2 Incumbent Republicans Fall In Close Alaska State House Races

I put up the most recent tally, but checked for a later one before posting.  And it was there.  So you can see 23:32pm results, and then the 00:21am results.

Cathy Muñoz lost in Juneau, Liz Vasquez in Anchorage.


Anchorage

Senate District N  with 64% of the precincts reporting
Beltrami, Vince  (NA)          5699  49.58%
Giessel, Catherine A (REP)  5738 49.92%  (Incumbent)
Write-in Votes   58    0.50%

Incumbent has 39 vote lead.

With 100% reporting
Beltrami, Vince  (NA)          8040  48.02%
Giessel, Catherine A (REP)  8615  51.46%  (Incumbent)
Write-in Votes   87    0.52%

Incumbent by 575

HOUSE DISTRICT 22 with 71% of the precincts reporting

Darden, Dustin T.  (AI)  502   9.78%  
Vazquez, Liz  (REP)  2236  43.55%  (Incumbent)
Grenn, Jason S.  (NA)   2385 46.46%

Challenger has a 149 vote lead

With 100%
Darden, Dustin T.  (AI)  654   9.29%  
Vazquez, Liz  (REP)  3075  43.67%  (Incumbent)
Grenn, Jason S.  (NA)   3298 46.84%   Winner

Challenger by 224 votes

HOUSE DISTRICT 25  with  57.1 % precincts reporting

Higgins, Pat  (DEM)    2408  49.95%
Millett, Charisse E. (REP)  2389 49.55%  (Incumbent)

Challenger has 19 point lead

100% reporting
Higgins, Pat  (DEM)    3297  49.45%
Millett, Charisse E. (REP)  3342 50.12%  (Incumbent)

Incumbent by 46 votes.



HOUSE DISTRICT 27 with 75% of precincts reporting

Pruitt, Lance  (REP)          2685   50.93%   (Incumbent)
Crawford, Harry T. J (DEM)  2569 48.73%

Incumbent has a 117 vote lead.

Pruitt, Lance  (REP)          3737   50.60%   (Incumbent)
Crawford, Harry T. J (DEM)  3616 48.96%

Incumbent by 141


Juneau

HOUSE DISTRICT 34  with 100% of precincts reporting

Muñoz, Cathy  (REP)   3730  48.54%  (Incumbent)
Parish, Justin   (DEM)  3914  50.93%

Challenger wins by 184 votes

State Overreach And Elmore Road Extension

I've written about how disingenuously I think the term "federal overreach" is often used.

Those who decry federal overreach tend to mean "we want to do what we want and damn the feds" (or often our corporate funders want to do what they want without pesky regulations to preserve the environment, workers' health, or equity).  The idea that they are defending the democratic rights of citizens of the state against an overbearing federal government is proven a joke, when these state officials turn around and forbid local governments from doing what they want.

North Carolina's new and controversial law about bathrooms was specifically aimed at prohibiting Charlotte from recognizing the needs of transgender folks to choose an appropriate restroom.  (And, apparently, it covers a lot of other issues that aren't getting the same attention, like limiting rights to sue over discrimination, and affects minimum wage.)

And in Anchorage, according to a story in this morning's ADN, Rep Saddler and Rep Pruitt have added $18 million to the University budget for "roads."  The University's budget has been drastically cut, but they found an extra $18 million for roads.  (If that link doesn't work, try this one.)

Not just any road mind you, but the extension of Elmore Road - a road that has been resoundingly rejected by all the community councils surrounding the area and in the area.  Over and over again.  A road that DOT has pushed through against what people want.  A road that new mayor Ethan Berkowitz rejected when he came into office.

The only question really out there is:  Who wants this road?   The obvious suspects are contractors.  I suspect the other major culprit here is Providence Hospital which has gotten the state to build a number of other roads in the area that the community did not want, but which makes their property much more accessible.  But there may be others.  But government transparency isn't one of their favorite ideas either.

I call this state overreach, when the state tells local people they have no say in how their communities develop and how that development affects the livability of their neighborhoods.  Well, they have a say, but the power that be just don't listen.  And that's why I think the term 'federal overreach' is just a catchy marketing tool to mask the real intent - we want to do whatever we want and all consequences be damned.  Just like states' rights was used to mask racism during the 1950's and 60's.

No more time today, got lots of work to do on my mom's house before we head home.

Legislature's Contract With Bancroft DC Law Firm To Sue Governor Walker Over Medicaid Expansion

This post began with me wanting to just post the contract between the Alaska Legislative Council and the Bancroft law firm.  But as I tried to explain the context it got more and more complicated.   I was trying to figure out what the push was all of a sudden to get approval and to skip the Senate's approval.   Eventually it became clear.  And while I don't think I have anything here that hasn't already been published by someone somewhere, I think maybe I've put the pieces together in an easier way to follow it all.  Or maybe it just makes sense to me because I've now spent so much time doing this.

There was a fair amount of sturm und drang over Rep. Craig Johnson ignoring the legal opinion that both the House and the Senate had to vote to approve the appeal.  It makes sense to me now.  I'll say it here, and then the rest puts it all into context with some commentary on how I found my way through this maze.   So here's the skinny as I see it:

There's a 30 day window in which to appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court.  Although the judge's decision is dated March 1, 2016, which would appear to make the deadline March 31, there is something else in the court record called the "Final Judgment" which is dated April 5, 2015.  Thus the magic drop dead date was May 5, 2015 - 30 days later.  

So no matter what the legislature did or did not do, if the appeal wasn't filed in the court by May 5, 2016, there wasn't going to be an appeal.  So, apparently Johnson went and filed the appeal by the deadline in the hopes that the attorneys will be able to win any challenges to his authority to file the appeal without the House and Senate voting to move to Phase 2 of the contract with the DC law firm, Bancroft PLLC.  


Now, here's the post I was working on that led to the conclusion above.

I've posted the full contract below.  You can just scroll down and read it all.  But for those who are a little fuzzy on all this, here is some background.

As briefly as I can:

1. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and President Obama signed it
2. Republicans around the country did everything they could think of to kill the Affordable Care Act, including filing lawsuits saying it was unconstitutional.
3. The first challenge to make it to the Supreme Court was decided in 2012 and it upheld the Affordable Care Act.  An attorney - Paul Clement - for the law firm of Bancroft PLLC represented The National Federation of Independent Business, et al
4. The second challenge to make it to the Supreme Court was decided in 2015.  Again the Affordable Care Act was upheld.
5. About this time expansion of Medicaid in Alaska as called for by the Affordable Care Act was not making its way to the governor's office in Juneau.  So the governor expanded Medicaid administratively.
6. When the legislature is out of session, the Legislative Council does necessary business  on behalf of the whole legislature.  The Council voted to sue the governor over his decision to expand Medicaid.  And they asked the court to block the expansion until after the case was heard.
7. The court rejected blocking it and the Alaska Supreme Court did too.
8. The Legislative Council's suit  lost in the Alaska Superior Court in March 2016.
9. The Alaska Legislature is currently in overtime, having been unable to complete their work in the 90 day session.  The Legislative Council has some specific duties, but most importantly, acts in lieu of the State Legislature when it is out of session. But not when it is in session.
10. The House of Representatives has approved extending the contract and told Bancroft to file an appeal.  (Well, I thought this was true when I wrote this, but it appears that neither body voted to approve going to the contracts Phase 2 (which will be explained below))
11. The Democrats are pointing to a letter from the Legislature's legal counsel to Senator Gary Stevens, saying that when the Legislature is in session, decisions to take legal action require approval of both houses of the Legislature.  The decision to move ahead was only approved by the House.  (And apparently not even that, though I admit I'm confused on this.) An attorney I talked to about this speculated there was a deadline for the appeal and so they wanted to go ahead and file it before that deadline passed.  If they didn't they couldn't keep harassing the governor on the state level and the ACA on the federal level, and the Bancroft PLLC would forego the Phase 2 $150,000 and the continuing guerrilla warfare against ACA.  But I checked.  The Alaska Courts website says you have 15-30 days to file an appeal (depending on the type of case.).  The case was decided on March 1.  So even if it were working days and not calendar days, it's been over 60 days now, surely that's more than 30 working days.  But as we all know, reading the law with just a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.  Obviously they're still planning to appeal.  So either there are provisions that allow extensions of that time, I've misread it, or they've already filed the appeal.  But if that were the case, it would be on the record.  You can see why so few reporters really dig in to get all the details of the story.  One thing just leads to another.  I'm tired and I'm not going to try to figure out how to look up if there has been an appeal filed already.  Someone else can do that.  [I'm leaving this all in so you can see all the false paths I explored before finding the right one.]

Well, I couldn't just abandon it at that point.  I have looked up cases before so I poked around on the Alaska Court System webpages for searching cases.  It's much easier than it used to be, though I did come up with different things in different searches.  

It was, in fact, about deadlines.  The case was filed May 5.  It says the case was settled April 5.  But the judge's ruling is signed March 1, 2016. 

But on the appeal it says the final judgment date is April 5, 2016.  The red on the upper left marks the appeal filing date - May 5, 2015.  The red in the middle on the right shows the trial court judgment date as April 5, 2016.  This is really so as the court judgment document above shows.  

Click to enlarge and focus these images originally from Alaska Court System

\

But further poking around shows that even though the decision was made on March 1, 2016, there is another date - April 5, 2016, that's labeled "Order:  Final Judgment Case Motion #22."  The information below is from this court system page.  Just keep scrolling down when you get there.  But here I've distilled the key dates and put them into this table:

03/01/2016	Case Dismissed. Case Closed
03/10/2016	Motion for Entry of Final Judgment Attorney: Borghesan, Dario (1005015) Filing Party: Walker, Bill; Davidson, Valerie Case Motion #22
03/23/2016	Non-Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Entry of Final Judgment Attorney: McKeever, Timothy A. (7611146) Case Motion #22: Motion for Entry of Final Judgment
04/05/2016	Order: Final Judgment Case Motion #22: Motion for Entry of Final Judgment
05/05/2016	Appeal Filed in the Supreme Court Case No: S-16309

So there it is.  Johnson was going on the advice that it is better to ask forgiveness than ask permission.  There just wasn't time to get permission.

Below is the whole contract so people can see it for themselves.  My layperson's eye doesn't see anything too unusual.   It's really the whole idea of spending $400,000 to try this Hail Mary lawsuit, that's at issue, more than details of the contract.  But since it's been bandied about, we ought to be able to read the whole thing.   I've noted a few highlights.  There's some seemingly weird language like the clause on Human Trafficking, but I figure that's boiler plate that has to be in every state contract.

Maybe others with more legal experience or knowledge of the players will point out things I overlooked.

Highlight 1:  This is a two phase contract.  Each phase is a flat fee.  By starting the appeal, it looks like the second clause begins and the company gets the final $150,000 payment. From the contract (see whole contract at end of post):

1. "Phase 1 - the flat fee for consultation, advice, and handling the court action until a final judgment or other resolution of the court action in Superior Court will be $250,000; the Committee will pay the Contractor $100,000 when this Contract is entered into, and $150,000 when services in the Superior Court are completely rendered. If the Project Direction elects to not proceed to the Supeme Court, then Phase 2 does not apply and the services and payments re complete.
2. Phase 2 - the flat fee for handling any appeal to the alaska Supreme Court (and subsequent Superior Court action if sent back to Superior Court) will be $150,000; the Committee will pay the Contractor $75,000 when the Contractor files the first brief and $75,000 upon final resolution."

So, it seems that the House's move to appeal, automatically gets us to Phase 2 - $75,000 for the first brief - the appeal I assume - and then another $75,000 when it's all done.  Chump change for the Majority it seems.   $150,000 would pay for two starting teachers in the Anchorage School District, their benefits, and still leave something on the table.    This can only benefit the law firm.  It's hardly likely to win.  And if they win, then Alaskan general health will lose.   So I can only guess that key legislators were leaned on to help this law firm pick up another $150,000 on top of the $250,000 they got for Phase I.

Think this through.  $400,000. [I'd note here that the Independent/Democratic Coalition has put out a press release saying that $300,000 has already been spent with $150,000 left to go for a total of $450,000.  Maybe something changed since the contract, but the contract is pretty clearly for $400,000 total.]  If we pay the attorneys $400 per hour, that's 1000 hours.  If we assume attorneys work 50 hour weeks, that's 20 weeks, about five months, full time.  Much, if not most, of the work would be done by para legals who get paid way less that $400 per hour.  And most of the legal research Bancroft has already done in prep for their other Obamacare challenges.

Note:  I first posted about this law firm and its role in representing 26 states that fought Obamacare to the Supreme Court August 19, 2015 when the lawsuit was originally announced.  Then I posted again a couple of weeks later when the Legislature lost their lawsuit.  And I'd note that Paul Clement, the attorney who lost the 2012 case at the US Supreme Court is listed as one of the attorneys in the Alaska case that lost in Superior Court.

Sorry for getting sidetracked there, but those two old posts give a lot more relevant background on the firm.

Highlight 2:  Contract goes from August 18, 2015 until "completion of the legal services required by Clause 1, or August 1, 2017."


Highlight 3:  Interest rate for late payment (after 90 days) is 1.5% per MONTH which comes out to an annual interest rate of 18 - 19% depending on whether it's compounded or not.  Credit Union 1 offers 0.30% on a premium savings account with $100,000 or more in it.  They offer rates between 4 and 7% for boat and vessel loans up to $250,000.  Is that a fair comparison?  After all, this is for a late payment after 90 days, so the first three months are interest free.  And the state should be good for the money, right?  Well, that used to be true.


Highlight 4:  The Project Director and Vice Project Director

"The Project Director and Vice Project Director are the persons appointed by the Presiding Officers of the Alaska State Senate and the Alaska State House of Representatives  The Project Director under the Contract is Chad Hutchison, for the Alaska State Senate.  Mr Hutchison is is [sic] authorized to oversee and direct the activities of the Contractor under this contract and shall, unless otherwise stated in this paragraph, approve all billings from the Contractor.  The Vice Project Director under this Contract is Mark Higgins for the Alaska State House of Representatives. Mr. Higgins is authorized to oversee the activities of the Contractor under this contract. .  ."

A quick internet search doesn't tell us too much about these men.

Chad Hutchison, according to a brief description under an opinion piece in the Juneau Empire, is a Fairbanks attorney and staffer for Sen. Coghill.  The opinion piece argues passionately for this lawsuit and I found it, on the whole, using logic and reason to make his points.  We can argue about his assumptions and I didn't fact check it, but it's not the kind of empty explanations we've been hearing from Juneau's finest.  Apparently there's another Chad Hutchinson who's Director Fairbanks Pipeline Training Center Trust and a longtime member of the Operating Engineers Union.

Mark Higgins is a staffer for the House Majority.  He's served as a political consultant and as a lobbyist for the Kenai Peninsula Borough.  Higgins was the subject of concern back in 2009 when Rep. Craig Johnson wanted to hire him to finish a 'long overdue report' on fisheries for a task force with which Higgins' wife, Debra, was involved, if I can untangle the story, as an aide to Rep. Johnson.   Senators Stedman, Harris, and Coghill had problems with the appointment because of the apparent conflict.  Johnson said he couldn't find anyone else with Higgins unique qualifications - his ability to write, his background in fisheries, and his knowledge of the law.  Johnson is quoted,

"If I thought there was a better person out there I would have certainly tried to get that person," he said.

That's about as clear as most politicians are going to get.  He didn't think there was anyone with better qualifications.  Which suggests he didn't look. Seems to me there are lots of Alaskans who know about fisheries, the law, and can write.   Reading between the lines of that article, I'd say Johnson  had this overdue report and they were getting some pressure to get it done and someone in the office said something like, Mark could do that.  But when you read between the lines even with some knowledge of how organizations work and a good imagination you can end up anywhere from close to way off.


Anyway.  Here's the contract.  I know, by now, anyone who didn't just skip everything and come directly here, is already asleep.  But if you're still awake and ready to tackle the contract, go get yourself a chocolate chip cookie as a reward.  Or a bowl of strawberries if you prefer.  Maybe with some vanilla ice cream.

Alaska - Bancroft Lawsuit Contract

Genre: Legislative Fiction - Story: Alaska Legislature Selling UAA to Charter College

This story idea popped into my head recently.  Probably because of all the stories about huge budget cuts to the University of Alaska plus bills to make it legal to carry guns on campus.  Along with the legislature's reluctance to end subsidies for the oil companies and all the mega-projects which are, in effect, subsidies for construction companies.

We've already passed April 1, so I can't just put this up straight.  Although it's far fetched, some of the people I've mentioned this story to said things like, "Oh, I didn't hear that yet."  They just took it for real without blinking.  An Irony icon (*I*) might get overlooked.

So I want you to consider this genre of literature:  Legislative Fiction.  Like science fiction, which imagines a world changed by future developments in science and technology, legislative fiction imagines a world in which the wildest desires of some legislators are fulfilled.  In this case, I'm pushing to the limits conservative desires to privatize government functions that they think could be done as well by the private sector, their concern about radical left-wing faculty brainwashing their students, and their desire to reward private sector supporters and funders.

So here's my short story.

Alaska's Majority coalition legislators have announced they are working to sell the University of Alaska Anchorage to Charter College.  The deal is being handled by developer Mark Pfeffer, whose commission should more than make up for any losses at the LIO.  In the tradition of the Alaska Republican majority, not only do they propose to sell the campus, they are giving Charter College a $500 million zero interest loan,  so Charter can afford to make the purchase.  The sale will also effectively cancel all union contracts, pension obligations, and health benefits.



Reporters noted Charter College's questionable record*, according to College Factual:

Among the Worst Graduation Rates
Only 23.6% of students graduate from Charter College - Anchorage on-time (two or four years depending on the degree) and only 25.4% graduate at all, ranking this school among the worst in the country in both categories.
Graduating From College Isn't for Everyone.
The Majority of Non-Grads at this School Dropped Out. 74.6% of students at Charter College - Anchorage failed to graduate within 150% of the expected time. The majority did so because they dropped out.

Senator D, said he thought they could also achieve those levels with the University.

*This part, unfortunately, isn't fiction.

"the 24-hour rule is a 'nonsubject"

Nat Herz has an ADN article today about the Republican majority ignoring the 24 hour rule for notifying people of a committee hearing.  He notes that Jeremy Hsieh, the news director for Juneau’s public television and radio stations,  regularly tweets violations of this rule, though he acknowledges that there is no penalty for the legislature violating their own rules.  The title quote comes from Cathy Giessel (R-Conoco-Philips).

"Asked about Wielechowski’s objections about the oil tax bill, Giessel, the resources committee chair, responded that the 24-hour rule is a 'non subject.'”

What exactly is a 'non subject'?   Here's what the Collins dictionary says:

Clearly, she isn't using it in the first or third sense.  Definition number 2 seems the closest.

It's of no interest or importance.  Obviously, this isn't exactly true because the article says that Hsieh's tweeting

". . . drew a sharp response this week from the Republican-led Senate majority caucus. 

The caucus press secretary, Michaela Goertzen, asked Hsieh to remove one of his tweets that said the Senate’s labor and commerce committee, chaired by Sen. Mia Costello, R-Anchorage, appeared to have broken the 24-hour rule."

So they are interested and pissed at the attention.  They'd rather just do it and no one knows.

I think what Giessel means is that she has no interest in the 24 hour rule and it's not important to her.  She doesn't care.  And she doesn't have to care.

That's the problem we have when one party has a significant majority and can simply ignore the other party and the rules that have been set up to protect the people of Alaska from bills being rushed through with inadequate notice for anyone to prepare a response.  

Giessel has done this sort of thing before.  When it comes to oil issues, she pushes through, because that's her job, taking care of the needs of her husband's employer.

But this callousness to anyone who disagrees with them is having its effect on Republicans nationally and I expect that it will spill over to the states in November.  Giessel's district has proven to be well gerrymandered to protect her, but eventually power leads to enough arrogance that people finally say
'enough.'  

Irony -No Smoking, But Guns OK

We went to see Stalking The Bogey Man at UAA tonight.  Get tickets and go.  Not only is it a powerful play, but Anchorage is the locale for most of it, and the topic is one of the most important for our children.  You won't be bored.  You can get tickets here.  There's no one who shouldn't see this play - unless you're a rape victim and can't deal with it yet.  More on it later.   I don't have time to do it justice tonight.

But as we were walking to the theater on campus I was struck by this big sign.

We have a smoke free campus here.  You can't take a break any more and stand outside when it's 10˚F out and puff with your fellow smokers.  You have to actually get off campus.  I'm not sure if that isn't taking things a little too far, but I started pushing for no smoking in class back in the mid 1970s, so I definitely like the indoor ban.

But I was thinking about the headline in this morning's paper as I passed this sign.

I try to be objective and look at all sides of an issue.  Here's the kind of 'rational' article on guns on campus that  I would normally write.  And here's one that explains why guns on campus is a bad idea. But at some point, you have to stop being polite and rational and just say it like it is.

There's no real middle ground here.  There are national organizations, like ALEC  and Americans for Prosperity that are anti-worker, anti-regulation, anti-public school, and other right wing legislation at the state level.  It's far cheaper to influence state officials than national ones.  I don't know that either of these organizations is helping with this drive.  I don't know who's helping Pete Kelly with this bill. But I know the people of Fairbanks are responsible for electing Pete Kelly and the other Republican legislators who have supported this bill are all culpable in this.

My Senator - Berta Gardner - pointed out the other day that while the Senate is forcing the University to change it's concealed weapon policy, they aren't themselves allowing guns in the capital building.  I guess that's next year.  And I'd bet there are a few legislators who have guns in their offices.

The legislature has ignored the warnings about oil and the state budget for years.  And now, instead of seriously working on raising revenue to keep the University strong as well as other important government services, they're refusing to consider raising revenues like responsible states do - through an income tax.  But they do have time to pass legislation to allow concealed carry on campus.  Even the highly corporate Board of Regents don't support this law.    This isn't about safety on compass, it's about power - and what better symbol of power than a gun.

But, in the mean time, concealed carry, or any carry, is not allowed on campus.  But if Pete Kelly gets his way, while you won't be able to light up on campus, you can take your gun when you talk to your professor about your grade on the last exam.

I realize that posts like this will probably cause a group to sponsor legislation to allow smoking on campus.

Dear Sen. Pete Kelly, I Have Some Questions

 Alaska Commons quotes you, Senator, and I have a few questions.   First, here's the Commons' quote:

“I’m not someone who says we should have a government this size,” Senate Finance Co-chair Pete Kelly (R-Fairbanks) began.

As a matter of fact, I’d like it to be smaller, but the fact is that, adjusted for inflation and population growth, I think last year was about the lowest spend we’d had going all the way back to 2003, which was the other low point.
That isn’t to say, “Oh great, we need to tax people.” That isn’t where I’m going with it. The point is that… we’re at the point where we have to view differently how we interact with the administration. One of the things that [Walker] has been so reluctant to support are unallocated reductions. I don’t blame him. What that does is it puts most of the onus onto the executive to figure ways to make government smaller. That’s the way any corporation’s going to work. That’s the way any board of directors — whether it’s a non-profit or a profit-seeking corporation — that’s the way they’re going to work. They’re going to say to the president, “We’re out of money. You’ve got to figure out how to manage this thing. Sorry. That’s your job.”
So what we’ve heard in the past — and I’m not trying to criticize. I think these kinds of backs and forth [sic] were appropriate in years past when we would do something like that, and the governor would say something like, “You’ve got to do your job.” No. The job of the executive is to manage the administration. That is not our job. We are not up to the task because we are a board of directors. That isn’t how a board of directors works. And I think we’re to the point now where we do have to eliminate programs. We probably have to hand the governor an unallocated [reduction]. My apologies. The unallocated that we put into the budget earlier had program reductions and reforms and those kinds of things to back that up. They’re still there… Those statute changes are working through the legislature, but it’s time now to say,
“Uh-oh. We’ve got to make this thing smaller.” And we’re not going to sit at this table and go through line by line and say, “You can lay off that guy and lay off that guy or reduce that program or stop matching those funds.” That is the job of the executive. And I think we just have to deliver a smaller budget, and we have to do it fairly quick because the air’s out of the tires as of that spring forecast.”

Because the Environmental Protection Agency and non-governmental organizations inhibit resource development, Kelly said, “The only choice we have now is to deliver some draconian cuts to the governor.”

First, I would say that you and I have totally different views of the role of government and the role of business.  But let's just start with things that don't stem from those differences.

"One of the things that [Walker] has been so reluctant to support are unallocated reductions. I don’t blame him. What that does is it puts most of the onus onto the executive to figure ways to make government smaller. That’s the way any corporation’s going to work. That’s the way any board of directors — whether it’s a non-profit or a profit-seeking corporation — that’s the way they’re going to work. They’re going to say to the president, 'We’re out of money. You’ve got to figure out how to manage this thing. Sorry. That’s your job.'”

This is not my experience, Senator.  Boards of directors are there, especially with non-profits, to help the organization succeed.  They set policy.  Often the Board members are expected to donate a significant sum and to assist in fundraising.   Especially when times are rough.  But you seem to have   taken raising money off the table.  Most members of boards want their organization to thrive and grow.  You sound like you don't even like the government you're there to serve.    Usually, when an organization is out of money, the board does everything it can to help the organization raise more money to achieve its mission. But you seem to be saying, well, it's tough times Gov, you're on your own.

"I think these kinds of backs and forth [sic] were appropriate in years past when we would do something like that, and the governor would say something like, “You’ve got to do your job.” No. The job of the executive is to manage the administration. That is not our job. We are not up to the task because we are a board of directors. That isn’t how a board of directors works. And I think we’re to the point now where we do have to eliminate programs. We probably have to hand the governor an unallocated [reduction]."

Senator, first, I'd humbly disagree with your characterization that the legislature is a board of directors.  Most non-profit boards don't get paid and like for-profit boards, they meet infrequently.  The legislature has a constitutionally mandated role that is far more significant than a board of directors'.  It's that branch of government (which is much more significant than a non-profit or for-profit organization) that is supposed to allocate funds for the government to use to operate.  They're also supposed to raise new revenues when the government is running out of money.

The Alaska State Constitution says the legislature will pass laws and the governor will execute them. Let's just look at one section - Health, Education, and Welfare - of the Alaska Constitution:

1. Public Education The legislature shall by general law establish and maintain a system of public schools open to all children of the State, and may provide for other public educational institutions. Schools and institutions so established shall be free from sectarian control. No money shall be paid from public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.
§ 2. State University The University of Alaska is hereby established as the state university and constituted a body corporate. It shall have title to all real and personal property now or hereafter set aside for or conveyed to it. Its property shall be administered and disposed of according to law.
§ 3. Board of Regents The University of Alaska shall be governed by a board of regents. The regents shall be appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by a majority of the members of the legislature in joint session. The board shall, in accordance with law, formulate policy and appoint the president of the university. He shall be the executive officer of the board.
§ 4. Public Health The legislature shall provide for the promotion and protection of public health.
§ 5. Public Welfare The legislature shall provide for public welfare.

The responsibility is vested in the legislature to provide, not the executive branch.  Now, I understand that the legislature can delegate its authority to the executive branch.  But you're not making that argument.  You're just saying that it's not your job, when it appears that it actually is.


And, excuse me, but I have one more question on this part of your quote.   If it was "appropriate  in years past" as you've said, then why is it inappropriate now?  What exactly changed?  I realize in the past, when the legislature was spending lots of money, and even last year before oil prices plummeted,  the legislators could take credit for the spending of money on projects.  Now that there isn't enough money, and people are going to get hurt by the cuts, I can understand that you might rather put all the blame on the governor.  How else can you explain your change in attitude?

Especially, since you and the rest of majority legislature have picked things the governor can NOT cut,  like  tax credits on the oil companies, and  continuing funding for mega projects like the Knik Arm Bridge.  (Even after the federal DOT rejected their loan requests  for a seventh time because of faulty projections of revenues).  So, from my perspective, you aren't exactly keeping hands off.  You seem, instead to be protecting things you want to keep, but then telling the governor he has to be the one who, because there's no money left, has to cut schools and to programs that assist the disabled and the elderly, etc.

Instead of working hard, like the boards of directors in your analogy, to raise more money when a key revenue source dries up, you are explicitly telling the governor, he's not allowed to raise more money.

"Because the Environmental Protection Agency and non-governmental organizations inhibit resource development, Kelly said, 'The only choice we have now is to deliver some draconian cuts to the governor.'”

So, Sen. Kelly are you saying, "We could have raised more money and kept the same size government if we kept exploiting Alaska's non-renewable resources, but the EPA and environmentalists won't let us?"  I know that is the line that the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity have been peddling.  That would also explain why the legislature is continuing with its half a million dollar appeal of the expansion of medicaid in Alaska.   But while Shell did claim EPA regulation caused them to leave Alaska, we all know the real reason was that they didn't strike oil and because the price of oil crashed. And our revenue shortfall isn't because of regulation either, it's also because the price of oil crashed. After all, you and your colleagues gave the oil companies a huge credit recently, which is now part of our budget problems. Please explain to me what I'm missing.

But, Senator, this last quote seems to suggest that if the price of oil hadn't crashed,  we wouldn't have to cut the budget.  If that's true, then your real objection isn't so much big government, but paying for government the way every other state does - through taxes, instead of the oil windfall we've been enjoying for 40 years.

And since you refer to developing natural resources - which our state constitution encourages we do in a thoughtful way -  I'd also like to point out that the inhibiting factor for the development of our most important renewable resource - our people - is the legislature.  For the majority cutting schools seems to cause much less angst than cutting oil company subsidies and mega-projects.

One last point, Senator.  You talk about draconian cuts, as do many people.  I'd like to point out what that term originally meant.  From Merriam-Webster:

"Draconian comes from Draco, the name of a 7th-century B.C. Athenian legislator who created a written code of law. Draco's code was intended to clarify preexistent laws, but its severity is what made it really memorable. In Draco's code, even minor offenses were punishable by death, and failure to pay one's debts could result in slavery. Draconian, as a result, became associated with things cruel or harsh." 

There's more to the quote.  It says that nowadays people use the term to refer to things as trivial as parking fines going up, so in that sense, your usage isn't out of the ordinary.  It's like like calling a school principal who enforces a dress code a Nazi.   It's hyperbole.  It often comes from someone who knows the word, but isn't really familiar with its origin and the horror that really happened.

I noticed, Senator, from your website, that you got a Bachelor's degree in Management from Liberty University, which touts itself as the world's largest Christian university as well as the nation's largest online university.  And since you graduated while you were serving in the legislature, I can understand the convenience of an online degree.  The university's website also tells us

"Learn, develop, and grow at Liberty so you can impact your culture as a Champion for Christ."

Since you got your degree in management, I'd be curious what you studied about government and how government is fundamentally different from private sector management.

I'm also curious, Senator, how you reconcile being a Champion for Christ with making draconian cuts that will undoubtedly make life much more difficult for Alaska's poorest people?

And maybe some day we can meet for lunch and you and I can discuss all these things.   I'm sure you have lots of stories you can tell me and that perhaps I might have some insights you haven't heard before.

I Propose Annexing Matsu To Texas

I wrote a few days ago about Wasilla Rep. Gattis (is Gattis the plural of Gatto?) suggesting that seniors hurt by budget cuts should just move out of state.

I wrote about Sen. Dunleavy last summer when he tried to gut the proposed Erin's Law by filling it with his far-right wing national parents' rights nonsense.   I say 'nonsense' because it's only about parents' rights in a very twisted way.  One whole section, for example, is really about crippling Planned Parenthood.  He had language then, and it's back now in SB 191, to ban school districts from contracting with any abortion provider or anyone who has any contract with an abortion provider.  I wrote about all of this in detail last summer. This was all understood to be aimed at Planned Parenthood. 

My senator, Berta Gardner, asked the legislative legal folks to check into this and they've found various constitutional problems.  Here's a link to LegLegal's letter to Sen. Gardner and here's a few highlights of the problems they listed:

"Free speech and association rights: SB 191 implicates free speech rights in at least two ways. First, it prevents teachers from associating with abortion services providers, which could be construed as an unconstitutional condition. Second, it directly restricts the speech of employees or representatives of abortion services providers. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution and article 1, sections 5 and 6 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska protect the rights of free speech and association. The United States Supreme Court "has cautioned time and again that public employers may not condition employment on the relinquishment of constitutional rights."1 Likewise, public benefits may not be conditioned on the relinquishment of constitutional rights. 2"

 and

"Bill of attainder: In at least one case, Planned Parenthood has successfully challenged legislation prohibiting abortion services providers from receiving any state funding as a bill of attainder. Article 1, section 10 of the United States Constitution and article 1 section 15 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska prohibit the enactment of bills of attainder. "To constitute a bill of attainder, the statute must (1) specify affected persons, (2) impose punishment, and (3) fail to provide for a judicial trial. "7 The primary question in this case would likely be whether the bill "imposes punishment." "To rise to the level of 'punishment' under the Bill of Attainder Clause, harm must fall within the traditional meaning of legislative punishment, fail to further a nonpunitive purpose, or be based on a "[legislative] intent to punish."8 Exclusion from funding can be deemed punishment in some cases, but "the denial of a noncontractual government benefit will not be deemed punishment if the statute leaves open perpetually the possibility of qualifying for aid. "9 Where a statute targets a particular group and makes it impossible for the group to qualify for government funding, it may be viewed as a bill of attainder."

and

"Equal protection: SB 191 also implicates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution and the Constitution the State Alaska because it singles out employees and representatives abortion services providers for differential treatment."

So, probably Dunleavy and Gattis would really be much more comfortable as part of the Texas legislature and so would many of their constituents.   And the rest of us would be happy to get this kind of destructive craziness out of Alaska.  But, in the meantime, those 51% of voters (at least for Gattis' district) who didn't vote in 2014, please go vote in the primaries and the general election to put saner people into the legislature until we can arrange for your district to become part of Texas. 

Rep. Gattis Wants Poor Seniors To Leave Alaska

Following the mythical ancient tradition of putting elders on ice floes when they can no longer contribute to the survival of the village,  KTVA reports Rep. Gattis (R -Wasilla) said

". . . people with families here should be able to stay in Alaska, only if they can afford it on their own." 

 Actually,  The Full Wiki tells us that,

"Senicide among the Inuit people was rare, except during famines."

Famine is when there is no food and people are starving to death.  Short of famine and imminent death of the whole community, Inuit share with all their community members.

Alaska is not facing starvation.  We have almost ten years worth of budget money in the Permanent Fund and other reserve funds.  We aren't at the point where sending people off on ice floes makes sense, morally or practically.  Besides, because of global warming, we have fewer ice floes.

And since we have plenty of wealth, if we use Inuit logic, we'd take care of all the people in our community.

But that's besides the point.  Let's look at a little more of the quote from KTVA:

"She said in tight budget times, the state has to pick and choose where to put its money, and shouldn’t “subsidize” people to stay. “Here’s our challenge — when you lose two-thirds of your budget, where do you put the money?” Gattis asked. “Do you put it in road plowing? Do you put it in safe roads? Do you put it in police? Do you put it in fire departments? Do you put it in corrections? Do you put it in subsidizing people to stay here because that’s what they thought they wanted to do?” Gattis said before asking her constituents to pay taxes, she wants to make sure programs in the budget are ones they’re willing to pay for."

[Let's not even mention that Republicans have been responsible for the Alaska budget for the past ten years or so and they've been repeatedly warned that it wasn't sustainable.]

If people can't afford to live in Alaska, how could they afford to pick up and leave Alaska and get to and survive anywhere else?  Those who have some support from family and friends, would lose that help if they left,  making survival even harder.

I'm guessing this is Rep. Gattis' logic:

The state is spending more than it is getting in revenue.
Therefore we must cut the state budget.
Therefore we must cut things that are not essential.
Among those things that are not essential is aid for poor seniors - like the Pioneers Home I guess.

Her logic for the state is also applied to people.
If people are spending more than they are taking in, then they should leave the state.

Lookout Lower 48, Alaska is sending you its old and poor.  

Now, if all states took that approach, where would they go?  Do we make some holes in Mr. Trump's wall and send them off to Mexico?  Maybe Alaskans can take them to the Canadian border.   And what about Alaska Natives whose families have been in Alaska for millennia?  Where should we send them?

But there are two parts of balancing the budget and she's only addressing spending, but why not just raise the state revenue?   Why not have those who are benefiting from living in Alaska help support those who are old and not doing so well?  Maybe the company they worked for has reneged on its promises to pay a pension.  Maybe there was an illness and the health care used up their retirement savings.  None of that matters to Gattis, cause she's a tough fiscal conservative.

Let's get rid of the riffraff who don't contribute.

But these seniors probably do contribute in ways that Gattis isn't considering.  Maybe they are providing care for their grandchildren - teaching them family history, preparing their meals, getting them ready for school by reading books to them.  Maybe their care of those kids allows the mother to work and contribute to Alaska's economy.

Splitting up families seems inconsistent with the party that claims to be for family values.

There's a point where Gattis' logic makes sense.  But Gattis takes this concept and applies it in such a mean and narrow-minded way that she violates many other important values, particularly the value of family.    But like many literal, concrete thinkers, she fails to see all the intangible benefits of having seniors among us.

Gattis' Reelection website says:

Lynn believes our government’s role is to provide 

• Reasonable and stable tax policy 

• Reasonable regulation 

• Educated, trained and energetic work force 

• Low cost energy 

• Supportive infrastructure 

• Strong public safety 

• Strong support of quality community livability 

So, does 'strong support of quality community livability' mean, sending your grandparents out of state?  And does 'Reasonable and stable tax policy" mean no taxes?


Voters of Wasilla - thanks again for putting people like Gattis into the state legislature.  The news media appreciate you giving them things to write about.

What?  You live in Wasilla and didn't vote for her?  Actually, most of you didn't vote at all.  Only 49% of District 9 voters voted in the November 2014 election.  Only 33% of registered voters voted for Gattis. You don't think voting matters?   Wait till your grandmother gets deported. 

[Sorry, more feedburner problems]

Senate Majority Poll Finds 48% Of Survey Takers Support A State Income Tax at 25% Of Federal Income Tax

When I got the email survey last week from the Senate Majority, my eyebrows went up a bit when I saw that their income tax question pegged the tax at 25% of the federal income tax.  I'd just heard the governor's state of the state address where he proposed a 1% level.

Surely, this was meant to suppress the income tax support, I thought.  And today's ADN had a commentary by Dermot Cole making that same point.

And now I got an email with the results of the poll.  I checked the question on income tax first.  Even at 25% of the federal tax, 49% responded positively!  That must be a surprise to the Senate majority.

Click to focus 

There are several full blog posts to write about here.

1.  About the governor's state of the state address - which I thought was a refreshingly clear, straightforward, and honest outlining of the situation.  He laid it all out.  This much is our gap.  We can:

• Cut
• Use Permanent Fund and Other Reserves
• Raise New Revenue

He pointed out that cutting all state employees wouldn't put much of a dent into the deficit.  For some people, shutting down government is the only way they will start to see all the things they depend on the state government for.  Immediate impacts will be no state troopers, no snow plowing or other road maintenance, prisoners would all starve in their cells or have to be released.  You think you'd have trouble flying because Alaska hasn't adopted real ID drivers' licenses, wait until we have no licenses at all, or license plates.  What will the Canadian border folks do with all our out of date plates trying to go through?  The airports would shut down.  Then there are things that will take longer to happen - people will start getting sick from things like bad water.  But that's another post.

The governor offered some options - what he wanted from the Permanent Fund (no limits, but the dividend would come off oil royalties, not investment earnings as I understood the speech), what size income tax (1% of Federal), and no sales tax.  He explained why he made the choices he did - income tax would capture those who were not residents of Alaska but worked here and sales tax is local government's way to raise money and he didn't want to add a state sales tax on top of the local taxes.

And then he said he wasn't set on the specific options, but he was set on the outcome.  He got the biggest applause when he said, "I will always put Alaska’s future above my own.  I didn’t run for gov to keep the job, but to do the job."

2.  About the different revenue options and who wins and loses from each.

Since corporations don't get Permanent Fund Dividends but they do pay income taxes, you can guess what they want.  More money from the Permanent Fund and no income taxes.  We should tap into the Permanent Fund, because that's what it was set up for in the long run - to be an endowment for Alaska.  The non-renewable oil could be turned into renewable capital, and a portion of the state's budget could be funded from the interest.  They key is how big a hit the Permanent Fund should take now and whether income taxes should also be added in.

Poorer folks get a bigger benefit from the PFD than the wealthy.  They would pay less in income taxes.  And they would pay a bigger percent of their income on a sales tax than the wealthy.

And who has the money to sway the public?  The poor and middle income or the wealthy and the corporations?  You can see where this is leading.

GCI has already started a coalition to push for big hits for the Permanent Fund.

But 48,2% in support of an income tax that's 25% of the federal tax is huge!

But the legislative majority hasn't been too good about paying attention to what people think if it's not what they think.  They're still suing the governor over medicaid expansion, despite overwhelming public support.


I'd also note that the * with the explanation for the 25% figure (that's what Oregon has) was NOT on the survey itself.

Here's a link to all the poll responses.

State Overreach - Micciche Marriage Bill Would Have State Override Local Decisions

'Federal Overreach' is a conservative pejorative meant to convey the idea that the federal government is meddling with state matters and overriding state autonomy.  During desegregation they used the term 'states' rights' to fight the federal dismantling of Jim Crow in the South.  

Then states' rights was about keeping the status quo that allowed whites to legislate their power over blacks.

Today, federal overreach is often about the power of states to allow development and exploitation of public resources without concern for local wishes or environmental damage.  If there was a real concern for local control by people who know the situation better (as they claim), then the state (and I'm using Alaska here as my example) wouldn't have wiped out the Coastal Zone Management protections that allowed local folks to protect themselves from development that would destroy their way of life.

Often today, federal overreach, at least in Alaska, really means the feds interfere when a state rolls over for corporate interests.  After all, Koch sponsored Sen. Dan Sullivan was one of the folks who first championed the idea of federal overreach in Alaska.  At his confirmation hearings to be attorney general in 2010 he talked about how he would be joining with other attorneys general to fight in court against the Endangered Species  Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Act to protect 'economic opportunity.

This is not to say that there aren't legitimate states' rights issues - as when the federal government tries to nullify strong state laws designed to protect the voting rights and  the health and safety and of state residents.

And now that the Anchorage Assembly has finally passed and gotten a mayor to sign an ordinance that has added lgbt folks to our anti-discrimination law, Micciche has submitted a bill to have the state void a big chunk of it.  He and others just aren't content to give Anchorage the autonomy from the state that they claim the state should have from the feds.

Basically, this bill is to allow people to refuse to marry or provide any services (food, photos, location, flowers, etc.) for a wedding of a same-sex couple.

Principles are a good thing.  But often they are just makeup to hide a the raw exercise of power.

This bill truly has the state fighting what they'd say is federal overreach in approving same sex marriage and then turning around and exercising state overreach to nullify a good chunk of Anchorage's newly amended anti-discrimination ordinance.

SENATE BILL NO. 120

"An Act relating to marriage solemnization."
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
* Section 1. AS 25.05.261 is amended by adding new subsections to read:
(c) Nothing in this section creates or implies a duty on a person authorized to solemnize a marriage under (a)(1) or (3) of this section to
(1) solemnize a marriage; or
(2) provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of a marriage.
(d) A person permitted to solemnize a marriage under (a)(1) or (3) of this section is not subject to criminal or civil liability for refusing to solemnize a marriage or refusing to provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of a marriage.
(e) The state or a municipality may not penalize a person who is permitted to solemnize a marriage under (a)(1) or (3) of this section for refusing to solemnize a marriage or refusing to provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or municipal contract, grant, or license. privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of a marriage. In this subsection, "penalize" means to take an action affecting a benefit or privilege guaranteed to the person by law, including a tax exemption or state or municipal contract, grant, or license.

The Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage would not require any religious authority to perform a same sex marriage if same-sex marriage were against the tenets of that religion.  So the part about solemnizing a marriage seems moot to me.  However, people who provide commercial services to the public are now required to provide services for a same-sex marriage as they would for any marriage - a Jewish, or Catholic, or Hindu, or Muslim, or a marriage of two Asians, two African-Americans, two Russians, two Koreans,  and any combination of two people from any of those groups.  [UPDATE January 27, 2016:  After reading Micciche's January 24  commentary and rereading the bill and the statute it amends, I see that  commercial businesses are not exempted, but non-profits do seem to be exempted if they are connected to a clergyman who can solemnize a marriage.  I have a call in to Sen. Micciche to clarify some of the other claims he makes in the article about this having nothing to do with same-sex marriage, the Anchorage ordinance, or that "It does not protect anyone refusing services to interracial or special needs marriages."  I don't see anything in his bill that says clergy may refuse based on their religious doctrine.  It just says they can't be held liable for refusing, period.]   And if this law were passed, it would put a kink in things for gay and lesbian folks.  But I suspect only for as long as it would take to get to the state supreme court.

Our legislature has huge fiscal challenges ahead.  This seems a mean-spirited, divisive, and ultimately futile way to spend the little time our legislators have to settle the state's finances so that our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren can live in a socially and economically and environmentally healthy Alaska.