten who were there - that's 1/6 of the whole legislature, about 17%.  (I didn't try tracking staff members so I don't know  how many of them were there.

Here are the legislators I saw:

Rep. David Guttenberg (Fairbanks area)
Sen. John Coghill (Fairbanks area)
Sen.  Berta Gardner (Anchorage)
Rep. Shelley Hughes (Palmer)
Rep. Matt Claman (Anchorage)
Rep. Bryce Edgmon (Dillingham)
Rep. Max Gruenberg (Anchorage)
Rep. Andy Josephson (Anchorage)
Rep. Harriet Drummond  (Anchorage)
Rep. Lynn Gattis (Wasilla)

There may have been more.  But those are the ones I was able to identify while I was there.  (If you were there and want to be listed here, just email me.)

[Note:  I saw Matt Claman early, before I thought about taking pictures of the legislators present.  Later, when I looked for him I couldn't find him.  So I used an old photo I had of him and photoshopped it so it didn't look like I was slipping it in as a current picture.  The original one of Berta Gardner was even more out of focus and so I played with it a bit in photoshop too.]

Shelley Hughes started talking about her reaction to what had happened already, so I asked if I could get it on video. 





You can see Sen. Wilkin's handout to get the precise point Rep. Hughes is referring to in the video about how a slight reduction in the Permanent Fund yields the biggest bang for our bucks.  In fact, you can find links to videos and  all the handouts at the Forum here at the Alaska Common Ground website.  [I'd note that link goes to their main page, so it might have other stuff up after a while, but probably you could poke around and find their links to the Forum materials.]

So I just want to thank these legislators for coming to the forum and showing their interest and being where constituents and non-constituents can talk to them easily.  And some came from outside of Anchorage.  And there were five from the Majority caucuses and five from the Minority caucuses.



And here's a picture of Cliff Groh who was a key player making the Forum happen, along with
Gunnar Knapp.





BTW, I'd note that there was another article in the ADN about the legislators' trip to Seattle.   This one features Sen. Lesil McGuire saying she didn't approve the trips her staff members made and put all the blame on the staff.  The staff members are reported as reimbursing the state.  While she may be technically correct, the article does say the staff member had signature authority.  Good bosses don't throw their staff under the bus like that.  She could have just said that there was a misunderstanding and the money had been repaid without  publicly reprimanding her staff.  She even could have taken some of the blame.  Since most people aren't bosses, they'll identify with the staff and think of bosses they've had who have dumped on them.  Either way, readers will wonder what really happened.  If she had taken the high road, she would have at least gotten credit for standing up for her staff.

 Rep. Nancy Dahlstrom, in contrast, took the blame for a letter that most probably was written by her staff member.  I can't be sure what happened, but the link explains why I think the staff member wrote the original letter.  But Dalhstrom, as the boss, accepted responsibility for what her staff did.  Showed some class there.

Busy Day - Alaska Budget Forum and Quaker Wedding

It's a little after 10pm and I'm only just getting to my computer for the first time today.  That's generally a good sign, and that's true today.  And I've got lots of pictures and thoughts, but I'm only going to do a preview of posts to come.

Alaska Common Ground's Fiscal Forum

Lots of people at Wendy Williamson auditorium at UAA - I'd guess around 300 or more for this interactive session on Alaska's fscal future. That's a lot of folks to show up for a day of budget talk inside on a sparkling fall day.   And a fair number of legislators in attendance, too.  I counted ten - almost 17% of the legislature.  And not just Anchorage legislators. 




Quaker Wedding


I realize that while I know people who are Friends and I've heard about the silence at their meetings,  this was the first time I've ever been at a Friends' meeting.  And the silences were meaningful. (Making me think of John Cage as I write this.)  In addiition, this was a pretty significant Alaskan wedding.  More at ten.  Oh yeah, it is ten.  Well more later.

[UPDATE Sept 21:  I've put from "this was the first time" to "Making me think of" back into the sentence where it belongs, not dangling  at the end down here as a floating fragment.]

Cutting 40% Of Legislative Research Office

Today's Alaska Dispatch News had a headline story about how the Alaska Legislature had cut its own research office by 40%.  There are a lot of questions to ask here.  Like, "WHY?!"

The obvious scapegoat is the budget shortfall.  But some things, in theory anyway, ought to have a higher priority.  And the ability to research before you make legislation would seem like one.  Just one stupid mistake because the legislature didn't have good research on a new bill, could wipe out whatever savings this makes. [I have to note that, yes, the price of oil dropped, cutting a big chunk of state revenues.  But we also have $50 billion in the Permanent Fund and monies in other reserve funds.  And our legislative majority have no interest in raising new revenue.  Their only interest seems to be cutting.]

But there are also questions about the efficiency of the agency and of the efficiency of how it is used by the legislature.  How many legislators use the office?  Are a few taxing its limits while others never use it?  How much does the average report cost?  How have the reports been used to help the legislature make good decisions?

I couldn't find any good tables that listed any of that information.  The best I could find was a list of reports with short summaries for the 2015 Fiscal Year.  (July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015.)  To find out who requested the report, you have to click on each report.  Didn't have time for that today.  I did have time to post a copy of the list of summaries at SCRBD and below.

The overview divides the reports into 15 categories.

• Commerce
• Criminal & Civil Justice
• Demographics
• Education
• Employment and Labor
• Energy Production and Consumption
• Environment
• Government
• Health Care
• Natural Resources<
• Property
• Public Finance
• Social Services
• Transportation
• Miscellaneous 

A lot of the reports are just one page, but good short reports take longer than longer reports.

Here are the research summaries themselves.

Alaska Legislative Research FY 2015

When I blogged the legislature in 2010, I spent a fair amount of time over at Legislative Affairs, getting reports. These folks are good and impartial. As much as some might think that in this fact-free political era, that legislators might not want a lot of facts interfering with their ideology. I doubt that's true of most legislators.

Alaska's $400K Donation To Support DC Law Firm's Anti-Obama Care Campaign

How else can we explain this? 

Alaska Superior Court judge Frank Pfiffner soundly rejected the Legislative Council's court challenge to Gov. Bill Walker's expansion of Medicaid in Alaska.  The expansion will proceed next Tuesday, Sept. 1.  Some 40,000 Alaskans will gain access to affordable medical care.  The state will get an influx of over a billion dollars.

But it appears the Republicans want to appeal.  The ADN online post of Aug. 29 ADN reports

"By the end of the day, the Alaska Supreme Court had already received the Legislature’s request for emergency review and ordered Walker’s attorneys to respond by Monday at noon."

[UPDATE Tuesday Sept 1, 2015:  The ADN reports the Alaska Supreme Court agreed with the Governor's attorneys to let Medicaid expansion begin today, Sept 1.  They did not rule on other parts of the suit.]

In either case, the $400K has been appropriated to the DC law firm Bancroft PLLC.  I posted a bit about them two weeks ago.  The Nerve reported in Jan 2013 that Bancroft PLLC had charged South Carolina over $3 million to defend their voter id law. 

"Bancroft PLLC, located in Washington, D.C., billed a total of 6,290 hours from September 2011 through last September at hourly rates of $520 for attorneys, $200 for research associates and $180 for paralegals. With other litigation costs thrown in, the firm's total invoice came to $3,419,439. .  .

Federal online court records show that eight Bancroft attorneys represented the state in the voter ID case, which, based on a total cost of $3,419,438.28, works out to an average cost of $427,429.78 per lawyer."

If you read that quickly, you might not have realized that 6,290 hours equals 157 forty-hour work weeks, just about three years of work in about 13 months.   Divide that by eight (for eight attorneys) and that's over 19 weeks per attorney - almost five months full time each.  OK, I realize attorneys bill more than 40 hours per week and that there were paralegals and others.   But also note it was a Bancroft attorney who lost a case over billing when he charged for his commuting time.

One wonders how the Alaska legislature will monitor the bills from Bancroft.  Basically we're paying them for research work they will use to fight Obamacare in other states.  Again, I realize that's how things work, but I don't think most Alaskans want to be making this sort of subsidy to this sort of firm.  It's especially galling since a) it's likely to lose and b) for most Alaskans, based on their views on Medicaid expansion, it would be worse if they won. 

Do our state Republican legislators even care?  I don't think so.  This is a way for the firm to get its new friends in the Alaska legislature to move money from Alaska's treasury to theirs.  Nothing Chenault and gang say to defend their actions makes sense on the face of it.  Herz quotes House Speaker Chenault as saying,

“We are by no means looking for a way to stop Medicaid expansion; we are trying to do it the right way so that we have a reliable, sustainable system.”

Yeah, sure.  This appears to  really be  part of a national ideological fight against Obamacare. Every state that signs up for Obamacare is a loss for these anti-Obamacare forces.  I'm sure they've come to the legislative leaders and convinced them (using logic? promises of future support?) to fight this Medicaid expansion at all costs. That's why they hired Bancroft, the key law firm that specializes in anti-Obamacare lawsuits.  Who were the brokers who connected Chenault and his merry gang with Bancroft?  The same folks who pushed them to fight the expansion in the first place?  Even though a strong majority of Alaskans favor Medicaid expansion?  I'm sure Koch funded groups like Americans for Prosperity who opened an Alaskan office this year played a role.  Sourcewatch writes:

According to the Center for Public Integrity, Americans for Prosperity "spent a staggering $122 million (in 2012) as it unsuccessfully attempted to defeat President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats," including $83 million on "communications, ads, and media."^[3]
http://www.bancroftpllc.com/scott-v-u-s-dept-of-health-human-services/
 to the US Supreme Court.  They lost the critical one NFIB v Sibelius that would have shut down the Affordable Care Act  and won the second Scott v. US DHSS. 

Note:  Bancroft was the anti-Obama care law firm in both those suits - NFIB v Sibelius and Scott v. US DHSS.

[Addition 7pm - I forgot to mention that the Governor got an Anchorage law firm to work with the AG's office to represent his (our) side for free.  People of Kenai, really, are you going to reelect Chenault?]


Note 2:  The South Carolin Voter ID law mentioned above:  A Washington Post article reports that while the Department of Justice rejected the law in Dec. 2011, a unanimous three judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for DC approved it October 2012, but delayed implementation.]

I'd also like to salute Nat Herz who did a great job of sending out tweets from the judge's reading of the decision on Friday.  He also tried to live feed it, but I wasn't around for it live, so I'm not sure how that went.

Screenshot of Nat Herz tweeting from the courtroom Firday

Forbes Tells It Like It Isn't - Bluster Meets The Judge

From a puff piece in Forbes online:

"Gov. Bill Walker and his lawyers plan to argue that Medicaid expansion is required by federal law. Who better to combat that false claim than the very same attorneys who successfully argued the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court in the first place?

Gov. Walker Should Walk Away From Obamacare Plan

Walker’s unilateral Medicaid expansion isn’t just bad policy, it’s also illegal. He now knows that lawmakers stand ready to block his actions. It’s time for Gov. Walker to give up his misguided attempt to circumvent the legislature in order to expand Obamacare in Alaska."

That's dated August 25, 2015.  Alaska Superior Court Judge Frank Pfiffer, a Parnell* appointee, apparently missed this, because yesterday he ruled decisively in favor of the governor's position and rejected the challenge approved by the Legislative Council.

It was written by 

"Jonathan Ingram, Nic Horton and Josh Archambault—Mr. Ingram is Research Director, Mr. Archambault is a Senior Fellow, and Mr. Horton is Policy Impact Specialist, at the Foundation for Government Accountability."

And who is FGA?   According to SourceWatch:

The Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) is a right-wing advocacy group based in Naples, Florida. It is run by former Maine legislator Tarren Bragdon. It is affiliated with the State Policy Network (SPN), a web of state pressure groups that denote themselves as "think tanks" and drive a right-wing agenda in statehouses nationwide.
The FGA describes its own agenda as developing free market public policies that “achieve limited, constitutional government and a robust economy that will be an engine for job creation across [Florida].” The FGA “believes personal liberty and private enterprise are key to our economic future,” the website states.

 SourceWatch also says there are links to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) which means there are Koch connections. 

Is this total BS PR-piece part of the package deal the Council got for our $400K when they hired anti-Obamacare DC law firm Bancroft PLLC?  What else comes with this deal?  What sort of future benefits do the key culprits in this waste of Alaskan dollars get?

Bancroft bills itself as a high stakes player. Chenault and Meyer (Speaker of the Alaska House and President of the Senate and Legislative Council members) have been rolled by these high stakes ambulance chasers.  With our dollars. 


*For non-Alaskans, Parnell was Palin's Lt. Gov and became governor when she resigned.  He lost to Walker, a former Republican who ran as an independent in November 2014. 

My Plan To Save The State Of Alaska At Least $700,000

Before I offer my plan to save all that money, let me offer some background

Decision to sue governor
The Alaska Legislative Council - 14 legislators who represent the other 46 legislators when the legislature not in session  - voted to authorize $450,000 to pay an expensive DC law firm (plus some Anchorage attorneys)  to file a court challenge of the governor's decision to expand medicaid coverage for Alaskans.  (I posted the names of the Legislative Council members and the law firms here.)

I figure the state of Alaska will have to expend at least another $300,000 to defend the decision.  (The Legislative Council leaders are the same folks calling for budget cuts because of the revenue drop.)

Public Opinion supports governor, not the legislators
The Legislative Council is doing this despite the fact that a March poll by Ivan Moore found that 65% of Alaskans favored medicaid expansion then.

Chart from Ivan Moore

Will the suit against the governor win in court?
In any case, these legislators are taking a pretty big risk of losing.  But it's not their money.  It's Alaskans' money, and, as I mentioned, 65% of Alaskans were with the governor on this decision.  So they are spending this money in defiance of what is a pretty large majority in politics these days.

I'll bet they wouldn't take this action if this was their own money.  Or even if they only had to reimburse the state if they lost.  And those 65% of Alaskans (the number could be higher now) probably want them to lose because they feel we're better off squandering the $450,000 than NOT expanding Medicaid.

I looked at the section of the statute that they say the governor violated, the part that says the governor needs a vote of the legislature.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know the larger context of the law,  but I'm guessing the governor wouldn't make this move without feeling confident of his legal standing and an opinion from Legislative Legal Services for example, to Rep. Andy Josephson, concludes:

"For the above reasons, the governor likely has authority to accept additional federal funding to provide expanded Medicaid coverage.  If insufficient state funds are available, he could also request supplemental state funding.  A request for supplemental appropriations would be subject to legislative action."

The ADN has a link to AS 47.07.020 as the basis for the lawsuit.  Here is a section from the statue in question:

"(d) Additional groups may not be added unless approved by the legislature."

 But that comes after (a) and (b) which state:

"(a) All residents of the state for whom the Social Security Act requires Medicaid coverage are eligible to receive medical assistance under 42 U.S.C. 1396 - 1396p (Title XIX, Social Security Act).

(b) In addition to the persons specified in (a) of this section, the following optional groups of persons for whom the state may claim federal financial participation are eligible for medical assistance:" [emphasis added]

It goes on to list 15 'groups' of eligible Alaskans. I'm guessing that there aren't any additional groups not already listed in the 15.  As I understand this, there aren't any additional groups, but the income level for eligibility for federal Medicaid is higher to include people who can't afford coverage, but I'm not sure. I contacted my representative, attorney Andy Josephson, because he requested the opinion above from the Legislative Legal Office.  He's writing a piece for the ADN on this, so look for that for more detail.  He wrote that besides the legislature's legal office, the attorney general's office also said the governor's move to expand medicaid was legal.   Sam Kito, the only legislator on the Council to vote against suing the governor, also cites both opinions favoring the governor's action.   
Josephson's piece will go into a bit more legal detail.  He also talks about the mandatory/optional distinction.  He starts his opinion piece with a quote from US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts from the Sibelius decision on Medicaid expansion and Josephson concludes:  

"Chief Justice Roberts’ quote . . . makes it plain and unmistakable:  once a state opts to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, the expansion population becomes a mandatory group that enjoys coverage.

My bet is the suit against the governor is going to lose.   

My Plan 

So, here's my simple plan:  If the suit is going to lose anyway, why pay so much?   I'm willing to lose this suit for only $1000 instead of the $450,000 they've allocated and that would also save the governor's legal costs defending his action.  After all, if you're going to lose a case, why spend $450,000 if you can do it for just $1000?
An extra note on this:

Why are the legislators spending all this money to thwart the governor and public?
Why is this group (there's only fourteen because the Leg Council takes care of business when the full legislature is not in session) doing this? They tend not to answer questions like this publicly,  but I'm guessing  there are some pretty influential folks who want to keep Alaska (and other states) from doing anything that might make Obamacare more successful.  And these folks seem to have influence over key people in the Legislative Council.  I'm assuming Americans for Prosperity, the Koch funded group that set up an Alaska office last year, is somehow involved.  Their website has this note:

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY ALASKA REACTS TO LEGISLATURE’S LEGAL ACTION AGAINST GOV. WALKER

August 19, 2015

Following Governor Walker’s attempt to unilaterally expand Obamacare’s Medicaid, Legislature will Sue ANCHORAGE — Americans for Prosperity – Alaska, would like to applaud the members of the Alaska House and Senate for deciding to sue Governor Walker over his unilateral decision to expand Medicaid under Obamacare. Upholding the rule of law is vitally important to Alaska’s future; […] 

 But this is merely speculation.  Rep. Chenault and Sen. Meyer (the leaders of the two Alaska legislative houses)  offer us far more principled, but hard to believe, reasons.   They tell us, for example, at the end of the linked opinion piece, they are doing this "for checks and balances."  These are the folks who kept the minority voice pretty much silent and prevented legislation they opposed - including medicaid expansion - from getting to the floor when it stood a chance of getting a majority of votes.  Pardon my skepticism, but this seems more like a protest that there now is a governor who checks and balances the legislature. 

State Legislature Sues Governor Over Medicaid Expansion

The ADN has the story.  Basically 

"a Republican-controlled House-Senate committee voted 10-1 to authorize spending up to $450,000 to hire a pair of law firms to work on a suit against the governor."

WHO VOTED HOW?

Voting in favor of hiring the two law firms were Republican Reps. 

Mike Chenault of Nikiski, 
Steve Thompson of Fairbanks, 
Craig Johnson and Charisse Millett of Anchorage and 
Mark Neuman of Big Lake, 

Democratic Rep. Bob Herron of Bethel  (member of the House Republican Majority)

Republican Sens. 
Anna MacKinnon of Eagle River, 
John Coghill of North Pole, 
Charlie Huggins of Wasilla and 
Kevin Meyer of Anchorage.


Voting against:

Democratic minority member, Juneau Rep. Sam Kito.

Absent: 

"Two Republican senators from coastal areas typically viewed as more moderate, Gary Stevens of Kodiak and Peter Micciche of Soldotna, were absent, as was Sen. Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel, who belongs to the Senate’s Republican majority.

Rep. Mike Hawker, R-Anchorage, also missed the meeting. He was in Minnesota undergoing medical treatment but said by email he would have voted against hiring the law firms."

 THE LAW FIRMS TO BE HIRED

The DC Firm:  Bancroft PLLC   - This boutique DC firm, that epitomizes the DC revolving door.  From their own website:

"Bancroft PLLC was founded by former Assistant Attorney General Viet D. Dinh and now includes former Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, former Associate White House Counsel H. Christopher Bartolomucci, and other accomplished professionals focused on our clients’ most difficult and complex legal issues. Among our 12 lawyers are 6 U.S. Supreme Court clerkships, 12 U.S. Court of Appeals clerkships, and 5 Presidential appointments."

One of their top attorneys, Paul Clement, recently had his going hourly rate of $1,100 cut to $300:

"— Judge Mae D’Agostino of the Northern District of New York, giving the reasons for slashing Paul Clement’s customary $1,100 hourly rate to $300 per hour when awarding attorneys’ fees in Osterweil v. Bartlett, a Second Amendment case.

(For what it’s worth, $1,100 was Clement’s hourly rate in 2011, when he was began representing Osterweil. Clement’s current hourly rate is $1,350. Osterweil would’ve been getting a deal!)"

  

Another Bancroft attorney was denied his claim that he worked while driving to the office.

Obamacare is not a new topic for this company.  They represented the 26 states that went to the Supreme Court over  Obamacare in 2012.

Anchorage based firm:  Holmes, Weddle, and Barcott.



Who's Calling The Shots Here?

Not clear.  We know that the Koch supported Americans For Prosperity has been strongly opposed to Obamacare.  Presumably they are working with key members of the House and Senate Majorities on this.  But we shouldn't leap to conclusions.  Maybe others are involved too.   It would be interesting to learn who Meyers, Chenault, and the others talk to behind closed doors and what they talk about.

The members of the Majority seem to believe that they are immune to electoral removal.  Redistricting has given many of them comfortable seats.  But I don't suspect they realize how many people are affected by this who may well be motivated to vote in 2016.

Not only are they still dragging their feet on expanding Medicaid, but they've allocated up to $450,000 on this for their attorneys.  And the governor's office will probably have to spend just as much to defend his decision.  Sure is easy to spend other people's money, it seems.  The Republicans also spent millions of dollars over the years in unsuccessful lobbying efforts to open up ANWR.

Reasons Why Alaska Legislature Republican Majority Leaders Hate Governor Walker

Alaska's Republican majority leaders have done their best to show their disdain for Governor Walker.  They refused to meet in Juneau despite his calling for the special session to be there.  They've said no to most of what he wants to do.  Why all this antipathy?  

I'm sure readers will think of a lot more reasons, but here are a few I can think of:

1.   He left the Republicans and became an Independent
2.   This let him by-pass the Republican primary
3.   He joined with the Democratic gubernatorial candidate as his Lt. Gov partner
4.   He won the election beating their oil company loyalist sitting governor Parnell
5.   He's acts like an adult
6.   He knows how to think for himself
7.   He understands the economics of Medicaid expansion and thus supports it rather than stick to Republican ideological anti-Obamaism

But I think the most important issue for the Republicans is the fact that

8.  the next governor will be able to appoint two members to the 2020 Alaska Redistricting Board. 

They're doing everything they can to make him look bad, hoping he won't get reelected.  If the letters to the editor are any indication, they're making themselves look bad instead.  And Walker, as I mentioned above, is the one who looks like an adult in all this. 

Speaking of redistricting, it's not too early to start thinking about the next Board and how it will work.  By leaving all the decisions about technology to the Board, things get rather late to do the best job of surveying the technology available.  Mapping technology is getting much more sophisticated and much easier to use.  By the 2020 round there should be better technology to create the initial maps and the public should have access to play with the maps and come up with better alternatives.  Just something to think about. 

When Is A Bear Not A Bear? Face Saving Medicaid Review?

From yesterday's Alaska Dispatch:

The Alaska Legislature plans to hire a consultant to help lawmakers separate “fact from fiction” in the debate over expansion and reform of the public Medicaid health care program.
The Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, chaired by Rep. Mike Hawker, R-Anchorage, on Friday issued a request for proposals for what it called an “independent professional policy resource.”

While I try to step back here and look at things from all sides and present the facts.  But sometimes doing that seems disingenuous.   It's like saying, "There's a large four legged furry animal, bigger than most dogs with sharp teeth that stood up on its hind legs and sniffed the air.  Some say it is a bear and some said they couldn't see it well enough to tell."  The people who can't be sure are generally those who have a vested interest in their not being a bear.  Maybe it's because

• they've always believed there are no bears in the area, so it must really be a big dog.   Or  
• they told you flat out that there are no bears around, and it's hard to admit being wrong.  Or
• they have a vested interest in their being no bears - like they're being paid to keep bears away.

Medicaid expansion is the bear wandering around Alaska.  Republicans have believed it's bad since they first started calling it Obamacare.

• Some believed this through genuine belief that the market is the best way to do everything, despite the fact that the market was leaving millions of Americans uncovered, particularly people who really needed coverage. 
• Some were with Sen. McConnell who declared "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."  Anything the president wants, they oppose it and Obamacare, along with Medicaid expansion, has always been a key target.
• Some, with an eye toward national conservative PAC's that promise money for candidates who vote against Medicaid expansion and to defeat those who vote for it, Republicans (and Democrats) have a vested interest in preventing Medicaid expansion.

The irony is that states who refused to set up their own insurance exchanges are now facing the possibility of losing all federal Medicaid funding.  And they brought it own themselves.  They sued the federal government on a technicality.  The bill says there can be subsidies for people in states with a state exchange and they've argued those without a state exchange, using the federal exchange instead.  Their intent was to end the subsidies and thus kill Obamacare.  But now it's turning out that those states will be cutting off millions of citizens from affordable health care and huge costs will be shifted to those states.

They're charging Obama with not preparing for the possibility that the Supreme Court rules in their favor, which now they see as a catastrophe.  Obama, a constitutional lawyer, is just saying that he can't imagine the court ruling against Obamacare.   I'm sure behind that objective mask, he's got a big smirk as he thinks, "These guys brought this on themselves, let them squirm."

That's all some of the background behind yesterday's headline about the Alaska majority caucuses spending more money that they have repeatedly said we don't have, for a "report."

I'd just remind them that former Republican governor Parnell commissioned a study on Medicaid expansion from a conservative think tank.  He kept that study secret - even though it was paid for with public money - until the very last minute.

He kept is secret with good reason:  The facts contradicted his anti-expansion decision.

"Under our baseline participation assumptions, expanding Medicaid would cost the state $200.6 million more over the 2014 to 2020 period, compared to not expanding Medicaid, for a total increased cost of $240.5 million.  However, the state would receive $2.9 billion in additional federal funds and fewer individuals would remain uninsured.  Additionally, this new cost would comprise only 1.4 percent of total Medicaid costs from 2014 to 2020 (Figure E-4).
 To minimize state costs under expansion, the state could also elect to implement expansion under a number of alternative design scenarios."

 I posted about this study and Parnell's decision on it in detail here.

The legislature doesn't need to spend more time on yet another study.  All they have to do is do their jobs.  Sit down and read the original study.  There are a number of legislators who, I'm sure, would have trouble understanding the study.  But Hawker, who's cited in the article, is a retired CPA.  He should be able to understand that study and know we don't need yet another study.  But he's also the legislator most responsible for the opulent redo of the Anchorage Legislative Information Office that everyone agrees is way above market value. 

The conclusion that makes the most sense to me (which doesn't mean its the right conclusion) is that another study could cite new evidence that would allow the Republicans to let the governor, on his own, expand Medicaid without any serious opposition from the legislators.   And if that is the case, then the already stressed Alaska budget will take another hit so the Republican majority's ego can be massaged.

This is really a bear.  But if that's what it takes to get Medicaid expanded in Alaska and adding health care coverage, many say, to 40,000 people, so be it.  But I hope the people of Alaska - particularly those who have given up on the process and stopped voting - realize how the Republican majority's talk of fiscal carefulness is belied by most of what they do.  The list of the legislators - particularly those from Anchorage and Mat-Su - who took excessive per diem during the special session is just yet one more piece of evidence of their lack of concern for the people of Alaska.

[Feedburner failure repost]

Finance Committee Amendments - More Session Starting At 8AM Tomorrow

They're offering a series of amendments that I can't find online.  They've passed them out, but can't really figure them out as we go.

They just said something about holding until tomorrow morning, which means the bill won't pass tonight. 

Amendment 1:  Suicide awareness and prevention training
Amendment 2:
Amendment 3:  Deletes Sec. 14, insert new - "does not require an athletic coach who is an unpaid volunteer to report child abuse or neglect
amendment 4:
Amendment 5 - conjectural from Miccichi - delay until June 30, 2017 to understand impacts  (on hold until tomorrow at 8am)

I couldn't keep up with this all, but basically Reps. Tarr and Millett were asked if they were ok with the changes and that there are still finishing touches that will happen tomorrow morning.

An interesting part was Sen. Dunleavy asking Millett and Tarr what was it, besides the opt in and opt out parts, that caused people in the House to say they wouldn't vote for the bill?  He didn't get the answers he wanted and eventually called for more dialogue rather than battling in the press.  I'm not sure why he was asking.

It sounded like he was trying to figure out what, if anything, would be safe to put back into the bill, but that's speculation.  

Sort of Restored HB 44 (Erin's Law) Testimony Done at Sen Finance

Erin's Law public testimony is done. 

Finance committee's changes returned the key parts of Erin's and Bree's Law - it's mandatory for schools, it's opt out for parents, no longer opt in.  And it now covers K-12 again. 

There are 27 sections of the bill that add in many of Sen. Dunleavy's wish list.  But the worst of his amendments are gone - the prohibition on contracting with abortion providers, and some of the parental rights sections that undermined kids rights to access to this training.

The committee is going to recess and do some amending and are hoping to be back  at 4:45 to look at amending this based on the testimony.

Testimony was overwhelmingly for adopting the original bill that was passed in the house.  I didn't hear anyone deviate from that.  There were personal stories from victims of abuse and from parents of abuse victims.  There was testimony from people in the field of fighting abuse. 

Things are in a much better state now. 

Finance Committee Rewrite of Erin's Law Has Big Improvements

I'm at the public testimony for HB 44 Erin's Law.

I wrote up a synopsis of an earlier post that argued that at least 2000 kids would be molested because of the changes from the original Erin's Law to the Senate Education Committee Substitute.

When I got here, I was quickly shown by a friend that there is a new committee substitute bill from the Finance committee.

There are lots of small changes have improved the bill significantly.

• Schools have changed from 'may' back to 'shall' have this program.  That's the biggest benefit.
• Parents now have to 'opt out' as in the original, instead of 'opt in' as in the rewrite.
• And the kids covered are once again K-12, not just 7-12.  
• The prohibition on contracting with abortion providers is gone.

Things are much improved.  I'm hopeful.  I need to compare the two bills carefully to see what is gone and what is still there.

Here's a link to the working draft of the new bill.

Roles Legislators Play: You Can't Tell the Players Without A Program

Having spent a fair amount of my life at university committee meetings gives me a certain insight in how people behave at meetings.  There are lots of ways I could cut this, but I'm trying to keep it simple.   So let me spotlight some types of people who make meetings longer and unproductive.  And a few that make things actually work.

While I'm naming distinct types of players and their motivations and behaviors, living flesh and blood people often play multiple roles at different times or even the same time.  And legislators can play these roles for noble or less noble reasons.  I've also spent a session in Juneau blogging the legislature, so I've worded my examples to apply more to the legislature.


Power - The motivation for this group is power.  Power is important.  Without it a legislator can't get anything done.  The current leadership, while seemingly consumed by power issues, have been unable to finish business, which is the legitimate use of power.    We're seeing some very unproductive uses of power this session, even more so than normal; games, like "I've got bigger balls than you."

The Bulldozer - comes to the committee meeting to get his pet project approved.  He'll do or say whatever it takes from persuasion to threats.  He tries to smile and be polite, but when things get tight and people get in his way, he can lose it and get nasty.  Truth is a tool to use only if it works.  The importance of the project (say an important assist for a key constituent) determines the pressure to get it passed.
Strategy:  There's no strategy that will deter the bulldozer except superior power or covert sabotage.  The advice  “Never strike a king unless you are sure you shall kill him” is apt here.

The Ego - Getting something passed or blocked is not the key motivator here.  Rather, power for the Ego is used to remind people the Ego has power and not to cross her.  She needs others in the committee to regularly acknowledge her importance and if they don't, she'll punish them, even if it means blocking an important and non-controversial piece of legislation.
Strategy:  Regular acknowledgements of her position of power will generally protect one from her wrath.  This won't necessarily get one's bill passed.

The Game Player - The GP doesn't really care about the content of the legislation.  For him all human interaction is a competitive sport;  he's there to win.  Winning is the purpose of life and he's honed his skills to win as often as possible.
Strategy:  Get the GP to bet on your cause before the game starts.

The Turf Protector -  The TP is playing a defensive game.  He's making sure he's not losing something - some power, some ideal, some respect.  He weighs each new proposal against its impact on him.   If there is any perception of intrusion on the TP's turf, he will fight it tooth and nail.
Strategy:  If there is a chance that the TP's turf will be infringed upon in any way, add in some offsetting benefit the TP wants. 

Order, Rules, Tradition - The motivation here is security, stability, order.  Change disturbs these folks, who tend to have at least a touch of OCD in them.

The Rule Stickler - For some people, the rules must never be broken.  While Non-sticklers also consider whether the potential consequences meet the spirit of the law, the RS, ignoring consequences, clings to the letter of the law.  Maybe this represents a personal struggle to find security in a rapidly changing world.  This conflict between rigidity and flexibility with rules is not something new to humans.  I've discussed this conflict  in more depth at  Let Justice Be Done Though The World Perish.   The RS would let the world perish before deviating from the rule.
Strategy:  Find a contradictory rule, better yet two.

The Typo Tyrant -  The TT loses all track of time while pointing out typos, spelling errors, and deviations from what the form specifically asks for.  The TT can argue over a single comma for 45 minutes. Typos cause the TT an actual physical irritation, like a bug bite, and they'll scratch it red while the rest of the committee waits to move on.
Strategy:  Spell check and grammar check aren't enough, but be sure to use them.  Ideally the chair will cut the TT off by putting her on a subcommittee to work things out with the bill's sponsor after the meeting.

The Ideological Virgin - IVs have some inviolable value that they will never compromise.  It could be preventing abortions, even if the fetus has no brain and the twelve year old mother was raped by her father.  Or it could be protecting ethnic minorities or the disabled from offensive language, even if the language is constitutionally protected.  Some legislators think cutting government is a sacred duty.   This form of ideological purity has been linked to Emanuel Kant whom I discuss in the "...world perish" link. 
Strategy:  Reason plays no role here.  Sometimes you can change words.  I heard one legislator who had pledged to vote against any tax, but who thought he might be able to vote for it if it were called a fee.  Best strategy is to get the Bulldozer and Game Player on your side. 

Image - Substance doesn't matter to these folks, they just want to look good in any number of ways.  Often the Power types have significant image issues - particularly the Ego.

The Slacker -   They come to meetings unprepared.  They didn't come to Juneau to work for crying out loud.  Yet they want to look like a real legislator so they feel compelled to comment on things they know nothing about.   They might randomly pick a sentence in a bill and ask a question about it.  It doesn't matter that it's already answered in the next line or it was just discussed.  They want to show they've done their homework, even if it was at the bar and the bill never got out of their briefcase. 
Strategy:  Tell them the bill protects their pet issue.  It doesn't matter if it's not true because they won't read the bill anyway. 

The Poseur -  The P is someone who feels like a loser and has copied the style, language, habits, and beliefs of people they consider the winners.  Being in the legislature is part of the disguise.  It gives them a sense of respectability.  Their makeover has fooled enough voters to get them elected.  In Juneau their biggest job is to avoid detection as a fraud.  They tend to be among the better dressed and better coiffed legislators and are particularly disparaging of people who remind them of their real selves.  Their vote is based on how they think it will impact their fake identity.
Strategy:  Compliment them on their tie or shoes, make them feel like insiders, and convince them their vote for your bill will improve their winner status. 

Public Service   These are the legislators who go to Juneau for the right reason - to make government work well to serve Alaskans.  Party isn't a big issue. Legislators motivated by a commitment to public service get past party labels and work things out.

The Do Gooder - Although this phrase is often used sarcastically,  I think it should be proudly reclaimed by those who are in the legislature to serve the public good and who are smart enough to recognize 'the public good' most of the time.  And I believe that most legislators think of themselves this way.  DGs aren't limited to one party or the other.   DGs  judge bills using rationality and empathy,  enriched by a value system based on the rule of law, the constitution, and the belief that humans can collectively improve their lot in life.   They may also take on some of the other roles at times.  They could act as Bulldozers to get an important law passed or become a Rule Stickler to block a bad bill. DGs are human beings and can get caught with image and ego problems just like all of us.  And they certainly get labeled as Game Players and Ideological Virgins by their opponents. 
Strategy:  Use reason, logic, appeals to fairness, justice, and the other values in the constitutions of the US and Alaska.  

The Leader - This rare bird uses her power to pass legislation that gets the state's business accomplished efficiently and effectively.  She understands all the various types of legislators and how to appeal to each to keep everyone moving fast enough to get things done, but slow enough to get them done well.  She takes advantage of the Rule Stickler's knowledge, but cuts him off when he's wandering from the task at hand.  She helps the Poseurs and Slackers become Do Gooders.  And she doesn't let Ideological Virgins prevent necessary compromise.  And she gets agreement on a balanced budget by the end of the legislative session.  She's helped by various Process Facilitators who are skilled at cutting through the bullshit, clarifying issues, and constructively outing  obstructionists. 

My guess is that this year we have more of the problem types in the legislature, fewer Process Facilitators, and no Leaders in leadership positions.


I hope this list is helpful in identifying behaviors of legislators, but be careful not to label too hastily or to assume that any of these roles is always bad.  The trick is to figure out a) which role is any particular legislator playing at any particular time, and b) to understand the legislator's general underlying motivation. 

Using power is NOT necessarily a bad thing. A Do Gooder who can't get legislation passed doesn't actually get any good done.  There are times when being a Rule Stickler is important - either to prevent unintended future problems (was moving the special session to Anchorage actually legal?) or to strategically prevent a bad bill from passing.  Even the Poseur may be an important role to play.  If you're in the minority, you have very little power and may have to pose a bit for the majority to get anything done.  And just because someone is well-dressed doesn't make them a Poseur. Be careful. 

I'd add one more type to consider:  Liars.  I was going to include them in this post, but it's already long enough.  I'll talk about this dimension in another post soon.

One last note.  I've written this using my experience on university committees as well as watching the Anchorage Assembly over the years and a session blogging the Alaska Legislature.  Lots of people have worked on lists like this.  I did not look at what others have written, though I'm sure ideas I've read in the past have resurfaced here.  But I'd argue similarities to other lists like this result from the fact that human behavior repeats itself around the world. 
.

Hiring A Mediator: Is Alaska's Governor Trying To Be The Adult?

Governor Walker has hired a mediator to try to get the two houses of the Alaska legislature to resolve their differences and pass a budget.

The governor has already had to send out layoff notices to state employees and if the budget isn't resolved by, well the new fiscal year this budget is supposed to cover begins July 1.   Below is my rough sense of what is happening in Alaska policy unmaking. 

Overview of Sticking Points

1.  Last year the legislature passed a $2 billion a year tax break for oil companies which includes big tax credits - to the tune of $700 million this year.  The Republican majorities in the House and Senate tell us this is contractual and can't be changed.  Though they have no problem breaking other contracts such as labor agreements. 

2.  The price of oil plummeted,  sharply cutting the state's basic revenue source.

3.  The budget passed by the legislature had a $3 billion gap between expenditures and revenue. 

4.  The state has a lot of money in different funds - mainly the Alaska Permanent Fund and the Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR).  But the legislature needs a 3/4 majority to get into the CBR.  Democrats were needed to get to the CBR and they wouldn't go along with the budget unless the Majority approved Medicaid expansion, union contracts whose raises the legislature had previously approved, and a version of Erin's Law to teach kids how to protect themselves from sexual abuse.

5.  The majority talked about moving money around in the Permanent Fund which on technical grounds would let them tap the CBR with a simple majority.  This move only needed a majority, but six of their own, sensing political suicide (even talking about messing with the Permanent Fund Dividend Checks everyone gets has been taboo) and severe limitations on future budget options, refused to go along. 

6.  The governor refused to sign a budget that was $3 billion in the red and sent it back to the legislature, set up a special session in Juneau (the state capital), and told them to fund union contracts, pass Medicaid expansion, Erin's Law, and a balanced budget.  (The governor is a former Republican who ran as an Independent because he didn't think he could get through a Republican primary.  During the campaign, he teamed up with the Democratic gubernatorial candidate who became his Lt. Gov running mate.  A major National Guard scandal for the sitting Republican governor helped Walker become governor.)

7.  The Republican majorities in the House and Senate threw a hissy fit and refused to meet in Juneau.  They held ten and 15 minute meetings - long enough to open and adjourn - and then called their own special session in the newly, and luxuriously, refurbished Legislative Information Office in Anchorage.

8.  The House majority and minority caucuses finally came up with a compromise budget - which got a few things the Democrats wanted (no Erin's Law, no Medicaid) along with a promise to vote for access to the CBR, but only IF the senate went along. 

9.  The Senate rejected the House compromise and sent back their own new budget.

10.  This budget was rejected by both the Democrats and the Republicans unanimously in the House.

So that gets us to now.  The governor announced that he'd hired a man who mediates business disputes.  The governor is an attorney who is used to working through business deals with mediators if nothing else works.  

This seems to me like a logical and reasonable approach.  The governor says the legislature is squabbling over 1% of the budget and seemingly is willing to risk shutting down the government over what he thinks are really tiny differences.  I would guess that while the financial differences are small, the ego differences are still pretty big.

My main question when I heard about the mediation offer was about separation of powers.  I would suspect given the already mentioned bruised egos, having the governor meddle with the legislature by hiring a mediator would add even more capsaicin to an already fiery stew.

But it is the kind of thing an adult would do.  I think of something I heard during the Alaska political corruption trials in 2007 -2008.  I believe it was someone working with the prosecution who observed that the businessmen (there were no women indicted) all quickly came to settlement agreements while the politicians were the ones who tended to go to trial.   The businessmen, he hypothesized, knew how to assess their situation and cut their losses while the politicians protested to the end that they didn't do anything wrong.

The governor tends to take more of a business approach than the Republican politicians in power in Juneau (well, in Anchorage at the moment), despite their non-stop pro-business rhetoric.  And lest I be accused of picking on the Republicans, let me say in my defense, that they are, and pretty much have been, the folks who call the shots in Juneau.  The Democrats are relegated to scraps that fall from the Republican table.  They haven't had any power over anything until their votes were needed for the CBR.  The Democrats, from my perspective, have still been meek in their demands (maybe requests is a more accurate term) but the Senate seems galled that they have to acknowledge their existence at all. 

My Math Says At Least 2000 Kids Will Be Abused Because Of Dunleavy's Changes To Erin's Law

On May 24, Senator Dunleavy posted a long response on Facebook to the critics of his changes to HB 44, now CS HB 44. 

I've responded to it already here.  But as he continues to defend himself, I thought it would be useful to focus on what I think is the only real issue here:  the number of kids who will be molested because of the changes he made to the Erin's Law.  He argues he hasn't weakened the bill at all.  I truly can't fathom how he has come up with that conclusion.  Well, I've tried and I posted one possible explanation.  Here, I'm going to address this issue about the number of kids.  Then below, I've copied his long Facebook defense with my responses, paragraph by paragraph.

There's only one issue: 

(The only other possible issue is that without the changes, the bill wouldn't have passed.  But since it's already passed the House and the clean version passed the Senate last year unanimously, I think that argument can't seriously be made.)

In my mind, there is only one issue that matters when discussing the changes in Erin's Law that Senator Dunleavy's committee has made:  How will these changes impact the number of kids who will be molested because they did not get taught at school - because of Erin's Law - how to recognize potential abusers and their grooming techniques, how to say no, and that it's not their fault and so they need to tell an authority (parents, teachers, police, etc.) what happened.

Erin's Law, the original HB 44 amended to include teen dating violence awareness education, had the following features:
1.  School districts were required to use this program
2.  It covered kids in grades K-12
3.  If parents did not want their kids to participate, they had to say they did not give permission (opt out)

Now, the Erin's Law section of the Senate Education Committee Substitute for HB 44 has the following features:
1.  School districts are not required to implement the program
2.  It covers grades 7-12 only
3.  Kids cannot get this program unless their parents give them permission (opt in)

Just these changes alone will reduce the number of kids who participate in this program.  We can argue about how many kids will be affected.  Dunleavy tells us that 20+ school districts of 53 are already offering some version of this training.  I've looked at the list and it includes the largest districts - Anchorage, Fairbanks, Mat-Su, Juneau.  Thus while it's less than half the school districts, it's more than half the kids.  So, well over half the students are in school districts that do some of this.  The list doesn't tell us what is content is covered or whether it is K-12 or just 7-12.

Let's do some rough numbers.  Census data tells us that as of 2013 25.6% of the 736,732 people in Alaska are under 18.  That means in 2013 there were 188,600 kids in Alaska.  Of these 7.5% were under five and so not in school.  That comes to 133,348 school age kids and there would be  more now.   For argument's sake (and I'll be conservative with the numbers I offer) let's suppose that 30% of those kids are NOT getting sexual assault awareness training at school now.  That would mean about 40,000 kids. 

Currently, schools have the power to adopt such training or not.  One has to assume that those who are supportive have adopted it.  The others, for whatever reason, have not.  Now that this bill has been changed from mandatory to optional for schools, there's no reason to think that a lot of them will suddenly change their positions on this.  But to be charitable, let's say that 50% of the kids who aren't getting this, will be covered next year because the schools voluntarily adopt it.  And, again being charitable, let's assume those schools offer it to kids in K-12.

That still leaves 20,000 kids who won't get exposed to sexual abuse awareness training.

The numbers that proponents of Erin's Law have cited were 1/4 of girls and 1/6 of boys will be molested by the time they are 18.  ('Molested' a wide array of actions from being flashed to groped to raped.  And these events often continue over years.)  I didn't hear anyone challenge those numbers, but again, I'll be charitable and round it off to one out of ten.  Among the 20,000 kids not getting Erin's Law training, 10% would be 2,000 kids who will be molested because they were not given access to sexual abuse awareness.  I think my number is low because I've been very conservative with my hypotheticals and because Alaska's rate of abuse is higher than the national average.   I acknowledge that Erin's Law education won't prevent all sexual abuse of kids.  But Erin Merryn testified that she's been given anecdotal reports from police where the law is in place that they have been told by kids that it mattered and that statistics on abuse have dropped.  (And given the higher awareness for such crimes, often the numbers go up, not down, because more people report.)

This is the low-ball statistical impact of the changes that Dunleavy has made to the original HB 44.  There is a direct relationship between the changes that were made and this figure of 2,000 kids who will not be prepared to evade molestation because of those changes.  This is just for the first year. Even if the number were 'only' 1000, it would be horrific.  And each of these kids will have emotional and psychological damage that will lead to extra work for teachers, law enforcement, the courts, not to mention their families. 

Despite Dunleavy's claims that other parts of the bill make it a better bill, none of those changes strengthen the original intent or will get a single more kid into sexual abuse awareness classes. One could argue (and I do below) that some weaken it.

Because Dunleavy has insisted on watering down the bill and burdening it with 22 more sections, he will bear responsibility for every molestation that the original bill would have prevented.  He can say what he wants, but there is a very direct correlation between his actions here and the future abuse of a large number of kids in Alaska.  Whether that number is 500, 1000, or 2000, each one is his responsibility. 

Dunleavy has not given equivalent benefits that his changes will cause that would offset the damage to these kids.  He talks broadly about parental rights, but never identifies specific harm passing the original Erin's Law would have caused. 

The only possible way Dunleavy could be excused from this responsibility is if he could prove that the original bill would not have passed the full Senate.  Since it the passed the Senate unanimously last year, I think that proving it would have failed this year would be a difficult task.

From my perspective the impact on Alaska kids is the only thing that is important in this discussion.  What other states do, abstract benefits of parental rights, unspecified unfunded mandates, and the other things Dunleavy offers are just not relevant.

So that's my case here.   If I'm wrong here, show me.  My numbers are conservative.  It's Dunleavy's job, if he wants to refute this, to show how passing the original HB 44 his committee got for a vote , would have caused greater harm because it didn't have his amendments.  I have a good imagination, but I can't see how he can do much more than shuffle words around.  Nothing that changes the numbers.   

Below are Dunleavy's original Facebook Post and my comments paragraph by paragraph.  I've put Dunleavy's words in blue and mine in black. 

The Committee Substitute (CS) for HB 44 known as “The Alaska Safe Children’s Act” by some and “Erin’s Law” by others was introduced in the Senate Education Committee that I chair on Tuesday. [May 19] The CS was heard and adopted by the Senate Education Committee and moved out to the next committee of referral, Senate Finance. A Senate Finance hearing has not been scheduled yet but I do anticipate one will be in the next few days. If the bill is passed out of Senate Finance, it will then go to the Senate Rules committee and soon after most likely to the Senate floor for a vote. If approved by the Senate it would go to the House for a vote as well.

Pretty straightforward so far.  He figures it will be scheduled in the Finance committee "in the next few days."  As I publish this on May 29 the HB 44 Timeline still has May 21  referral to Finance as the last date is mentioned..  I can't find where it has been scheduled.  

The CS for HB 44 has been the topic of much discussion this week. The focus of the discussion seems to center on the following:
• The belief that the change from the word “shall” to “may” with regard to compelling school districts to mandate the training will make the law, if not meaningless, less effective, because school districts would not be required to implement the training – it would be optional and give local districts local control
• The concern that the CS has too many new sections and topics than what was in the original HB 44.

Point 1 - There were two levels of concern.   One, as Dunleavy mentions, changing the requirement  for school districts from 'shall' to 'may.'  But people were also concerned that parental option changed from allowing parents to opt out (they were required to say they wanted their kids to NOT participate in the program) to opting in (they are required to give permission before their kids can participate.)  A third significant change was to eliminate K-6 kids from getting sexual awareness education.  These ages are the most vulnerable and least able to defend themselves.  They need this the most.

Point 2 - It wasn't simply that there were too many new sections.  If they believed the sections  strengthened the bill, I believe supporters of Erin's Law would not have objected.  In fact they went along with the addition of a new section that mandated teen dating violence curriculum.
The concern was a) that there were so many new amendments (the bill now has 23 sections, one of which is the original bill)  that had little or nothing to do with Erin's Law; b) that some of the amendments (in addition to the Erin's Law section mentioned above) that were aimed at parental rights actually hurt kids' chances of getting sexual abuse awareness education; and c) some of the new sections had controversial provisions such as prohibiting schools from contracting with agencies that provide abortions.  They even prohibit school service providers from having non-school related contracts with abortion providers. (This seems to conflict with the US Constitution's guarantee of freedom of association.) 

Let me explain why the changes to the CS were made. With regard to changing “shall” to “may”, this change was made at the request of school districts that testified at hearings that we had during the regular session. Their concern was that with potential budgets cuts and possible staff reductions, making the training mandatory in law now before we know what the budget will be could put the districts in a difficult spot in deciding how to use their limited resources. As one school official said, “We agree this training will be good for kids, but will we have the funds to implement it?” Another asked, “With budgets being cut, what do we give up to make room for new trainings such as this?”
Another thing that warranted the change was the issue of which curriculum or program to use, and more importantly, which is most effective? While this issue of identifying available, effective curricula is in the process of being addressed, some school district officials are concerned that they need time to review curricula before implementation in schools.

I'm sure that school districts did complain about this. The words 'unfunded mandate' were mentioned in the hearing.  Schools do have a lot of things they are required to do.  But my wife, who taught English to non-native speakers in the Anchorage School District and thus saw what happened in a number of different schools, would regularly tell me about how much time teachers spent on things that were not mandated - like celebrating various holidays.  If teachers want to make time, they will. More on this below the next section.

Currently, there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 20+ school districts out of 53 total Alaska school districts that are already doing some form of the training now voluntarily without being compelled by the state. School districts are asking for time to allow them to identify the resources to implement the training properly and effectively. This is part of the reason for the change.
The other stated issue some folks are having with the CS is that they believe there are too many sections to it, and that the number of sections may jeopardize the bill’s passage.
Hundreds of bills are introduced during legislative sessions, with a fraction of them ever getting passed by both the House and Senate and then being signed into law by the Governor. So there is always a chance a bill may not get the required votes for passage, including this CS. While I have had some legislators say they may not be able to support the CS as it is, others have stated to me that with the changes and additions to the CS they are now more likely to support the bill. It is always difficult to say what the final vote will be. However, I do have a sense that it has a very good chance of passing.

Dunleavy rightly points out that a number of school districts (he says 20+) already are doing some form of this training.  Then he cites some concerned about:

1.  Not having time to prepare.  This includes getting appropriate materials and training teachers.

I'd note that all teachers are already, by state law, mandatory reporters.  That means they are required to report suspicions of child abuse that they see.  So they should already have some fairly detailed training so they know how to do this.

Book shared at 5/20/15 Education Committee Hearing

I would also note that I could find no time-line in the bill.  Thus one assumes that like most legislation without a date, it goes into effect in 90 days.  If having time is the issue, then simply giving schools a year or two to get prepared would seem to solve this issue. Leave it mandatory, but give them a delay option. A school district could apply for a waiver and explain why they needed it.  But I don't think this should be an issue.  There are already schools doing this training and they have resource materials.  One person who testified shared books that are being used that even have
adaptations to Alaska Native cultures.  (And I note that there are many different Native cultures so one needs to consider whether these are appropriate for all the cultures.)  There was also testimony that the Rasmuson Foundation had pledged to help provide materials and training. 

2.  The legislative process and the slim chances for this bill.  The original HB 44 already passed the House.  Last year a clean version of this bill passed the Alaska Senate unanimously.  So even if a few people told you they had problems with it, the odds are high that you wouldn't lose half  those who voted for it last year.  If you had simply passed the bill that was sent to the committee the way it was, I think (and you know) it had every likelihood of passing.  But because of the significant changes there are now issues that will cause people who supported the bill to reconsider.  Do they support all the new things you've tacked on and is it worth passing them (things you couldn't get passed in the regular session) to get a watered down Erin's Law?  Furthermore, t's not likely the legislature would go back and add K-6 in a future session.  More likely they'll say, we've already taken care of this issue.
And, if it passes the Senate, because of the many changes, the House has to redebate it.  We're in special session now and the state is close to shutting down if the legislature can't agree on a budget.  Debating all the changes to Erin's Law is not something they have a lot of time for.  Perhaps you thought this would get your pet legislation passed.  But it might get everything sunk. 

So what’s in the sections of the CS? In the Comments below, I will post links for: (a) the actual text of the CS for HB 44, (b) the original version of HB 44, and (c) a sectional analysis of the new CS completed by Legislative Legal. While the Legislative Legal analysis lists 23 actual sections of the bill, these components of the bill are worth noting. . .
Section 16 deals with sexual abuse and sexual assault awareness and prevention efforts in public schools. This is what some refer to as “Erin’s Law.” The other component of this section relates to dating violence and abuse awareness and prevention efforts in public schools. Some refer to this as “Bree’s Law,” named after a young Alaskan woman named Bree Moore who was tragically murdered by her then boyfriend.
Sections 2, 5, 6, 7, and 17 relate to SB 89, known as the “Parental Rights Bill.” I introduced this bill earlier this year in an effort to reiterate in law the inherent rights of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children. SB 89 has had several hearings this year in the Senate Education Committee and State Affairs Committee. It was passed out to the Senate Rules Committee where it awaits scheduling for a floor vote.
Sections 3, 4, 8, 9, 19, 11, 12, 13 14,15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 all relate to eliminating or modifying requirements of the state on school districts and educational personnel. The purpose of these sections is to identify items that can be modified or repealed to enable school districts to save resources, in order for them to potentially use those freed resources for academic and educational matters.
Section 23 saves the state money and removes a testing requirement. This section is basically HB 80, sponsored by Representative Lynn Gattis, which passed the House this year. It repeals the mandate from last year’s HB 278 that all secondary students take the SAT, ACT or Work Keys test before graduating from high school. HB 278, which required the state to pay for the test, failed to specify a score that students must receive to consider passing. HB 80 reverses the mandate and funding from the state. In doing so, the state will save $525,000 annually and will give back countless hours to school counselors and administrators who have been proctoring these tests.

Sen. Dunleavy is either being careless or trying to slip some things by us here.  Talking about parental rights could take up half a dozen long blog posts.  I'll just say I see there is a national movement on parental rights.  Their website and rhetoric remind me of other conservative 'think tanks' like ALEC and Americans for Prosperity.  They use a phrase everyone agrees with - parental rights, in this case - to attack government and schools.   Parental Rights in this bill includes the right to keep their kids from learning about sexuality, STDs, birth control, and definitely abortion.  And sexual abuse awareness.

It's interesting that while the language in Section 2 requires parents to object each time they want to withdraw their child from school activities to which the object, the language for Sexual Abuse Awareness (Erin's Law) requires them to actually give permission BEFORE the child can attend. 

I'd note that two of the sections listed - 5 and 17 - have nothing to do with parental rights, at least not as I understand that term.  Instead they are aimed at cutting all school contracts with agencies that provide abortions and agencies that don't provide abortions but have contracts with agencies that do.  Those were just slipped in there, it seems, on the assumption that most people won't check.  While Dunleavy has changed a lot of things to optional, the abortion providing agency blackballing has been made mandatory.  What happens if the abortion providing agency also has the best and cheapest training and materials on STD's or pregnancy prevention?  Schools will be forced to pay more and get lower quality materials.  That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of giving school districts more flexibility and local power.  It seems Sen Dunleavy is able to impose his religious beliefs on school districts which might limit the parental rights of parents who would welcome the expertise that, say, Planned Parenthood, has acquired over the years on these subjects. 

There are also sections I would support.  Section 2.4 allows parents to withdraw their kids from school to observe a religious holiday without penalties to the children and Section 2.5 allows parents to review the content of all classes, programs, performance standard, or activity.  These are good things.  Kids shouldn't be punished for observing the holy days of their religion and parents should have access to all the content used in schools.  But they have nothing to do with Erin's Law. 

In my opinion and that of others, the changes in CS HB44 make it a better bill because it addresses a number of outstanding issues that have already had the close attention of the House and/or Senate but which were not yet passed into law because we ran out of time in the regular session. By rolling the issues into a CS as is commonly done in the legislature, a number of “birds can be killed with one stone.”

 Except. . . . that Erin's Law was as close to a slam dunk pass as there could be, until you added  22 new sections on to it, some of which are truly questionable.  Yes, this sort of horse trading on legislation is done all the time, but this is a special session, with limited time, and the Governor's direction was to pass Erin's Law, not all these others.  And, as I've noted elsewhere, all this leveraging and taking advantage that you say is 'commonly done' may well be part of the reason that politicians' approval rating is so abysmally low. 

Now let me address some of the claims by using facts and data.
“You put this CS together to kill the original bill.” - Nothing could be further from the truth. Everything in the CS, I support and in talking with others, many others do as well.

 I suspect this is true.  Rather I see this as a way to piggy back on a bi-partisan bill to get legislation that you failed to get passed in the regular session.  But stuffing this with 22 new sections to the one section of Erin's Law is probably even greedy by normal standards.   And given the news that people are asking you to run against Sen. Murkowski, this would seem a perfect ploy for getting points with the far right of the Republican party in the primaries.  I'm not saying you don't also believe in this, or that the political benefit was part of your calculation, but appearances do matter in politics.  Though you may not have expected the amount of push back you've gotten.  

“By changing the ‘shall’ to a ‘may’ you have effectively nullified the intent of the bill.” - I don’t think so and it is certainly not my intent. If anything, I think we get more support for it by giving school districts more control and more time to identify ways they can implement the training. As stated earlier, many school districts are already doing the training. I am confident that within a short period of time, the remaining school districts will be implementing the training as well.

This really gets to the key point I made at the beginning of this post.  At the top of this post I went through the math, step by step, and it shows that at least 2000 kids will likely be abused without the protection of Erin's Law because of the changes Dunleavy made.

This is a BIG DEAL.  Your intent is not the issue.  They say the road to hell is paved, not by bricks, but by good intentions.  The outcomes are what matters.  Your actions are setting up lots of Alaska kids for abuse because they won't get training on how to recognize abusers and avoid them and report them.  For me, this is the bottom line.  The number of kids who will be harmed because of your meddling with what was a clean bill, certain to pass.  Nothing else matters.  The rest is just noise.

You give no evidence except your 'confidence' that the other schools will follow through.  And even if they did, you've made it significantly easier for abusers to keep their kids out of these classes. 

“Dunleavy, you don’t care about kids. You don’t want Erin’s Law to pass!” - Boy, where do I start? First of all, last year I voted FOR Erin’s law. Read this link: http://www.adn.com/…/alaska-legislature-can-have-impact-abu… Remember, it was also introduced last year and passed the Senate 20 to 0. So I DO support the law. With regard to not caring about kids, seriously, my profession is public education. I care and that is why I support the bill.

I'm sure you care about kids.  I don't doubt that.  But I think you've been able to compartmentalize what you are doing here and you simply don't see the impacts this will have on real kids all across the state.  You can read my post on Hannah Arendt to understand how this might happen.

And since the bill passed the Senate last year unanimously, I'm convinced it would have passed this time if you had simply passed the original bill without trying to tack on a bunch of other things you wanted, no matter how important you think they are.  This is a test of a human being - whether you can help others without taking a cut for your help.  You failed that test.  I understand, because of your time in the legislature, that you consider this standard procedure.  I'm just telling you that it's not part of the ethics I practice.  I challenge you to find a quote from any ethical tradition that tells you to only help if you get something in return.  Show me where Christ tells us to be sure to take your cut when you help others.

“Then why change the ‘shall’ to ‘may’ if you supported it last year? Why the change?” - Good question. Last year we had oil prices well over $100 per barrel. We were not staring at a $4 billion dollar deficit. We were not having to cut school district funding; we were adding to it. The state and school districts were not under the pressure we are under now. Again, the “may” gives districts time to identify resources to implement the training.

A couple of things here.  First, for every kid who is sexually abused, there is more work for the teachers, the school districts, and in many cases police and mental health agencies, and on and on.  Not preventing child abuse is itself an unfunded mandate, because the damage of abuse costs the kids, their families, their schools, and their communities a lot.

Second, if your concern was timing, why not just allow districts to apply for deadline waivers if they can show there's a hardship?   But make them explain why they need the waiver, because people testified that the Rasmuson Foundation and others have offered to make materials and training available.  Make them specify their reason for a waiver and then let Rasmuson help them overcome the obstacles.  We'll see if these are the real issues or not. 

“There should be no amendments or new sections to this bill. Go back to the original bill.” - If we were to do that, then there would be no “Bree’s Law” component of the bill, no training for dating violence and abuse, because that component is itself an amendment. The “original” bill did not have the “Bree’s Law” component. It was an amendment just added this spring. That change, as well as the others in the CS, have all gone toward making it a better bill. Go to the following link and you can follow the bill as it was amended in the House. http://www.akleg.gov/basis/Bill/Detail/29…
The House amended the bill. The Senate was in the process of amending the bill in the regular session by identifying mandates that could be removed from school districts to free up resources. This effort was led by Senator Gardner. Senator McGuire also offered an amendment to the bill – the “Bree’s Law” component a few weeks before the session ended. My point is that bills often go through many steps and amendments before they become law.

 Again with this red herring about amendments.  There are lots of reasons to amend bills.  One is to make them better when problems are raised or when new options (like the teen dating violence) present themselves.  Another is to try to piggyback your own pet legislation onto a bill that is likely to pass so yours goes along for the ride.  And sometimes they are added to delay or kill a bill.  Despite what you say about the 22 added sections making it a better bill (the teen dating violence change isn't even one of them), we'll just have to disagree.  I've stated already above my reasons for thinking the amendments weaken and water down the bill.   Yes, bills go through many stages because people have different goals and values.  You were in a position to let this go through and you hijacked it for your own benefit.  By that I mean that you got stuff tacked on that you wanted passed.  Stuff that doesn't in any way increase the likelihood that kids will be protected against sexual abuse. 

“Erin Merryn, the lady behind the Erin’s Law movement, states you have hijacked the law and have changed it from its original version.” – This is what she has said. But she also recognizes that there are different versions in different states. I will post in the Comments below a document prepared by the National Conference of State Legislatures which identifies greatly varying action taken in implementing Erin’s Law in various states. While some states do require schools to provide the education, others simply allow them to, and yet other states create task forces to study potential implementation of the training. I believe Alaska’s CS is a version that will help children.
What’s next? The CS is in Senate Finance waiting to be scheduled for a hearing. Hopefully this will occur soon. It’s time to help Alaska’s children.

I really don't care what other states do.  Alaska has the worst statistics of any state when it comes to sexual abuse, violence against women, and related crimes.  Your responsibility as an Alaskan legislator is to those kids in our state who need the information that the original Erin's Law would provide them.  You sound like a teenager telling his parents, "But Mom, all the other kids do it."  You aren't a teenager, you're a legislator with the power to help helpless kids.  You are responsible for every kid that doesn't get sexual abuse awareness education and then gets molested because of what you've done to Erin's Law.  And the numbers, as I've pointed out above, will be significant. That's not opinion, that's not arguable.  It's based on actual numbers and the stats on rates of abuse.  You took a strong bill and watered it down.  There will be kids who don't get the information and help they need because of those changes.  And you're the person who has made the changes and defends the changes.  

If I'm wrong here, show me.  My numbers are conservative.  It's your job, if you want to refute this, to show how passing on as it was the original HB 44 your committee got, would have caused greater harm because it didn't have your amendments.  I don't think you can.