Sexual Harassment - The New Environment And The Alaska Legislature

Today I got an email with a statement by Alaska State Senator Berta Garner about an investigation into a sexual harassment of State Senator David Wilson.  Senator Berta Gardner is my state Senator.  She's smart, warm, and not prone to speak without doing her homework.

I must admit that this is the first I've heard about this.  I'll plead Anchorage International Film Festival as my alibi for missing this last week.  Here are some earlier reports on the incident:

APRN piece dated Dec. 7, 2017.

KTUU report dated this afternoon.  It includes video of Sen. Wilson's statement, in which he asks for the Legislative Agency report be released along with the video, which is below. (I can't get the video to embed right, something's wrong with the code, so go to the KTUU link.  It's just blank on Safari and on Firefox there's a message saying the KTUU link is insecure.  I'm just deleting the embed code. Sorry.)

Here's Senator Gardner's response to the Legislative Report.

Senator Gardner Responds to Legislative Report on Behavior of Senator Wilson

ANCHORAGE - Today, Senate Minority Leader and member of the Senate Rules Committee Berta Gardner gave the following statement in response to a vote taken to release a report from the Legislative Affairs Agency on the professional conduct of Senator David Wilson and his interaction with a legislative staffer. The members of the committee voted unanimously to release the content of the report, with the support of the staffer involved in the incident.

“Senator Wilson took out his cellphone, placed it down at the level of the hem of her skirt from a foot away for four seconds, saying he was going to record a closed meeting of House leadership. This behavior is consistent with what the staffer reported at the time. Such behavior is clearly intrusive, intimidating, and inappropriate to the staffer. It is also grossly unprofessional and unethical behavior from anyone, let alone a sitting member of the Senate.

“Coupled with the fact that Senator Wilson slapped a political reporter across the face in the Capitol building a short time before this incident, it demonstrates a disturbing pattern of poor judgement, bullying, and aggressive behavior. Senator Wilson should acknowledge his bad behavior, and apologize immediately to both the reporter and the staffer, taking full responsibility for his actions.”

Members of the press with questions may contact the Alaska Senate Democratic Press Secretary, Jeanne Devon, at 907-269-0129.

Senator Wilson argues that he's been exonerated.  I found a copy of the report at MidnightSun in a form that I can't seem to embed here.  You can see it at the Midnight Sun.  Here's a screenshot of the factual findings.

The report, by Skiff Lobaugh of the Legislative Affairs Agency - a pretty objective body does that analysis for legislators - goes on to look at the federal workplace harassment law and then matches the incident to the law.  It doesn't at all match the quid pro quo definition of harassment.  The second form requires a 'hostile work environment" which looks at

1. frequency,
2. severity, 
3. whether it interferes with the employee's ability to her work, and
4. whether it affects the employee's well being

Lobaugh noted that there was just one incident reported, that his intention was ambiguous - it seemed he was jokingly trying to record a behind closed doors meeting that the employee had been assigned to keep people out.   It did, he found, affect the employee's well being in the short run, but not in the long run.

He did acknowledge the unequal balance of power between an elected official and a legislator staffer who can be fired without cause.  

I'd note that while the employee discussed the incident at the time with others, including legislators, she never filed a complaint.  The staffer, on hearing various reports on the incident, requested a clarification from Leg Legal (the legal advisors to the legislature) about whether he was required to investigate since there are punishments for people who know but don't report, and was told he should.



We're in new territory here as long term social norms are getting reevaluated.  I think many of us tend to get defensive when accused of something we believe we didn't do.  My experience is we get worse if we actually did it.  I don't see how lowering a cell phone to hem level of a staffer's skirt is necessary to try to record a meeting behind the staffer and behind a door.  Playfulness only works between people who know each other well and/or are relatively equal in power.

Sen. Gardner's memo raises the issue of this incident happening about the same time as Sen. Wilson was reported as slapping a journalist, which is clearly out of line.  (The journalist didn't press charges.)

I find it interesting that the first two accusations we've heard of sexual harassment of Alaska state legislators in the post Weinstein era have been against a first term Alaska Native and a first term African-American.  Is this a coincidence?  The vast majority of legislators are white.  There is only one African-American in the legislature and a handful of Alaska Natives out of a total of 60 in both houses.

Dear Rep. Chenault: An Open Letter In Response To Your Commentary On Sexual Assault Of Women

Dear Representative Chenault, 

I read your commentary in the ADN  in which you said you'd raised four young women and you'd supported women's issues as a legislator, but you had had no clue how pervasive abuse was.  

"Yet until now nothing, absolutely nothing, has made me understand the prevalence of sexual abuse and the dehumanizing behavior that women routinely face. In the wake of this scandal, I now see and understand the magnitude of this problem and how women have been taken advantage of, exploited and shamed with little if any consequence to the men taking these unwanted liberties. 
Frankly, I am saddened and shocked that a country as enlightened and great as ours would tolerate and show such indifference to this cultural abhorrence.
As a father and a legislator, I had no idea of the extent of peril women regularly faced. I now understand that this issue that women have lived with is of epidemic proportion. Society has too long tolerated this behavior. This is unacceptable and must change.”

First, I want to thank you for writing this.  So thank you.  

But I want to push you a little further.  And I do this hesitantly.  You’ve done a pretty big thing and you deserve lots of praise for it.  What follows is not criticism, though it may feel like it, but rather strong encouragement to take another few steps in the same direction.  

Here's an overview of my basic points.   

1. What you did by publishing that commentary, was a big deal that doesn’t happen often to adults.   You thought you understood the topic of sexual abuse and harassment and now you realize you were missing a big part of it.  You’ve made an adjustment to your world view. 
2. When that happens, some people stop there and close down again.  Others continue to grow.  They ask, “If I missed that, what else am I missing?”  I want to encourage you to ask that question.
3. This whole process could be bigger than just the issue of sexual assault and discrimination.  It could expand to other issues.  It could also expand to how the legislature works, how legislators regard issues and treat each other.
4. You aren’t just anybody.  You have been Speaker of the Alaska House and are now the Minority Leader.  What you think and do is not just about you personally.  It affects everyone in the state and beyond.  If your world views are accurate, you can do great good.  If they aren't, you can do a lot of harm.  It’s critical that I take advantage of your commentary to reach out to you and encourage you to keep expanding your world view.

So I’m aiming big.  I do so at the risk of offending you by saying you could do more than you have.  I hope you can listen and accept my assurance that my intentions are the best.  

Part 1:  On the issue of sexual assault, rape, and the barriers women face.  

1. Your commentary is a big deal.  You’ve not only said how important this is, but more significantly, you’ve opened yourself up by revealing that there was an important public policy area where you had missed something critical. Even though Alaska is at or near the top in bad domestic violence and rape stats.  You’ve exposed a weakness publicly.  And I want to strongly applaud you for that.  And I go on in this letter with trepidation, because I don’t want you to think,  “Damned if I do, damned if I don’t.”  I want you to keep growing in your awareness.  So I continue.
2. In addition to the #metoo hashtag, there is also an #ihave hashtag where men talk about how they contributed to perpetuating the problem.  They go beyond saying, “This is bad” and after self-reflection, talk about how they have contributed to the situation.  Most men haven’t physically assaulted women, but they probably have passively stood by when other men acted badly toward or talked badly about women.  They may not have paid as much attention to women in meetings as they did men.  Or interrupted them more than they interrupted men.  They may not have questioned policies that made it harder for women to advance or that kept pay for women lower than that for men.  
3. In your commentary, you acknowledged the problem, but you didn’t acknowledge your contribution to the problem through action or inaction.  In your position as Speaker, you had considerable power.  Just by not making this a higher priority, you allowed this to continue.  I have no idea how you treat women in the legislature.  I have no idea of what conversations you took part in.  But I have to assume in the legislature, dominated by men who are attracted to power, there must have been testosterone tinged conversations where women were discussed as objects, where specific women’s body parts were discussed.  Did you think about your daughters in those situations and protest?  Did you chastise the offenders?  You haven’t discussed that.  If you stayed silent, like most men do in those situations, you helped support the abuse.  
4. There is one thing that you did that is on the record - you were an honorary co-chair of the Alaska Donald Trump campaign.  That announcement was in May 2016.  I can find nothing via google that says you protested his pussy grabbing comments in October 2016.  Perhaps you did and I missed it.  If you didn’t publicly denounce those comments, particularly since you had publicly endorsed him, you were part of the problem.  
5. I get that your view of the world has been shaped by your party and that loyalty is a key plank of the Republican party rules.  Your party severely punishes people who do not vote for the budget the party endorses.  But if you are going to actually do something about sexual abuse, you need to take a step beyond acknowledging its existence,  and acknowledge your part in the system that allows it.  I’d point out here that the kinds of pressures on you to lie low in these situations, are the same kinds of pressures on women to not report abuse.  Fear of losing job opportunities, income, social status.  It’s easier to say nothing and not rock the boat.  This code of silence is what keeps this sort of thing going. 
6. I’d also like to encourage you to think bigger when it comes to the legislative committee you propose in your commentary.  You write, 

“I will be sitting down with my colleagues in the Legislature and explaining that we need to provide awareness and sensitivity training and that we should have a zero-tolerance policy for such behavior.”

• This goes way beyond awareness training.  This is a structural issue.  
• What are the systemic pressures that keep legislators from criticizing their own party’s rules and procedures?  
• What are the economic and political pressures on legislators to vote a certain way?  
• Why do women get paid less than men?  
• How do organizations allow for women to take time to have and raise babies without career penalties?  

This is more than individual decisions by individual men.

What does zero-tolerance mean here?  I know you had limited space, but I’d point out that the legislature has - both in Alaska and the Congress - often exempted themselves from rules they apply to others.  It’s hard for legislators to police themselves.  The California legislature is setting up an autonomous body to look into sexual harassment and assault complaints.  I’d just like you to think bigger here than personal restraint.  It takes structural change to have an impact.  

Part 2:  "What other gaps are there and how can I work on them?"

You’ve significantly adjusted a part of your world view.  The logical next step is to ask:  “If I missed this, what else am I missing?”  It may be logical, but it’s emotionally difficult.  What you’ve done already is emotionally a big deal.  For some it’s scary and far enough.  Even too far.  But for others, it’s a chance to expand and grow as a human being.  I’m hoping you’re ready for that second option.  To get there, I’d ask you to reflect on these questions:

1.  Why didn’t you see this before?  

2.  What happened that caused you to see now, what you hadn’t seen?

Which I hope leads you to ask

3.  What else am I missing? and
4.   How can I learn from questions 1 and 2 that will help me with questions 3?

So let’s look at these questions in more detail.

1.  Why didn’t I see this before?

Confirmation bias is a theory that says people accept facts and arguments that support their beliefs and dismiss those that conflict with their beliefs and vested interests.   

You had a vested interest in seeing this, namely  your four daughters whose lives and careers are threatened by the sexist acts of individuals and the stacked system that gives men advantages over women.  

On the other hand, you probably have a strong belief in the fairness of the American system and a belief in the work ethic, that if you work hard you will get ahead.  Most successful men do.  It explains that we are successful because we worked hard and blinds us to the fact that there are barriers to success we don't face, but that other hard workers do - like women and people of color who work just as hard, but don’t succeed as much. That belief makes it easier to dismiss claims by women and others that the system isn't fair.

I’m just speculating here since I don’t know the reasons in your particular case.  You have to think these through yourself.  My thoughts are just an example.

2.  What happened that caused you to see now, what you hadn’t seen?

You write, “I had no idea of the extent of peril women regularly faced.”  But the only clue in your commentary about why you changed is this line:

“The names I see coming forward on Facebook are people we know — our neighbors, relatives and friends, and not just movie stars and Hollywood celebrities.”

I take from this that by seeing names of people you personally know who have been sexually abused, this became personal.   This issue now was directly connected to you.  I even wonder if one or more of your daughters sat you down and explained things.  That has the biggest impact on fathers.  And you are right not to identify people any more specifically than you did.  It’s their jobs to tell their stories, not ours.  

3.  What else am I missing?

Sexual assault against women is an issue you have a personal stake in because you have four daughters.  Yet you missed it. “I had no idea of the extent of peril women regularly faced.”

So now is a perfect time to ask, what else am I missing?  Particularly in those areas where I have a vested interest in NOT seeing things?  

This is the hard part.  Where do you start?  Point 4 addresses that.

4.  How can I learn from questions 1 and 2 that will help me with question 3?

I’ve speculated about possible answers to questions 1 and 2, but you have to do some serious self reflecting to figure out the specific reasons that actually apply to you. 

1.   What happened that caused you to see now, what you hadn’t seen?  

It’s hard to know what you don’t know.  The first step is to acknowledge that there is a lot you don’t know.  The older we get, the less often we think about this.  The more successful we are, the more we think we know everything.  After all, if we didn’t, how did we succeed?  We just have to walk into any library or bookstore to understand how much we still have to learn.  

Right now, you have stumbled upon a gap in your knowledge, so you recognize that you don’t know everything.  I’ve pointed out that vested interests and entrenched beliefs play a role in preventing us from seeing things that might alter our world views.  

Step one: try to articulate your world view.  What do you believe about how the world works?  Why some people do well and others don’t?  Why men occupy most positions of power in the US?   What do you believe about what’s right and wrong, good and bad?  

Few people ever do this, so they don’t really know what they believe in detail.  Just in generalities.  When you write it down, you start to see gaps.

Step two:  Identify how you know each point in your world view.  How did you learn it?  Did you just accept what authority figures told you or did you come up with it on your own?  How did you test it?  What proof do you have that it’s true?  

This is hard stuff, but again, if you do it seriously, it will lead to more questions than answers.  When we have questions, we are open to new information.

2.  What happened that caused you to see now, what you hadn’t seen before?
You suggest in your commentary that it was when you found out that sexual assault and rape happened to women you knew.  Before that, it was others - celebrities you didn’t know.  

Step one:  Make a list of the people who influence your world view most.  As adults, most of us hang out with people who think like we do.  It’s comfortable.  It reinforces our sense that we are right about things.  But it also causes us to be blind to what’s wrong with our facts and our logic.

Step two: Rank the list by who thinks most like you and who thinks least like you.  Which of these people do you tolerate because they are on your team, but have troublesome behaviors?  Who do you admire most?  Why? Is it because they are powerful, because they’re good, because they  are smart, because they win?  Because they listen?

Step three:  Open up authentic conversations with people you know who do NOT agree with your world view.  Ask them about their world view and why they believe it.  Listen.  Take notes.  Be humble.  Be respectful.  Your Democratic colleagues might be a good place to start.  You spend a lot of time together and there must be some that you get along with on a personal level, even though you disagree on policy issues.  Invite some to one-on-one discussions, over lunch, on a walk, playing golf, or whatever comfortable setting works for you.  

Part 3: The Conclusions

I know this is a long letter. The issues are complex and it's necessary to get detailed.   No one pays me to do things like this.  Do I have an agenda?  Yes, better civic discourse and better public administration and more equal treatment of all people.   I taught public administration at UAA for 30 years and retired as professor emeritus.  It was my job to work with my students - mostly public servants - and get them to think about things like this, to see the world differently on graduation than they did when they started.  

I hope you take this letter seriously and understand my intent is a better place for Alaskans to live. I believe that your awakening on this one issue, could lead to awakenings on other issues.  

In Congress now, as well as in the Alaska legislature, things have become a highly competitive game - the object is to win, to beat the opponent.  Positions are frozen and any softening by anyone is seen, at best, as weakness and, at worst, as treason.  

The pressures on individual legislators to conform to their party line is not different from the pressure on women to stay quiet about sexual assault.  They face lots of negative consequences if they speak up.  That’s the structural reality that women face and that all of us face when we feel a need to challenge the status quo, to take on powerful people. 

But all the legislators are in Juneau because they believe they are doing the right thing as best they can.  I’m hoping that you can build on your insights on sexual assault and be a leader in breaking the logjam, in brokering peace between the parties and the individual members, and finally to help lead to policies and legislation that will take this state where we need to go.    

Your commentary convinces me you are serious about this issue.  You’ve stuck your neck out and my intent here is not to cut it off, but to push you further in the direction that will help you be successful in this and in other issues. 

Sincerely, 

Steven Aufrecht

[I sent a copy of this to Rep. Chenault last Wednesday and asked him to correct any errors of fact or challenge any assumptions I'd made that he disagreed with.  I said I would post this on Monday (today).  I haven't heard anything back from him.]

SB91, Anchorage Assembly, Public Anger Over Crime

I went to the Assembly public hearing Saturday October 8, 2017 to allow the public to give their opinions on Senate Bill 91 which was intended to curb the rise in prison population by cutting back many of the penalties for low level crime and by increasing rehabilitation for those convicted.  

Dick Traini

This is a state law and hearings were set in Juneau, but Anchorage Assembly chair Dick Traini felt most people wouldn’t testify in Juneau and had a special session in Anchorage which was videotaped     
The pictures are most of the people who testified when I was there.  I just wanted people to get a sense of the number of folks and a sense of what they looked like.  But I must say that a number of folks surprised me and reminded me not to judge people by appearances.    Everyone was civil, most were pretty rational and they focused on the facts of their experience with crime and the police response.










I missed the first 20 minutes or so, but what I heard was a lot of . . . anger was there, but mostly it was frustration.

Frustration that the reduced penalties of SB91 for many crimes under $1000 had been put in place, but not the rehabilitation.  So criminals know that nothing can happen to them, that police won’t bother for low level crimes.  Two different people told stories of people regularly taking power tools from big box stores and just walking out and employees are told not to do anything.  They have to just watch them get in their cars and go.  The speakers said this went to barter for drugs and/or other items.  One big box store employee said it happens daily and losses have been in the $800,000 per year range.

Lots of people complained about home break-ins and stolen cars where police didn’t come for hours.  Where they are told on the phone, “There’s nothing we can do.”

There was concern that sex workers wouldn’t report crimes because they, not the criminals would be arrested.

There was also testimony  from people who had served time or the children had and the importance of good rehabilitation to their lives.

Amy Demboski got credit from some for recognizing these problems early on.  And she said she wasn’t for abolishing SB 91, but for fixing it.

One man said there were three things that needed to be done:
1.  Rebuild Neighborhood watch
2.  Put God back into schools
3.  Bring back the death penalty

Most people were rational, had facts, and recognized this was a complex problem .  A few just wanted the repeal of SB 91, but most wanted it fixed - most notably that people convicted of crimes get rehabilitation, job training, and hope and help to find employment when they got out, so they aren't forced back to crime and drugs or alcohol.

There were maybe 100-150 people who were in the chambers during the 4 hour session.  Not that many, but they were all very passionate.  The Assembly listened carefully, sometimes asked questions.

During a break, I asked if there were any police in the room to hear the anger toward the police for not showing up for hours and for saying, “Our hands are tied, there’s nothing we can do” about people who committed crimes.  Later, Assembly Member Chris Constant said there had been a representative of the police department there for a while.

This past Tuesday, the Assembly passed a resolution that didn't call for a repeal of SB91, but did call for fixing it.  From KTUU:

"All members but Amy Demboski voted for changes only, specifically an increase in funding for alcohol and drug treatment, probation, police, corrections officers, and prosecutors.
“I’m afraid if we say repeal this it will not be revisited. I think these were very courageous legislators who did this and I don’t know that we have that now. After seeing this beat up no one is going to touch it again.
We’ll be back to a system that has simply failed and wasn’t working,” said Assembly Member John Weddleton.
The resolution also recommends restoring probation limits for some misdemeanor offenses, time that was cut down to less than a year under SB91. When it came to recommending a full repeal all members but Demboski felt it was better to fix what exists today."

What's In A Name? Instead Of Taxes, How About An Alaska Membership Fee?

As our legislature struggles to come up with a way to balance the Alaska state budget, we see the cut expenses camp duke it out with the raise income camp.  Taxes, particularly income taxes, are anathema to key Republicans, like Senate President Pete Kelly.  It seems just the word 'tax' is the biggest obstacle.  So I'd like to repost a piece from last year:  

 Instead Of Taxes, How About An Alaska Membership Fee?

Back in 2008, at his corruption trial, Vic Kohring said that he had signed a 'no taxes' pledge.  He could not vote for any tax.  However, if the tax were called a fee, he might be able to vote for it.

Eight years later we still have legislators who are allergic to the word 'tax' and break out in hives and start hyperventilating when anyone utters the word.  Some key legislators in Juneau are willing to inflict enormous damage to the state of Alaska rather than even consider something like an income tax.

I have a proposal.

The Alaska Membership Fee

Everyone who lives or works  in Alaska is eligible to buy a membership.  Memberships would be sold on a sliding scale based on factors such as net worth, income, location, age, amount of time in Alaska each year, etc.

The biggest attraction of the membership would be:

• eligibility to apply for an Alaska Permanent Fund Check  - it wouldn't guarantee eligibility for the check, but without  an Alaska Membership Card (AMC) one couldn't apply.  

There could be a number of other perks one gets with an AMC such as:

• free public K-12  education
• discounts (or even free pass for higher levels) at state parks, state ferry, state run airports
• access to Pioneer Homes
• discounts and scholarships at University of Alaska campuses
• discounts for driver's license, fishing licenses, hunting licenses, etc.
• use of the Anchorage LIO when legislators aren't there

People who live in rural areas will have different needs from people who live in urban areas.  Age may also lead to different kinds and levels of service.  These can  all be figured out.  Or, the legislature might decide that simplicity may be preferable to complicated pricing and eligibility requirements and choose to use one or two factors, such as income or net worth.  

Alaska Membership would help people realize the different benefits they get from the state that they normally enjoy without even thinking about it.  After all, good government is invisible.  Most people only notice government when it stops working well:

• when diseases break out 
• when potholes aren't repaired
• when traffic lights don't work
• when police abuse citizens
• when foster kids are abused
• when their own kids don't learn at school 
• when garbage piles up and air is polluted 
• when the water is no longer safe to drink
• when state parks are all closed and local park equipment is broken
• when voting machines are hacked
• when gasoline pumps show more gallons than you actually got

When such government services break down, we end up paying more to deal with the consequences:

• higher insurance and repair bills because of poorly engineered and maintained roads, contaminated water and air, and crime
• lost work days and other health costs because of lack of sanitation or access to basic health care
• shortsighted legislators because of poor schooling
• lost work time because of long waits in line at state offices because there aren't enough employees
• higher need for police, courts, and social services because foster kids aren't well supported
• weaker economy because business can't get good employees when government services make Alaska an undesirable place to live

You get the point.  Some of our influential legislators don't.  Their mantra is 'government is bad,'  and  'taxes are worse." 

But we wouldn't have to have an income tax or a sales tax.  Instead we'd all become members of the State of Alaska and our membership fees would go towards all those services that our legislators say are wasteful luxuries, like health care for the working poor, like school teachers for our kids.  

Mostly, the creation of Alaska Membership would remove the key obstacle for those legislators who,  like Kohring,  can't accept the word tax, but could get behind a fee.  And it would be voluntary.  No one would have to join, but they couldn't apply for the Alaska Permanent Fund  check if they didn't.  And they could get basic state services for free (non-members would have to buy guest passes, say for campgrounds or public school) and they could buy Alaska T-shirts and hats at a discount.  

I'd note that plenty of organizations, public and private, already use sliding scale fees for their services.  Here are just a couple of examples: 

Airlines
Health Care
Independent Adoption Center
Golf Clubs and Health Clubs
Private Schools
Universities
Movies
Museums
Hotels

This could set a trend for the rest of the country.  A membership card would prove you were a 'real' Alaskan.  So much cooler than paying an income tax.  

If you agree, then send this post to your legislator.  You can find their contact information here.  http://w3.legis.state.ak.us/docs/pdf/whoswho.pdf

We Like Majority Rule, Except When We're Not In The Majority - HB 175

HB 175 is currently in the House Judiciary Committee.   Here's the whole bill.

A BILL
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED
"An Act ratifying an interstate compact to elect the President and Vice-President of the United States by national popular vote; and making related changes to statutes applicable to the selection by voters of electors for candidates for President and Vice-
President of the United States and to the duties of those electors." [emphasis added]

HOUSE JUDICIARY 

GRUENBERG 120   1:00 PM   M W F 

Standing Committee

	CHAIR:	Representative Claman*
	VICE-CHAIR:	Representative Fansler*
		MEMBER:	Representative Kreiss-Tomkins*
		MEMBER:	Representative LeDoux*
		MEMBER:	Representative Eastman
		MEMBER:	Representative Kopp
		MEMBER:	Representative Reinbold
		ALTERNATE:	Representative Millett
		ALTERNATE:	Representative Stutes *

 *indicates members of the House majority.  So this should get out of the committee and could pass in  the House.  Senate fate is probably not too good.  Republicans love the electoral college and come up with all sorts of arguments to keep it.

Here's a letter in the Alaska Dispatch News today that proves my point - you don't like 'majority rule' if you're in the majority and you like it when you're in the majority.

"Without Electoral College …
The benefit of the Electoral College can be seen by subtracting the state of California from the equation. Without California, Trump won by 2 million popular votes and well over a hundred electoral votes. Subtract New York as well and he won by 3 1/2 million popular votes and two to one in the Electoral College. Do we really want one or both of those states dictating policy to the whole rest of the country? As it is, just those two guaranteed blue states mean Democrats can count on almost a third of the electoral votes needed to win the presidency before the election even starts.
— Bill Tolbert
King Salmon"

So, majority rule is bad if Trump loses (popular vote) and good if he wins (electoral college.)  But what is this nonsense about "without California" and "without New York"?

California, with 37 million people is  about 12% of the US.  New York, with a population of over 19 million, makes up about 7% of the US population.  So Bill Tolbert has no issue with deducting nearly one-fifth of the US population to get his numbers.

He also neglected to take out the second most populous state - Texas - with 25 million people, or about 8% of the US population.  I can't imagine why he would have skipped Texas. (I*)

Tolbert's argument is like saying, if it weren't for the heart attack, he would have lived to 80.  And if it don't count his cancer either, he could have lived to 90.  Creating alternative worlds through mathematical fiction.

Cut Teachers Pay To Preserve Their Peers' Jobs?

There were a number of noteworthy (which literally means worthy of noting) clusters of words in today's Alaska Dispatch News.

Here's the letter that triggered this post's title:

"Teachers should work for less
To go along with the article "Senate education plan could cut hundreds more jobs statewide" by Dermot Cole, teachers statewide should consider taking a reduction in pay during this state of Alaska budget crisis to help save some of their peers' jobs!
— Richard N. Ramirez
Anchorage"

What sort of pay cuts is Mr. Ramirez suggesting?  Why should teachers alone take a cut in pay for the benefit of everyone else's children?   Why, "during this state of Alaska budget crisis" shouldn't all Alaskans take a cut in pay to help save some jobs?  And to help keep the student/teacher ratio a little lower so each kid gets more attention?

But why stop at teaching jobs?
If everyone who works in Alaska (including non-residents) took a cut in pay, no one would have to take too big a cut.  There is a way to, in effect, have all working Alaskans take a cut in pay to share the burden.  Now that oil isn't paying all our bills, shouldn't all of us pay equitably for the roads and  the bridges,  for our state parks, for keeping our water clean, for use of the airports, for disease prevention, and all the other, sometimes, invisible, benefits of having a state government?  All these things we use and like a lot that we don't notice until they stop working.  Shouldn't Alaskans take a little pay cut for what we get, like the people in other states and in the rest of the world?

There's a system already set up to do that.  It's called an income tax.

It does exactly what you are saying teachers should do - take a cut in pay.  We'll still get our PFD's. Come on all my mighty fellow Alaskans who get all these state benefits for free.  Let's stop whining and grow up and pay our fair share.  But, let the legislators know, you want them to design a tax that is as easy as filling out a PFD application.


Another opinion that caught my attention was Suzie Smith's 'aw shucks' defense of keeping our taxi regulations the way they are by voting yes on proposition 8.

"If having 300 cabs available on the streets to take us from A to B whenever we wanted them actually didn't cost us any more money than having 188, then why stop there? Can we have 1,000? 10,000?  Hey, can we have, like, a cab each? Parked outside our houses, with a private driver wearing a chauffeur's hat? He can take us wherever we need to go for the same rates … in fact, it should cost us less, because competition, right?"

Cute, but no one is asking for a cab for everyone.

Let's stick with 300 cabs for a minute.  Give us the numbers to show us how many hours cabs have fares and how many hours a day the average cab is riding empty.  Or which hours no cabs are available.  Show us how much income you get by owning a cab permit, the hours you work on cab stuff, and what that comes to as an hourly wage.  Maybe you have numbers that prove your point, but you didn't offer them here.  And you didn't mention things like access for handicapped passengers which was improved by the ordinance you want to repeal, or how Uber and Lyft are going to impact the taxi business.  Or is this really about how much you stand to lose if your permit loses its value?

There's also a great story in We Alaskans about an Indonesian 17 year old who is an exchange student in Kasilof told from the perspective of the student and her American temporary father.  I've spent ten minutes trying to find a way to link to the story for people who aren't ADN subscribers, but I can't.  Here's a link to We Alaskans with the other stories in today's edition, maybe it will show up eventually.

Finally, I'd note that Nathaniel Herz' brief interviews with new legislators gives us a chance to see these people as, well, people.  Nat got glimpses that add a little bit to our understanding of individual legislators and the legislature as a whole.  Rep. Jason Gren has a son named Atticus who's not pleased that his daddy isn't always home to tuck him into bed. Rep. Dean Westlake is part of the R.J. Reynolds Caucus which meets for smoke breaks and gives him a chance to spend time with Republicans.  Gary Knopp gets to ride excavators and road graders when he's not in the legislature. Rep. George Rauscher drove about 7000 miles in his Jeep campaigning in his huge Southcentral district.  Wasilla's Rep. David Wilson doesn't seem to like talking to the media.  Nothing huge here, but reminders that our legislators are not cartoon stereotypes, but real human beings trying to make a difference.

Yes, there should be more in depth articles about legislation that help spell it out for average folks, but I'm guessing far more readers will read this piece than more penetrating news on what they are and aren't doing in Juneau.

Alaska Legislative Info Office Joins Facebook And Twitter

Well, it's a lot cheaper than a new building.

Here's their announcement:  (The links below should help people connect.)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Alaska LIOs Launch New Facebook, Twitter Accounts
Live video/audio links to be shared with Alaska media

Alaska’s Legislative Information Offices will have an increased social media presence as the 30th Alaska Legislature begins this week, providing more ways to keep Alaskans informed about legislative news and events.

The additions include a Legislative Information Office (LIO) Facebook page and the LIO Twitter handle @AKlegislature. The social media platforms will be used to provide immediate notice about new information added to the Legislative Affairs Agency website at akleg.gov.

The LIO Facebook page will promote information such as the weekly schedule of committee meetings and events, educational resources, opportunities for public testimony, and more.

The Twitter account will share links to live-streaming video and audio of committee meetings via AlaskaLegislature.tv.

In addition, the LIO’s Media Services section will begin distributing video codes to Alaska media outlets interested in hosting the live video and audio feeds produced through AlaskaLegislature.tv. To learn more about hosting these live streams contact the Juneau LIO at 465-4648.

“The LIO’s core mission is to provide accurate and timely information to Alaskans to encourage engagement in the legislative process, and having a strong social media presence will go a long way in furthering that goal,” said LIO Manager Charles Westmoreland.

About Legislative Information Offices
Alaska has 23 nonpartisan Legislative Information Offices located throughout the State, with 11 staffed year-round and 12 staffed during the legislative session. The LIOs operate under the Legislative Affairs Agency. To learn more about LIOs and where they are located, visit http://akleg.gov/lios.php. To learn more about the Legislative Affairs Agency, visit akleg.gov

Contact information
Juneau Legislative Information Office
Phone: (907) 465-4648
Email: lio.juneau@akleg.gov

Click HERE to visit the Alaska State Legislature Website
Click HERE to watch live streaming of the Alaska State Legislature
Click HERE to send a Public Opinion Message during session