Showing posts with label Alaska legislature 2011. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alaska legislature 2011. Show all posts

Friday, April 01, 2011

April Fools: Chenault, Costello, Dick, Fairclough, Feige, Foster, Gatto, Hawker, Johansen, Johnson, Keller, Lynn, Millett, Munoz, Olson, Pruitt, Saddler, Stoltze, Thomas, Thompson, P. Wilson, T. Wilson

These are the Alaska House members who voted yesterday to give some of the largest corporations in the world about $2 billion a year in hopes the oil companies will invest more in Alaska oil production. The companies in turn had to guarantee. . .


nothing whatsover. They even said out loud they wouldn't promise anything.



As regular readers know, I rarely take a strong stand on an issue because generally I can see more than one side. Sometimes there are only two sides - the right one and the wrong one. It's hard to find any 'right' in the arguments for passage of HB 110. They are all literally incredible. Those who argue they don't want to lose their jobs or their children's future jobs (many who testified) failed to show the connection between giving these breaks to the oil companies and increased oil production in Alaska. Others worship at the Church of Capitalist Fundamentalism which preaches government is Satan and the market is the miracle cure for everything. They have forgotten (or never knew) that even gods of capitalism, like Milton Friedman, warned of capitalism's
Soon to be on endangered species list in Alaska
failures. Some have forgotten the Bill Allen story, or maybe they think that the reversal of fortune for the FBI and the Federal prosecutors means they have a free period to make deals with oil companies. This last group may be more crooks than fools. I'm sure there are other forms of delusion I'm overlooking.

I heard a rumor that an unnamed legislator slipped language into HB 110 that makes the rabbit's foot the state talisman.  Every Alaskan will be required to carry at least one at all times.

But let's also salute those who voted no (including two Republicans):

Austerman, Doogan, Edgmon, Gara, Gardner, Gruenberg, Guttenberg, Herron, Holmes, Joule, Kawasaki, Kerttula, Miller, Petersen, Seaton, Tuck.

Doing right is its own long-term reward. Thank you!

Should the Senate go along with this (reports are that they won't) the oil companies could possibly make some gesture that looks like the vote caused them to reinvest in Alaska. But they really don't have to and are arrogant enough not to. And if they do, just count the dollar benefit to Alaska against the dollars we would have given away. It won't be close. And will the yea votes and their supporters realize they were taken? Don't count on it. They'll find reasons to explain why 'conditions' changed and they weren't wrong.

Friday, March 25, 2011

House Finance Public Hearing on Governor's Oil Tax Bill HB 110 - Notes from Anchorage LIO

The meeting began at 5pm and people testified from, maybe, 5:15 until 8. My fingers are exhausted, my eyes drooping. I thought I'd try to pull out themes, but that will have to wait. I'll try the spell check and then put this up for people who'd like to know what was said. You'll see the same themes over and over again.

The pro HB 110 arguments were basically variations of this:
ACES has killed new oil development in Alaska. Without HB 110 you can be assured that the Trans Alaska Pipeline will shut down shortly and the oil money that pays for Alaska will run out and the future will be grim. Vote for HB 110 to ensure Alaska's future. Many, if not most, identified themselves as somehow connected with the oil industry.

The anti HB 110 arguments were variations of:
HB 110 is a giveaway to the richest corporations in the world. And they won't guarantee anything. You need a macro view of the world oil economy. Alaska taxes are low compared to Norway and other places plus we have a politically stable environment compared to the Middle East and Africa. This is just a shakedown by the oil companies like they do every where in the world. Keep the $2 billion a year and put it to use: building infrastructure, taking care of homeless, or financing our own oil and gas development.

My wife counted 43 for HB 110 and 37 against. (It seemed from the early questions that Rep. Stoltz was counting.)

Below are my notes from the meeting. There are lots of gaps and if you need to be 100% accurate, wait for the transcript from the Legislature. This will just give you the gist of what was said. The spelling of the names is particularly dicey since I only heard them quickly.

Public testimony repeats (continues?) Friday March 25 at 3pm.

Reps SToltz, Edgemon, Duggan, Fairclough (the whole committee was there at one point)
Sen. Giessel in audience

Anchorage:
Jerry McCutcheon: Must consider that the incentives are being given for things the oil companies are already required to do. The Tax wouldn't pass the Harvard business test. Sen. Jackson wouldn't support the gasline 30 years ago because of the impact it would have on the gas. Exxon deliberately lied to the committee and Alaska. Wound us up like toys back then. Alaskans loss almost came out in 2007 hearings AOGCC testified because the gasline was not conducted in the 1980s, had produced more oil because gasline not produced. Also testified Alaska would have been broke today if both pipelines had been constructed. We follow one ruse after another. Exxon and the other North Slope producer ... now more oil ... Exxon et al were trying to deprive Alaska and the US of billions of barrels of oil.

Inivted to send any written testimony.

Michael Jesperson: I support it and think it will put more money .

Matthew Manioni? - Been involved for 20 years. We are killing oil field jobs with ACES regime and regulations. All new dollars being spent on maintenance and repair, not new fields. I agree with experts that without more production, we'll lose the known oil reserve. Time to save Alaska from itself. For years I've been a supporter of responsible gas development. The oil companies want to work with us, but because we've been short sighted, .... Healthy oil and gas industry keeps producing a healthy Alaska.

David Gottstein: I've provided written comments Dynamic Capital mange nt capital. Aces provided . . . want to provide incentives to the oil companies. Aces provides a flexible formulaic way to tax. We want oil companies to make more money at higher prices. Devil in details. . . Also don't want to sell resources too cheaply. . . If purveyor rises prices ten percent and loses 5% of customers ahead, but if loses 15% he's behind. Hard to tell right prices from just the oil companies since they have an interest. Now Aces is too aggressive at higher levels. We don't want to do that, but we don't want to sell our resources too cheaply. Our answer thru aces is elegant. Change it from .4% progressive level rise, it could be .4 to .39. .38 etc.
Basically he's saying keep ACES but make careful adjustments within ACES.

Stick with ACES platform and study how to adjust the powerful tools you have...

Jeanine St. John: Been involved in oil and support industry for 31 years, followed every tax change over the years and consider myself pretty well versed on all these policies and I want to be clear, I fully change ACES and the Gov's HB 110.

Paul Kendall: [Got interrupted] Important that public understand - it's time - Alaska is ineffectual. You can't change that we will be taken out of the loop of affecting this. If you are ineffectual, but you have opportunity to breach both worlds and be in special place in 8 years. I'm used to looking people in the eyes when I talk. The world's seven largest auto industries to - Dougherty at ADN refused to publish it - 38 countries supplying oil to USA, they are being used to shape new world order. They surpass your ability to participate and influence. I have 20 projects before me, I don't see how you can run Alaska from Juneau. Impossible to help with 1-3 minute opportunities to talk.

Barbara Winkly: Thank you for considering public input. Speak as long time AK resident in opposition to the bill. I urge legislature to set aside any surplus funds to to fund for infrastructure maintenance. We don't need to spend money in Las Vegas to attract tourists. If we don't save our wildlife, tourists won't come anyway. Don't let Alaska become the superficial goat while oil companies make billions in profit.
Oil tax debate: need to ask if in our best interest or hoodwinked by oil companies and our governor. Other oil countries have higher taxes. Although Parnell says jobs down, but other sources say were' better than ever. Is he being loyal to his prior employer.

Bob Buch: I hope you received info Nov 2010 ADN article. I'm opposed to bill. If the answer is tax reduction, then why didn't oil companies develop when elf was in place. Why give away with no guarantee. Exploration will be status quo. They won't put in any more. Both BP and CP have made $7 billion in profits since 2007. Nothing in Constitution says we should give benefit of our resources to private corporations. Basic service would diminish if funds reduced. Now Alaska is best positioned. Giving money away with no return is not prudent.

Mike Duggan: Glad your fighting spirit not diminished.
Les Gara: Thanks Bob.

Stoltz:
Ben Moore: REsident of ER. I don't have prepared statements. I just want to be here to show my support. I see ACES as taking the shortterm money with long term hurt.


Mr. Boehmer??: Born in Ketchikan 1935, lived in anchorage for 35 years. Vote yes for HB 110.

S: Go to Fairbanks

David Delong: I do not support HB 11o. Unnecessary and excessive giveaway to oil industry. Little correlation between taxation and production. We have taxes but no political risk. Oil industry for last 30 years. Have always tried to lowball. In early 80s we were told the pipeline would be dry by mid 90s. In Gulf going thru wells for second time. Biggest impediment is the pipeline and Alyeska. We need tariff reform. Appearance of impropriety when former employee of CP is now gov and seeking tax release. Oil is finite resource and we should insure we gt max value for it.



Mark Sharp: Thank you. Who requested explicitness? Ms. Fairclough, my specialty is snarking, but I assure you I can be specific. If ever there was a proposal that deserved skepticism of public. Giveaway to states wealthiest corporations. Correlations between paybacks and reinvestment. Will take the money as is their history. World ... not political kickbacks rule investment. Parnell's APOC campaign disclosure. Amount going his way from oil companies is staggering. Citizens have right to honest negotiations and it appears the governor is sitting on the wrong side of the table. Trust Exxon Mobile? I don't think so. This isn't reform, it's a give away. Sick of watching oil money.... while economy ravaged the Gov's top priority is to raid the budget....... can't keep up with him.....

Do something, build something, another year spent in Juneau kicking the can down the road... shot to hell. Is it any wonder how little faith Alaskans have in elected officials. This bill needs to die in committee.

Lisa Herbert: Head of chamber of commerce - promote healthy economic environment, but I am concerned there will be no business to advocate for if we don't change the tax on the oil industry. Deeply concerned about economy of Alaska. With continued decline of production, same problems as last winter when pipeline shurt down. Can we dodge the next bullet. 110 gives greatest opportunity to turn things around. We can turn things around and save the state.

Tammie Wilson: Thanks for testifying.

Paul ?Metz?" In support of HB 110. Endorse comments by ED of Chamber of Commerce as board member.

?? Case: Business. Pretty scared. Significant amount of our business is related to oil business. How can we compete with Canada and North Dakota. Something is not right or the bill would never have been created. If we can get the oil companies back we can secure a good future for our children.

Jeffrey Bacon: APEA - as lifelong Alaskan proud to represent AFEA, 8000 members throughout the state. Disheartens me that our gov took valuable time this session to hurt our economy. Taking money from our state that could be invested in infrastructure and energy help - money which would help every business. Instead of vibrant community, he's taking our money and giving it to oil company shareholders.

David Wellborn: (left)

Jean Trainer: In Alaska 35 years, single parent. look at this $10billion as a giveaway. I think about all the money I saved so my daughter could go to college. If she'd come after hs and said, let me have that $40K you save and well see. Thats what the gov's bill is doing - here' take a tax break and we'll see what happens. It's evidenced by political turmoil in middle east, AK is more attractive to big players. My way of thinking is, don't create a budget shortfall by handing $ to oil executives. I'm opposed.

Buzz Otis??- Here since 1975. We're at a crossroads. Either we encourage development or keep current tax rate and discourage. Lower tax rate will cause new look at our stte. I've been a gambler on Alaska economy. My contracting business still going strong today. I see a struggling Alaska economy. Don't risk them by ringing the last dime out of aces. Pipeline at 1/3 capacity. Take the risk out of doing business in Alaska. In Rep Wilson district.

Richard Feinberg: Thank you. Will follow with documentation. Briefly: Decline in N Slope production is a historical fact, but significance of decline in this political dialog have been grossly exaggerated and current NSlope and TAPS situation widely misperceived Viable quantities of crude remain economically viable to be produced - tangible reality that benefits from existing infrastructure. Reasonable to expect, including TA{S risk, tangible quantities will be produced for an extended period. Numerous empirical indicators that ACES regime is not a problem. I have followed hearings closely. I have yet to hear substantive evidence that tax reduction will spur new development. New discoveries would be wonderful, but uncertain. The reasonable max of state revenue as produced by production tax fiscal regime is wise. Documentation will follow. I hope you will supplant rhetoric with reasoning supported by verifiable and relevant facts.

Tammie Wilson: Are you in favor or against the bill?

Feinberg: Did I not make that clear in every word? I'm very opposed.

Gerald Rafson?? - I've been involved in transportation and planning issues for 30 plus years in AK. Voice my opposition to bill. Giveaway to oil industry money that could be used for interior and bush infrastructure. What we really need than tax reform is tariff reform on the pipeline. Oil companies are greatest impediment with tariff on pipeline. They prevent competition. Legislature should ease that stranglehold on the infrastructure - much more benefit than this bill.

Richard Heieron - Chair of Chamber of Commerce 700+ businesses in Fairbanks. HB 110 top priority for Chamber. Not an expert in the field, just a small business man and obvious to me something needs to change. In past three years 3 major tax changes. It complicates business. News Miner says since 157 billion from oil, a few billion from seafood and timber. In January, piepline was shut down due to leak. within two days of a six months stoppage. All this leads me to Aesop's fable, when people speak in opposition, like dog crossing bridge with bone and sees reflection and opens mouth to get the other bone.

Lorna Shaw: Can't compete with Richard's fable. Strongly in support of 110. Only thing given away is our future. We have a natural resource economy and we need to be sure they are developed. We have to be competitive, attractive for companies to make those investment. We can't just apss around the same few dollars, as chair elect of the chamber, a miner, and parent, urge everyone to pass 110.

Stoltz: How many people in Juneau;

Mary ?Graham - 27 year resident of Alaska, recently retired and watching alot of gavel to gavel . Like the oil companies coming to us asking for allowance and maybe I'll do my chores later. Not in favor of State giving away more billions. I think money can be spent in other areas. We knew these days were coming. That's why we have the permanent fund. We knew we wouldn't be able to subsist on royalties forever. Not as dire as portrayed now. We could use money to invest in renewable sustainable resources.

Stotz: Dad, Democrat,

Barbara Huff-Tuckness - Teamsters, I do want to go on record as suporting the ???. We represent about 6000 members within the state except cruise ship and fishing. And 1000s of retired Teamsters that live in the state. Maybe 100 members still working on slope, surprisingly on Exxon. It goes without say that jobs are important to us. Thanks for opportunity to speak on this. We don't believe this is a partisan bill or union v. non-union work. Impact will affect every worker we represent or don't represent and unemployed. We commend you for your exhaustive time listening to everyone.
Clear that our development is down. Your being asked to change to ACES. We think this should be a strategic plan. We don't have the magic fix, we can relate to jobs our members have lost. NorthSlope production at historic low and you all realize the revenue it brings in. We are concerned with jobs. Need strong economic base, need to be competitive, and we need jobs. What comes out of this committee will help grow our economy and staggered economy. Quoting Begich, reverse the decline of oil. We encourage your due diligence.

Guttenberg: Would I be correct to say you support jobs?

MATSU LIO:

Loreli Carter: Greater Palmer Chamber of Commerce, we passed a resolution supporting HB 110. Tax revenue for oil and gas industry is major source of funds. TAPS at 50% below capacity.

SToltz: Miss Carter ineligible for Baord of Regents

James Crowell: I support 110. Let's become competitive again Oil company only gets one dollar from every barrel. We need to lower the tax rate. We only have one exploratory rig on the north slope. Once the pipeline is pulled out, everyone will leave. Let's become a state once more open for business.

Homer LIO:

Donna Ray Faulkner: STrongly against 110, according to Gov Office, we're seeing increase in exploration. We know the oil companies want to increase their profits. The richest companies in the history of the world want a tax break. But why is the governor supporting this? They won't leave the oil in the ground. It will only get more valuable sitting in the ground. Alaska deserves its fair share of oil value. Why gov wants to drop tax rate well below any other place is beyond me. Defeat this bill and be sure we get fair share of resource profits. Appalled Gov has proposed this rollback and wants to increase oil company profits at expense of Alaskans.

Don McNamara: Represents surfers of Alaska. 110 is poor idea. Crated by a CP lobbyist, doesn't he know who hes working for now. Look at Venezuela. If oil companies don't want to drill, we should do it. There's a huge profit there. Tax rate for ACES now 60%, in Norway 70%, and no one is shooting them in Alaska.

Amy Dombosky?? off net site: Then back to Anchroage.

Anchorage IO:

Brian Clemens: In support of HB 110. Time running short. Best option on table. Please pass 110.

Mike McGuiness: Small oil field related firm. Fully support 110. EVery one stole my material. One underlying issue is not so much the money -0 always about money - but how about the 100,000 jobs at risk if we chase the oil companies out of here. Give the oil companies within reason of what they want. Those of you opposed tellt he 110,000 employed, your selfish.

Mike Baggert: 38 years in Anchorage and oil fields. This down now is almost terminal if it continues. A lot of people won't be here, my firm included. I do support 110

Kevin Derling: South Anchorage, strongly in support of 110. 30+ resident of Alaska, company supports oil industry, military. six month downturn, had to release employees. Asked me to support 110. There are no guarantees in life except death and taxes. Can't guarantee a return. They can guarantee they will stop investing with this tax rate.

Deantha? Crockett; I do support 110. Grew up with parents in the oil industry. I hope tht keeps up for my kids BF works for Alyeska for 15 years. We have plans to live here forever. Friend now works in Bakersfield because lost his oil job. I want to see it pass and reverse the trend.

Katie Kaposy?: In support of 110: Came in 1996 military dad. Didn't expect to marry AF and taken away, but back now Looking to grow roots here. Real fear of making tht decision now. Just don't know if this is a place to buy a house. I've seen a tenth of all the documents you've seen. Overwhelmingly clear. What we have is broken. Needs to be fixed. Something needs to happen now. Don't do nothing. Hope you'll pass it. If you have to make changes, do it to relieve taxes for oil companies.

Karl Portman. Lifelong Alaska, raised in Fairbanks and UA graduate in 1977, worked on pipeline and plan to retire in Alaska. I remember Alaska before TAPS seen Alaska booms and bust. Worried about future. With pipeline now 2/3 empty and premature shut down in ten years or less. Economic Disaster. Depression beyond what hwe have ever experience. ISER study 50% of economy directly tied to oil industry. Nothing else including natural gas can replace this. Funding education, public emplyee pensions. Must improve investment climate. With high oil taxes, just not competitive. We must change that and bring companies back to the state. Trading some oil tax revenue for long term production. Strongly urge passage of 110. Thanks for opportunity to express opinion.

Jed Whittaker: I've been listening. Smartest thing said by Gottstein says, don't throw the baby out with bathwater, but if take a percentage of here or there, best thing. I want to make committee aware of global phenomenon. 2000, 6 billin people. This year there will be 7 billion people. ONe billion more who will need more energy and everything. Increased demand for commodities. Bull market. Foolish to give tax break to most profitable world companies to drill oil when they're already making huge profits. Worst testimony have gloom and doom scenario. Not the case. AK Journal of Commerce March 13. Spanish oil company has committed $768 million for exploration on NSlope. Quote CEO of Repsol: "This deal is perfect fit to balance portfolio with lower risk in stable environment." They don't have a history of buying alsaka legislators on the cheap. Bill Allen is in prison. This 2Billion giveaway is not cognizant of megatrends on the planet. Commodities will increase. Repsol didn't ask for a tax break. Our Gov. just wants to give away 2 billion. Maybe they haven't developed the historical corrupt practices of bribing Alaska legislators.

Scott ?? Also a surfer; STrongly support 110. A lot lost on public at large. Focus on profit oil companies taking out, but when it comes to making investment decision, you'll go where you gt the highest return. That's our problem today. Iagree with last person that oil prices will go up. With ACES, the higher the oil prices go, the less competitive we become to deal with ACES progressivity. We need to become mroe competitive in the world market, than other world areas that are roughly the same risk as here. Relatively low risk compared to middle east and Africa. But production prices high and you add some of the highest taxes in N America, transportation costs etc. makes us uncompetitive. Important to pass 110.

Pete STokes: Live in Rep Holmes district. Grew up in Kenai. Seen from beginning how oil has impacted our state, done wonders for it. Licensed Petroleum Engineer, started in Alaska, been all over Oklahoma Texas Indonesia. All my children are working professionals here. I urge you to pass 110 to allow Alaska competitive, but no guarantees that reduced taxes will guarantee investments, it is more likely. If remains high like they are and production will decline in higher rate. Rather than take a larger piece of this shrinking pie, we should grow the pie. Once there is no oil, no option to fund what we're doing. Except going into permanent fund and income taxes. High paying jobs because of oil industry will be gone. Lot of good jobs going to North Dakota. Not worried about myself. Ive had a good life and retire and become a snowbird and just come back in the summers. I don't want to do that. Want to stay here. Worried about my kids and their kids.

Jason Brune: Resource Development Council ED: RDC is statewide business association oil and gas, mining, tourism, fishing, Native Regional Corporations . Our mission to support strong, diversified economy. Testifying in strong support of HB 110. Testimony from Admiral Barrett [President of Alyeska]. Without change pipeline can shut down in ten years. Fair share we receive is the royalty. That was agreed to by those companies that spent 100s of millions to take the risk. Ever increasing taxes was not in the contract they signed. We are seeing fruits of our labor. Look at Nikaitchuq and Oliktok? - we need two or three of these a year. If oil shuts down, we'll see all the other industries shrink. I'd like to challenge the notion that the large capitol budgets have saved the economy. If TAPs shuts down, there will be no capital budgets.
As co-chair of Parnell's transition team - number one priority should be to deal with Alaska's taxation policy to encourage more investment.

Dugan: Jason, want to say most of the credit for the hearing in Anchorage goes to Bill Stoltz and his staff.

Kerry ???: My company is direct result of the oil industry. We have benefited from exploration and what the North Slope has become. Without the investment dollars to keep Prudhoe Bay viable. We have 14Billion state budget that will not be sustained that without oil money. If not paid for taxes, you'll have to reduce the budget. The people and infrastructure are withering on the vine. I see it on a daily basis what it takes to run TAPS at 1/3 capacity. That recent shutdown, a few more days longer it would have frozen and been shut down till spring. We can't continue on this path to get investment dollars here. We are setting ourselves for failure. I talked to Respol. They are looking at 110. Much of their investment is dependent on 110. Their decisions based on what happens. We need to do something right now. Since this has been in place, we've done nothing but decline. We had 17 before this began. They all shut down due to regulations by the feds or state. If you want to see - we're heading back to 1987 crash. I won't be here for that. I'll just go somewhere else. We employ 30 people and will have to lay off people. With $100 oil and laying off people is ridiculous.

SToltz: Kodiak

Mike Millikan: served on Assembly with Austerman and Stevens. Been in Alaska since ?? worked on the slope. I'm opposed to 110. I appreciate jobs. All of you are aware of what is happening with gas pipeline and fracking. All this money will go to lower 48 fracking. I want to point to Hawker's graph - over 65% of all world wide production comes from a state owned facility. Venezuelans come from state owned facility - they pay 10cents a gallon. Hickel was able to pressure ARCO to continue drilling at Prudhoe because state would take over if they quit. We have to have the possibility of State owned fields so we can have real negotiations.

Cordova:
???: Extensive on both sides. A lot of stuff thrown out and heat. Concern to all of us what we do and how we pay for it. I've worked in oil industry and fishing, lifelong resident. Pick up mixed signals. 22 years ago today was significant day - Exxon Valdez spill. Keep things in perspective. I'm reluctant to see this pushed and suddenly we're in doom and gloom and sky is falling. Having researched oil industry - largest entities on the planets today. Same banks and super rich hold their stocks as our finances rot. Our military supports them around the world. That's our taxes paying for them. We're stuck with oil as it is. Oil companies have been making and breaking oil countries around the world. These are the guys who wrote the maps after WWII. They hold all the cards and they know it. ACES only passed because of the light of corruption until their next pawn, Parnell arrived,
Yeah, I know its a rant. A far cry from Norway, where they have done much better than we have. I on't trust the oil companies. Force us into a corner and we're fighting each other instead of them.

Skip?? - One before us is impact of ACES may or may not have on majors and producers on slope. My opinion that ACES progressivity element is a disincentive and work needs to take place to improve the tax structure and you will modify ACES and I'm in support of 110. I have a son finishing at University and looking to go to work on North Slope.

Mark MacArthur?? - economist, own part of business in textile market, we understand business. In line for tesla motor car. I oppose it. Not good to give money to most profitbale companies on the planet. Will force our state to run a deficit budget. Rather than house bill 110. Why not champion Alaska's own oil company. We need to take more control of our resources, that's our oil they are using to make huge profits. I want to see real competition. Oil Spill in Gulf opened my eyes. Oil companies don't do anything ont heir own - contract it all out. Think how many wells we could drill with $20 billion. Great Bear and Repsol - Our gov and big oil companies want us to think we are closing down. It's a lie.

Ron ??- been here for 35 years. In opposition. Sympathetic to those fearing losing their jobs. I would support the bill if there was any evidence that passing the bill would do the things they say. There is no evidence. 18 - 20 years no relationship between taxation and production. Repsol publicly said they were going to do it because of our stable political environment. Other study says taxation either supports or is neutral. Wagoner has a bill to give them tax credits if they increase productions after not before. We have lots of other projects. There is no benefit cost ratio to support this.

Tom Lakosh - I come to bury Caesar not to praise him. Testimony establishes that it would be unconstitutional to pass 110. You must dispense resources in the public interest. There is no correlation between decreasing taxes and increase productions. Dan Sullivan told you majors told him they would not guarantee production if taxes reduced. Ridiculous and contrary to ethics of a democratic people to try to compete with cannibalistic third world despots who will swing bribery deals with oil companies. That's who you are competing with. Throughout the testimony. The one statement made by a representiative that came to the quick was Mr. Duggan's question. Did the oil majors threaten to let oil pipeline go dry if we didn't give a tax break? They already made that decicion. We've had a horrendous mismanagement of our system. They built a pipeline that turns into an 800 mile sausage. Always have problem of pipeline mismangement and corrosion. When we went through ACES we went through every company. Relied on Norway model. They created their own corporation then bought 68% of ???. Lack of capital while sitting on $39 billion of permanent fund. You have not done your due dilligence. You cannot constitutionally pass 110. Invest the money on refineries and ship product.

Merrick Peirce - Serve on board of Alaska Pipeline Port Authority?? and on Palin-Parnell transition team. Some big picture nubmers. barrels of oil today. about 65% of the value of our PF. We get to keep about $5 or $6 for us and $17 for the industry. You are being asked to give away additional billions. Constitutionally. Almost anything is alternative is better than 110. We could give everyone several hundred a year. Why not take that $2nillion a year. Like Alaska residents told you. Protects us from the extortion of the oil companies. Cleans the air, and affordable energy for military basis. Federal deficits so significant that all the bases vulnerable to closure. Finally we'd get more into the pipeline. I can't keep up with how fast he's talking. We could develop a fund to compete with the Norwegian fund which is near $500 Billion. Or we could act like sharecroppers on our own land. Why would we trust putting our money into hands of multinational corporations.

Fairbanks:

???: 41 year resident. Prof. Emeritus in Environmental and Petroleum engineering. I'm opposed to 110, but I could be convinced to support it with facts. We need jobs. But do you know how many jobs we could create with $2billion. Why $2 billion, why not $1 Billion, $O billion? Is this a one time thing? Absurd to say there are no guarantees in business. Govt. is business and these are our funds. You won't get support without guarantees. Let's amend it and establish an account and let the oil companies apply for funds to explore. Why do they need money to eplore? they know where the money is. The need to produce, not explore. If they apply for money, they need to justify their use. I'm against the proposal as it stands. Or why it has to pass because it's urtent? We've known for 30 years there would be a decline.

Cynthia Tabasco?? - mother grandmother banker and Chamber member - serious concerns about our future. Need to make Alaska competitive. What we're doing isn't working. I want my children to stay here. North Dakota has an abundance of jobs.

Butch Stein : Live in Ester since 1972. Wasn't going to testify because a lot of good testimony has been given, but you're keep track of yeas and neas, so I want to be recorded as a yea. I urge you to pass the bill out of committee.

Randy Griffin': I favor HB 110. We used to have elf, the jacked up ppt, to correct deficiencies of elf. Increase about $1billion. Then new governor, populist, they changed it with ACES partly because of Bill Allen, had nothing to do with oil industry, just a guy who hurt his head in a motorcycle accident. We've lost while North Dakota gained 20,000 jobs. I see pigs going to the trough to slop up. I'm one and in favor of maximizing what we get. Let's be smart pigs. Let's not just maximize short term slop, go for long term slop. Some people say oil companies are just using Alaska as a land bank. I worked for ARCO, just blue collar guy. My experience was they were constantly thinking how to expand and explore. Some low flow, because there is high risk. Some say we don't want to give this tax break because we don't have any guarantee. No one can guarantee. They go back to stockholders - you and I because state is invested in oil companies. I'm in favor of 110 and keep Alaska vioable.

Ken Hall: Lived in Fairbanks all my life, went to school here UAF, three kids. Part of commitment, I'm in Fairbanks Chapter of Support Alliance, and volunteer to make Alaska a better place. I've always worked in private enterprise. We do everything we can to keep things competitive and improve our position with customers. If we don't our competition does. I'm in support of 110. No one wants to give away $2billion. It will make Alaska competitive for the future. Legislature's responsibility to make it competitive. My industry had good month in March. Sold a lot of stuff to Prudhoe. Support bill.

Don Gray: Lived here 40 years, several friends some pro some con. I'm opposed. I remember pre-pipeline days, TAPS, taught history, was in private sector as financial adviser. Where the rubber meets road as far as capitalism is concerned. Hammond, I say with great respect for oil companies, Conoco only one that reports Alaska profits separately. Hammond said we have to remember who owns the oil companies here. Oil companies look out for best interest of their shareholders. Extracted maximum benefit wherever they were - in Kazakhstan or Venezuela, if had to leave, cost of doing business. Cost of
doing business in Alaska is reasonable. Some of these proposals here, read Roger Marx's and Governors, incremental cuts, using brackets, cut not a huge amount, and pretty soon it adds up to real money. A lot of these are tax policy questions beyond my expertise. You have far better experts. David Gottstein said maybe you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. ACES has lots of good features already. This would cost Alaskans lots of money with no guarantee. Oil companies go where the oil is, maximize the profits for their shareholders. I encourage you to not pass it now. Hold it for next year if you have to. Thanks

Matsu LIO

STu Graham" I'm in favor. First step we can take to increase thru put though the pipeline. That's the future of the state, not in gas pipeline. Depends on increasing TAPs throughput. We've show we could do it int he past. There is no guarantee, but we do have opportunity to open window so exploration and development companies can move forward, based on their great risk. My opposition to some of the wording. People talking bout giving away - what we owe is oil in the ground and lease that and tax. We're allowing companies to keep what they have earned. And provide tax revenue, now an excess, a political football. Discussion saying to move it into the permanent fund. they we can't use it for anything It's not our money. It's money that shareholders and oil employees rely on this. Remind that progressivity in ACES is twice what previous governor proposed. Not like were giving anything away, just trimming taxes to reasonable level. Future of Alaska is based on TAPS throughput. We have workforce in Alaska we've trained to produce ont he North Slope. Now those jobs moving to other states. We can move 110 forward.



Geoffrey Humphrey in Anchorage: Speaking in opposition. Not focused on important metrics - profits. Not right way to focus our attention to maximize benefit we see to maximize

Roger Jenkins - Good evening to committee. I am a resident of Spenard, live in Rep Doogan's district. Just read your interview int he Petroleum News. Comes as no surprise to people who know me that I'm for this bill. My earth science background says geologically we have to - geophysical targets in ANWR and off shore in Chukchi and PET4. BEaufort Sea closed violating air quality. ANWR is away from us. Each of you should find on eBay, Don Young's 74 mile pipeline to ANWR. 12 years ago both houses passed bill to open ANWR and president then said it would take ten years. Young laid it all out. Only 74 miles from drilling to terminal of pipeline. We can build a 74 mile pipeline.

SToltz: Roger was member of 14th legislature, hope I will see you at Mulcahy.
Doogan: I'd never dream of trying to tell the truth about you.

Donald Bellamy: new resident of Alaska. engineer, supporting mining and petroleum. I'm envious of people who say they are lifelong Alaskan and I want to make my life hear. Fear we will have to leave. Friend is going to Houston. Someone said 110,000 jobs and their families who will leave. I support anything that will create jobs. Not easy oil Tough to get that developed. When oil is 100 /barrel, and in other places the boom is on. What is it about Alaska that the boom is not on here? What can we do to create growth. If 110 does that I'm 100 % for it.

Chuck Becker:

Buch: Can you hear us? ARe you going to take questions? Young lady has just returned.

Deborah Berlini??: Testifying in support of 110. 35 year Alaskan a couple of kids, single and unemployed. I went to Juneau to support 110. In mid 1980s I was foreclosing on homes due to plummeting oil. I was 20 years old foreclosing 20 homes a week. One para legal, I have foreclosed on 5200 homes in five years. After I returned I researched the year Alaska crashed. I didn't realize how bad things were in 1986. The headlines which stood out: Income plunges. AHFC largest property owners. Budget cuts cut 9000 jobs. Warns of depression. Alaska dug itself out of the crash when prices went up and oil in the pipeline. I want my kids to have the same opportunities. Crying as she says to remember my children.

Chuck Becker: Distinguished members of the committee....I am supportive of 110 retired of commercial service of US this is my personal opinion. ACES is disincentive. ONe exploratory well in 2010 and only one permitted in 2011. Average monthly employment in oil jobs fell by 1000 jobs. .... Many years ago I sold pharmaceutical, I'd tell my physicians ... ACES exceeded optimal affect. Alberta too increased taxes until industry went elsewhere.

Lynette Moreno Hens: I was born in Sitka just before statehood. I'm opposed. The money given away for AGIA was Alaskan money. She wanted to please Canada and also gave away salmon. As ak native I oppose. I've driven cab in Anch for 32 years. I don't represent industry. I drive around and see homeless kids - high school, jr high, and elemntary. I look in their eyes and see they have no hope. Other kids told not pick on them. I know homelss hardships. Ex husband vietname vet, is on the streets. My three grandchildren taken by OCS. This is some of the real problems Alaska residents face. I'm starting a petition to have state sell Alaska oil at cost. Me and Javen Osie are starting this. We know Alaska has an agreement with the oil companies. NOw I see the outcome. I never saw that in this state that we'd have people so greedy who want more and more and more and that's why I'm doing this. Testimony from Kodiak Island - Mark - I know people think this is a charity. How many people give back their permanent fund money? not many. People here tired of paying the middle men - the oil reinery jacking up cost of distribution of Alaska gas. ..... fingers hurt. .. she's reading her petition to the legislature. Gasoline, since we own it, shouldn't cost more than $1.50 a gallon. They expect $5/gallon.

Yolanda Delacruz - I oppose 110. This administration who support exploration want to give away $2billion. Sarah Palin already gave away $500 million to Trans Canada. Time for legislators to work for all Alaskans. Time to stop this manipulation and control. Thank you very much.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Iditarod Winner Is In - Next Event Redistricting The Legislature

The Iditarod winners have crossed the finish line in Nome today. Kotzebue's John Baker, an Alaska Native, won in record time. He was followed by Ramey Smyth of Willow and later Hans Gatt.

The next big race in Alaska begins as the Alaska Redistricting Board received the Official US Census Data today. While this race won't get the widespread attention of the Iditarod, it is arguably of far more consequence to Alaskans and the nation.

 

The Objective:
 
To create House and Senate Districts that are roughly equal in population and meet legal prohibitions against discrimination.  Alaska is one of 16 states monitored under the Federal Voting Rights Act.
Section 5 is a special provision of the statute (42 U.S.C. 1973c) that requires state and local governments in certain parts of the country to get federal approval (known as"preclearance") before implementing any changes they want to make in their voting procedures: anything from moving a polling place to changing district lines in the county. [emphasis added]
In Alaska's case, we are in this category because of violations of voting rights for Alaska Natives.  And the districts that would lose votes are in the rural areas with larger Alaska Native populations.  So, any changes in those districts will get special federal scrutiny to be sure that Alaska Native voting rights are not diminished.
Last spring I wrote about this while covering a proposed Constitutional Amendment that would have increased the number of representatives in Alaska.  There are a lot more details about the parameters of redistricting there.



The Time:

The State Constitution gives the Board 30 days to submit the redistricting plan after they receive the Census data, which came March 15, 2011.  But, as in the past, there are sure to be challenges to whatever they come up with.

Within thirty days after the official reporting of the decennial census of the United States or thirty days after being duly appointed, whichever occurs last, the board shall adopt one or more proposed redistricting plans. The board shall hold public hearings on the proposed plan, or, if no single proposed plan is agreed on, on all plans proposed by the board. No later than ninety days after the board has been appointed and the official reporting of the decennial census of the United States, the board shall adopt a final redistricting plan and issue a proclamation of redistricting. The final plan shall set out boundaries of house and senate districts and shall be effective for the election of members of the legislature until after the official reporting of the next decennial census of the United States. (b) Adoption of a final redistricting plan shall require the affirmative votes of three members of the Redistricting Board. [Amended 1998]


The Players:

The State Senate President got to appoint one member and he chose:
Robert B. Brodie, a real estate broker from Kodiak.




Photo from AKRepublicans
Speaker of the House appointed nursery owner and former Republican state rep from Fairbanks, Jim Holm.  Democrat Scott Kawasaki defeated him in 2006.  An old legislative page says he was born July 15, 1945 in Glendale, California and that he graduated from Lathrop High School in 1963 and attended the University of Alaska Fairbanks from 1964 - 1990.








Photo from Nana Website
Chief Justice  of the Alaska Supreme Court chose Marie Kasannaaluk Greene, Kotzebue, and President and CEO of the NANA Regional Corporation.  Maybe Baker can give her some winning advice. 






Photo: ACH Consulting
The Governor got to make two appointments.  PeggyAnn McConnochie of Juneau, is a real estate broker and President of ACH  Consulting, where it appears that she teaches seminars in real estate and does personal coaching to people in the real estate business.





From 1998 Election Guide
The governor's second appointment was former State Senator from the Kenai Peninsula, John C. Torgerson.  Torgeson was born October 21, 1947 in Iowa City, Iowa and got his GED through the US Army High School in 1966.  (There's a lot more easily accessible information on former legislators.)  His occupation is listed as Retail Business Owner/Operator.  You can see all his government and association affiliations (at least older ones) here.



There are a lot of other interested parties, but the Board officially makes the decisions.  If you pay attention to Alaskan politics, you might have already figured out that this event is pretty well greased.  The State Senate President, the State House Chair, and the Governor are all Republicans.  State Supreme Court Justices aren't identified by party, but my sense of Chief Justice John Carpenetti is that he's somewhat to the left of the other four.  But it means Republicans chose at least four of the five board members.


What are the Rules?

The official goal is simply to create districts that have roughly equal populations. The Census report says the:
2010 ideal district size of 17,755 is determined by dividing the Census 2010 statewide population (710,231) by Alaska's 40 house districts (710,231/40 = 17,755)
So they are aiming to put together 40 districts with 17,755 people in each.  That, of course, isn't all that easy.  There are some rules for the districts.

The Alaska Constitution, Article 6, spells out requirements for house and senate districts.


[NOTE:  I like these boxes because they highlight key points for people, but they aren't accessible to the blind because they are images, but the technology they have can only read text.  For any blind readers, the text of this box is from Article 6, Section 6 of the Alaska Constitution.  Also, ignore the last bracketed information.  The box is from the post I did last year when the Legislature passed a Constitutional Amendment to increase the size of the House to 44.  But the Amendment was defeated in the August primary.]

And for the Senate:




What does 'integrated socio-economic area" mean?  The Brennan Center lists the language above from the Alaska Constitution along with language from 23 other states and says they are versions of the idea of "community of interest."
Several redistricting criteria — like following county or municipal lines, or drawing districts that are compact — are in some ways proxies for finding communities of common interest. These are groups of individuals who are likely to have similar legislative concerns, and who might therefore benefit from cohesive representation in the legislature.
 I'm not sure how this criterion can even be met in Anchorage where many different types of communities - ethnically, politically, economically, etc. - live side by side.   Maybe they are united in their urban view of the world.

You can go to all of Article VI of the Constitution with all the rules for the reapportionment.
[The Constitution calls it Reapportionment, but it's done by the Redistricting Board.]

Anyway, you can see this isn't going to be easy.


But there is one more catch.  Whichever party is in charge - and this time the Republicans have at least a four to one majority - will try to shape the districts so that as many of them as possible will elect representatives or senators from their party.  This tradition goes back a long way in the United States and is called gerrymandering.  Wikipedia tells us where the name comes from:
The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette newspaper on March 26, 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under the then governor Elbridge Gerry (pronounced /ˈɡɛri/; 1744–1814). In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander.



So, What Are The Numbers?

That comes in the next post on this.


What Are The Stakes?

We can assume that although Wikipedia says
Gerrymandering is a practice of political corruption that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating geographic boundaries to create partisan, incumbent-protected, and neutral districts
we cam be sure this very partisan board (at least in numbers, I really don't know any of the players)  will do its best to add to the Republican majority in the House and attempt to break the 10-10 tie in the Senate.

There is also the looming loss of rural representatives.  Alaska already has the largest House district and Senate district in the U.S.  Traveling to meet constituents in these large, roadless districts is extremely expensive.  In contrast, some Anchorage legislators can walk across their districts in a couple of hours.  There is also concern by some that Alaska Natives will lose some of their representation in the legislature.  They do have the Federal government watching out on their behalf through the Voting Rights Act.


So, now that the Iditarod's top winners have crossed the finish line, it's now time to start focusing on the next great race:  REDISTRICTING.


How to Participate
The Alaska Redistricting Board website says they meet

Wednesday morning March 16, 10:30am – 12:30pm


411 W 4th Avenue Suite 302, Anchorage, AK 99501 (map)

The meeting will be open to the public. If you plan to attend and need special accommodations, please contact 907-269-7402.
 If you can't come, but can call in, here are the numbers:
Instructions for Teleconference Connection: Dial (907) 465-4648 or toll-free at (800) 478-4648. Ask the operator to connect you with the "Alaska Redistricting Board meeting." The operator will require each participant to state their name and indicate whether they intend to offer public comment or join the meeting as a listener only. Please call no later than 10:25 a.m.

They also have a Facebook page.

Tuesday, March 08, 2011

What Happens at Energy Council? Here's Rep. Berta Gardner's Take

About 28 Alaskan legislators went to DC for the "Energy Council" Conference in Washington DC last week. I did a short post on this last week, but most information I could find seemed to be the same descriptions being quoted and requoted. I couldn't find an "Energy Council" website. I did find PNWER - Pacific Northwest Economic Region but I couldn't find any clear links between it and the Energy Conference. I mention this because Rep. Gardner mentioned PNWER as the sponsor. Their site presents them as a non-partisan coalition of states and provinces, not as an industry backed organization.

But Gardner did say the conference is a conservative, pro-development organization and that she was disappointed at the 'gratuitous attacks' on the Obama administration. It's not clear to me at all who organized and paid for the conference, but the Alaska legislators who went used state money to go. Gardner said (not on the video) that the House Minority decides how its travel money is spent.

A key point Gardner made was that they did a lot more than energy issues while in DC.  They took advantage of the trip to talk to national level legislators about a myriad of issues important to Alaska.  You can hear her take on the conference in the video tape below.  It's about ten minutes long so I've taken advantage of Viddler's comments function to mark different topics.  There are little white dots on the blue play bar under the video.  If you put the cursor over the dots, you can see the topics I've marked.  (Actually, anyone can add a comment, so if anyone does, there will be more dots.)




I did ask, off camera, about legislators getting a slanted view since they are getting the story from one side. She said that can be a problem if legislators don't know enough about the topic or aren't critical. In one part of the video Gardner talks about shale gas in Pennsylvania and how much progress the industry has made on this. I wonder what she'd say about this if a more balanced presentation were made. (She does say air pollution is becoming a big problem with this technology.)

Others I've talked to question state money (they said tax payer money, but, of course, individuals do not pay state taxes in Alaska) going to send legislators to industry sponsored conferences like this. I see no problem if the same legislators also go to hear what the other side has to say. After all, we elect officials to become educated on the issues. If they aren't smart enough to get it, that's the fault of the voters, isn't it?

Monday, March 07, 2011

Todd Poage on Tok School Biomass Project

I've said this many times, but once again, if you hang around the State Capitol and talk to folks, you'll meet lots of interesting people doing interesting things. 

Here's Todd Poage, Superintendent of the Alaska Gateway School District talking about the Tok School Biomass Project. 



I asked for a link to a website, but instead got a newsprint size paper with bits and pieces of information and photos.  Things like:
  • The Eagle Trail Fire incinerated more forest fuel in five hours than the biomass boiler at Tok School will use in 30 years
  • Tok Forestry recommends the removal of 200 acres of hazardous [I think this means it's a fire danger] fuel each year.
  • The costs of heating Tok School with an oil furnace averages $12,600 per month at current oil prices.  
  • The costs of heating Tok School thru biomass, at $40 per ton, averages $3200 per month.

Others have covered this.  The Alaska Journal of Commerce wrote Dec. 10:

...In the past 25 years, nearly 2 million acres in the area have burned, costing more than $60 million in fire suppression and causing six evacuations, according to the state. Last year, the Eagle Trail fire scorched 18,000 acres.

"The fire history in Tok has basically demonstrated that Tok is going to burn unless we take action," said Jeff Hermanns, Tok area forester and a spearhead of the boiler project.

A recent wildfire protection plan recommended that 3,000 acres of black and white spruce forest in Tok be removed to make the community safer, including an area around the school, Hermanns said. Foresters usually try to sell or repurpose good wood, but the trees were junk wood, he said.

"Most of them aren't any bigger than three inches. Most people won't cut that tree for firewood. It's too small. You can't sell board out of it," Hermanns said.

Foresters thinned 100 acres of trees around the school and stacked them into decks. Then they set them on fire, a pricey and smoky last resort.

"All of those BTUs, all of that energy, just went up in smoke," Hermanns said. "By the school using this material, it's saving me a minimum of $1,000 an acre."...

Green Turbine, a Dutch blog that appears linked to a company that makes small turbines reposted some of the Journal article.

Putting this into a larger context is a 2009 United States Department of Agriculture report on Wood Energy in Alaska:  A Case Study Evaluation of Selected Facilities.  Here's the abstract:
Nicholls, David. 2009. Wood energy in Alaska—case study evaluations of selected facilities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-793. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 33 p. 
Biomass resources in Alaska are extensive and diverse, comprising millions of acres of standing small-diameter trees, diseased or dead trees, and trees having low- grade timber. Limited amounts of logging and mill residues, urban wood residues, and waste products are also available. Recent wildfires in interior Alaska have left substantial volumes of burned timber, potentially usable for biomass energy. Moti- vated, in part, by rising fuel prices, organizations across the state—including busi- nesses, schools, and government agencies—have all expressed an interest in wood energy applications. Numerous sites have pursued feasibility studies or engineering design analysis, and others have moved forward with project construction. Recent advances in biomass utilization in Alaska have been enabled by numerous factors, and involve various fuel sources, scales of operation, and end products. Already, thermal wood energy systems are using sawmill residues to heat lumber dry kilns, and a public school heating system is in operation. Management policies on national forests and state forests in Alaska could determine the type and amounts of available biomass from managed forests, from wildland-urban interface regions, and from salvage timber operations. Biomass products in Alaska having potential for development are as diverse as wood pellets, cordwood (firewood), compost, wood-plastic composite products, and liquid fuels. In addition, new technologies are allowing for more efficient use of biomass resources for heating and electrical generation at scales appropriate for community power. This case study review con- siders successes and lessons learned from current wood energy systems in Alaska, and also considers opportunities for future bioenergy development.
Keywords: Alaska, biomass, bioenergy, wood energy, renewable, cordwood, sawmill residues.

Saturday, March 05, 2011

New Hampshire Bill Would Make TSA Patdowns Sexual Assault

I've been reading so much stuff on the TSA 'enhanced Pat-Down" (enhanced is supposed to mean made better, isn't it?) that my head feels clotted with all the information and I'm trying to figure out where and how to write about this coherently.   A series of short specific posts seems the better approach - more focused, more likely to be read.  But an integrated look at the big picture needs to part of this too. 

I'm at the point where I believe it is truly outrageous for people who have a medical prosthetic to be singled out for the new scanner and the 'pat-down' without any other reason to believe they are terrorists.  (The 'without any other reason' is important.) In fact, with strong reasons to believe they are NOT terrorists.  I read today a story in one of the emails to Rep. Cissna's from a woman who'd just had a mastectomy
"I had two very aggressive TSA officers in _____ insist that they were going to rifle through my bandages to look for explosives.  I finally just pulled up my shirt and let them look at the tubes, bandages and blood collectors, and felt completely humiliated.  It had been less than a week since my double mastectomy and removal of my ovaries, (in fact I still had drains in, and my hospital ID bracelet on my wrist) and I was not in the mood for any of it.  I just wanted to get home, as I was in soooo much pain from all of the traveling."
This was two years ago - before the new enhanced 'pat-downs.' That's just one of many similar stories, though a bit more graphic than most.  You can see how common sense is not allowed to interfere with the rules that require . . . well I'm not sure what the rules require.  It seems the rules require that if you have metal in you, you get both a body-scan AND a pat-down. Even if you travel weekly.  Even if you have a card from your doctor.  Even if a cursory check online would show you to be someone in a responsible position and a pillar of the your local American community.  The machine, not reason, decides you must be searched. 

An aside:  I also found a law suit making pretty much the same argument - that scanners that show your nude body and pat-downs should not be the primary screening method to travel by air in the US.  I'll do another post on that. 

I just wanted to give you some context for why I'm sympathetic to the sentiment behind this new legislation.  I'm not sure this is the best way to go - it clearly would set up a show-down between federal and state agents - but it's a sign of how strongly people feel and how powerless they feel.  The March 1 report from WMUR New Hampshire says there's little support for this bill.

CONCORD, N.H. -- Lawmakers and residents engaged in heated debate Tuesday over a bill that would make random airport security pat-downs and body scans criminal in New Hampshire.

The bill (HB628-FN) "makes the touching or viewing with a technological device of a person’s breasts or genitals by a government security agent without probable cause a sexual assault," according to the introductory text of the bill.

"Let's put their name on the sex offender registry, and maybe that will tell them New Hampshire means business," said bill co-sponsor Rep. Andrew Manuse, R-Derry.

"That is a crime in this state, and we should charge them every single time," said bill co-sponsor Rep. George Lambert, R-Litchfield.

There's video at the link as well.

Alaska State Rep. Pete Petersen on Peace Corps' 50th Anniversary

This past week, March 1, 2011 to be exact, marked the 50th Anniversary of John F. Kennedy signing into law the US Peace Corps.  There is a lot happening all year and Alaskan Returned Peace Corps Volunteers (RPCVs ) are planning a number of events. 

The only Alaska legislator I can find who is also an RPCV is Pete Petersen.  He served as an agricultural volunteer (he grew up on a farm in Iowa) in the Dominican Republic.  I talked to him about what he'd gotten out of the Peace Corps.  My sound card was full Thursday, so I went back again on Friday.  But I only got a bit of our conversation on video.  Here's a bit of that bit. 

Friday, March 04, 2011

One Person Making a Difference - The Iron Dog and Suicide Prevention in Rural Alaska

There are so many issues to write about here in Juneau when you wander around the Capitol.  It's hard to know where to start and how to shape a post so it reaches people.  I'm just going to throw this one out and try to follow up with more on it.

I've been talking to an ordinary, remarkable woman who works in Rep. Alan Dick's office.  After noting a rash of suicides by young men in rural Alaska in a short period, she got desperate.  She and her husband own the village store in Tanana and she sees and hears a lot from all the people coming into the store.

While legislators sit in Juneau and argue abstractly about wording, and worry about who will get credit for a bill, and how it all will affect their next election, Cynthia couldn't stand it any more and last November she sent this letter:

November 20, 2010

Dear Family and Friends,

I am writing a letter with sadness and concern. Many of you have heard of our rash of suicides in our Alaskan Villages, all young men; many our friends and dear family members. In a village, especially with us in our store business, you see these baby boys grow into young men and they are part of your everyday life year round. This is a serious epidemic in all rural Alaska villages: we need to do something immediately. We need to start talking about it! Everyone needs to step out of their comfort zones, stop being self-centered and selfish. We need to go beyond the call of duty to help our children, and village to survive this disaster. There are many people who should be doing something and they are NOT! We as individuals, moms, dads and concerned community members need to bring this demon to light, and the time is now! Actually, yesterday!

Our family has been part of the Iron Dog Snow Machine race, a group of wonderful, hard-working young men, who a lot of our your village boys look up to; they come to the store to pour over the Iron Dog Racing Pamphlet. They pick out their favorite racers, get to the computer to follow their teams and run to the riverbanks to meet and greet them. These racing men are celebrities among the groups of children in the different rural communities. They look up to these men as Heroes. I approached last years Iron Dog Champions; Tyler Huntington of Galena and Chris Olds of Eagle River about this issue of suicide. These two young aspiring athletes are willing to take on the huge task of educating and bringing awareness to the prevention of suicide. I am in the early stage with the boys; developing a strategy to attack this huge problem. I am wishfully thinking, dreaming, kicking around ideas and talking out loud to you about a plan I foresee to help with this cause.

Let’s establish a bank account for donations, get the boys sports cards with their pictures on the snow machines “Team 10” on the back have a catchy phrase such as “take a ride to prevent suicide!” include prevention hotlines, and phone numbers for crisis centers in Alaska or whatever is appropriate. We can have the boys handout the cards and talk in villages with their layovers—McGrath, Galena, Unalakleet, Nome, Tanana etc. We should go to all the newspapers—statewide (Nome, Bethel, Barrow etc.) and publicize this. I would like the funds raised for the awareness be used for a HUGE Educational and Awareness Summit in Galena. I’ve chosen Galena because one, it’s Tyler’s home town; two, there are two hundred rural youth from all over Alaska at the Galena Interior Learning Academy; plus a another school uptown ranging from grades K-12. Galena is also surrounded by many villages in the Yukon—Koyukuk Region that is plagued with this epidemic. This reminds me of the Iditarod race, where people are dying and we all need to work together to get the medicine to our villages to save our children.

What is the future of out villages when we have no young men to lead us? No elder Native men to guide love and nurture our children. Our future looks dim today, it’s very sad. I believe this gathering should bring our problem to light, families are a key and foundation, and they should be included! We need professional people, counselors (esp. Family Counseling), inspirational speakers, young leaders who have succeeded to tell their stories. Open forum discussions, as communities what are we doing wrong? How can we as individuals help? What can we look for? We need an infrastructure put in place to continue support; training needs to be assimilated in the program. We cannot go to meetings, get free travel, free hotels, free car rentals and per diem and not bring anything home to benefit our children and the future survival of our homes. We need to walk our talk, get out from our computer desks; let’s start putting pieces of our puzzle back together; make us whole again.

Initially our Native people were the toughest of the tough! Made to go an extra mile to survive the harshest environments; but look at us today! We are in a slow downward spiral, our children are dying and we are walking away as they cry and need our help. I would like all of you to seriously read this, pray and ponder about it. Do some soul searching; find what you as an individual can do in your corner of the world. Let’s band together as a whole to follow this mission through. Please call or email me, if you can contribute to our mission.

I’ve discussed this with Tyler and Chris, The Iron Dog Director and the Galena School. If any of you know of any financial assistance, donations, grants, counselors, speakers, family counselors etc. in your city, tribal, state or federal offices ask for help; anything will help. I am open to all assistance and suggestions; it will be greatly appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to read this, please make it your mission. Hopefully through all of our unselfish contributions we can make a good change for our children’s future. It’s time to go to war, get your troops together and meet me on the front lines.

With Much Love,

Cynthia Erickson and Family

P.S. I have e-mailed this to my circle of friends and family, please forward this on to yours.

Once she got started, others helped.  There was a second letter and Cynthia started connecting.  The State of Alaska Suicide Prevention Council got involved and now has information on their webpage about the Iron Dog Suicide Prevention program.


But there is still a lot to do and Cynthia is busy making lists of villages and contacts.  This has to have the cooperation of the villages, but suicide is just one of the symptoms of other problems.  Coming down to Juneau to work in Rep. Dick's office was another big decision for her to meet people who can help change how the State works with rural Alaska. 

I realize this post sounds pretty glowing and I acknowledge that most of the information I got was from Cynthia herself.  But she's pretty convincing and I'm hoping to get some video of her so you can see for yourself why she's got me enthusiastic about this.  She lives in the middle of the problems.  She knows that silence has been a big enemy.  And she knows she has to find ways to break the silence so that people will do something instead of looking away. 

And I would also say that Cynthia wasn't real happy about my taking a picture or focusing on her.  But she's so committed to ending youth suicides that she's let me do this.

How much of a difference has this made?  I'm not sure.  Maybe there are people out there in rural Alaska who can comment on this.

Thursday, March 03, 2011

"It's like being a 5 year old trying to catch up . . ." New Rep. Alan Dick

I met new District 6 (Interior Alaska north of Fairbanks) representative Alan Dick today and asked him what it is like getting started in Juneau.   Here's what he said:



He defeated Democratic incumbent Woodie Salmon in November.  District 6 is the largest state house district in the US according to a Christopher Eshelman article in the Fairbanks Newsminer on Rep. Dick.

Capitol's Quiet - Lawmakers at Energy Council in DC


That's from one of the many tv monitors scrolling the meeting schedules in the Capitol.

BASIS - the Legislative website - tells it more clearly in the adjournment announcements for both houses of the legislature.


Checking today with the Legislative Affairs Office,  I learned that 14 of the 20 State Senators have traveled to Washington for the Energy Council Conference:

Senator John Coghill (R)
Senator Fred Dyson (R)
Senator Cathy Giessel (R)
Senator Charlie Huggins (R)
Senator Lesil McGuire (R)
Senator Linda Menard (R)
Senator Bert Stedman (R)
Senator Gary Stevens (R)
Senator Joe Thomas (R)
Senator Tom Wagoner (R)
Senator Johnny Ellis (D)
Senator Lyman Hoffman (D)
Senator Donny Olson (D)
Senator Joe Paskvan (D)

And 14 of the 40 members of the House went

Rep. Tammie Wilson (R)
Rep. Anna Fairclough (R)
Rep. Eric Feige (R)
Rep. Carl Gatto (R)
Rep. Craig Johnson (R)
Rep. Bob Lynn (R)
Rep. Lance Pruitt (R)
Rep. Dan Saddler (R)
Rep. Paul Seaton (R)
Rep. Reggie Joule (D) (But part of the House Majority)

Rep. Chris Tuck (D)
Rep. Scott Kawasaki (D)
Rep. Neal Foster (D)
Rep. Berta Gardner (D)


It's not easy finding hard information online about the "Energy Council" Conference.  People seem to have pretty much the same blurb as this one from a Tim Bradner piece at the Alaska Journal of Commerce:
The council is an association of legislators from energy-producing states, Alberta and one foreign nation, Venezuela.
Senate President Gary Stevens said legislative leaders will hold a press conference while the state's lawmakers are in the nation's capital to talk about what they are doing, and will hold another press conference when they return to Juneau to explain what they accomplished.
Besides the meetings of the council itself the Alaska lawmakers will also meet with important federal officials, such as at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the agency that regulates pipelines and hydroelectric projects, both important in Alaska. [I guess Canada isn't a foreign nation.]
For a bit more, Representative Joe Green wrote about the 2002 Energy Council and House Minority Leader Beth Kerttula wrote about the 2010 Conference.

Wednesday, March 02, 2011

Keeping Track of Education in the Legislature with Shana Crondahl

I've been getting comments from Shana Crondahl for a while now on this blog - particularly last year when I was in Juneau.  So I thought while I was down here it would be a good idea to get in contact with her.

She's from Juneau and knows her way around the legislature and her job is writing a newsletter on education issues going through the legislature.  She also started a blog which she updates now and then. (Since I only have the ten most recently updated blogs in the Alaska Blogs section on the right, it only pops up now and then when she makes an update, but you can go to it here.  The blog is just a teaser for the much more complete reports she does.)

We had lunch at the Silverbow.  It's still cold and windy here.  (Someone told me about flying in and it got so bumpy at 30,000 feet that the flight attendants just kneeled on the floor and held onto their carts.)  So I wanted a hot soup.

Here's a video I took at the end.  I caught her a bit by surprise, but she was a good sport.  I should have been paying more attention to those lights, sorry.



If you're interested in learning more about the Alaska Education Update the contact information is in the title box at the top of the blog.

Monday, February 28, 2011

Cold Wind, Overlapping Roles, University Boosters Caucus, Blogging

I saw on BASIS that the new UAA Chancellor Tom Case was going to be in Juneau today.

(S)UNIVERSITY BOOSTERS CAUCUS OTHER COMMITTEE *
Feb 28 Monday 4:00 PM CAPITOL 106
Special Legislative Briefing:
Welcoming Chancellor Brian Rogers of UAF,
Outgoing Chancellor Fran Ulmer and Incoming
Chancellor Tom Case of UAA, and Chancellor
John Pugh of UAS
Final Update from Chancellor Ulmer and
Celebration of her Career in Public Service
Being a blogger sometimes puts me in conflict with other roles I have.  With my children, it's clear.  They are mentioned only when necessary, not by name, briefly, and if more than that, with their permission.   But I've been blogging about the UAA chancellor search that picked Tom Case.  As a former faculty member at UAA who served under then Dean Tom Case, I was in a potentially awkward position.  I didn't hesitate to identify my relationship with Case and the fact that my experience suggested his integrity was not something I questioned.  But I hadn't talked to him since last March (or April)  and I did feel the need to talk to him about all this.



So, I took off into the piercing downtown Juneau wind - it got colder and windier since I posted the video of Saturday's wind.  But whatever loose snow there was to make that Saturday video convincing has been blown away.  Sunday we were going to walk the seven or eight blocks to the Nickelodeon to the see the Academy Award nominated animated shorts, and the wind was so strong, we turned back and drove.  It wasn't as bad today, but it still is a factor to calculate as you take each step.   



I did get to see Tom Case and we did get to spend some 'quality time' together and affirm our respect for each other and I got to identify my concerns - which he indicated he'd already read.  I don't think there is much to blog about here.  I did say I was talking to him in various capacities.  More it was a private checking-in between two people who haven't talked for a while and making sure we were both still ok with things.  I know he learned a lot as dean and I know that he was already more sensitive to academic culture than President Gamble has so far proven to be.  He also assured me that President Gamble has learned a lot in the last month. 

For *Photo Details See Below
The Booster Caucus is basically Senators and Representatives who support the University - mainly from the three main campus sites of Fairbanks, Juneau, and Anchorage.  Today's main activity was to honor outgoing UAA Chancellor Fran Ulmer.  Ulmer's career has included being city council member and mayor of Juneau, state legislator from Juneau, Lt. Gov., head of the Institute for Social and Economic Research at UAA, and Chancellor of UAA.  But that's just a list.  She is one extremely smart, efficient, and personable person who has impressed me since I first met her.  If only the world had seen Fran Ulmer as a representative of Alaska instead of a certain former Governor, they would have seen a one of the many extremely talented women leaders whose hard work in support of Alaska has helped make us as good as we are.

You don't have to take my word for this. You can see Ulmer for yourself wearing yet another hat - member of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling - when she spoke in the Capitol today at lunch.  




*Photo Details:  From right to left - Sen. Linda Menard, UAS Chancellor John Pugh, UAA Chancellor Fran Ulmer, UAF Chancellor Brian Rogers, incoming UAA Chancellor Tom Case, Rep. David Guttenberg, and Rep Sharon Cissna

(OK, I had a couple of pictures.  One close and one with more people in it.  The close one wasn't as clearly focused as this one.  So, instead of having two of the same picture, I opted to cut most of the others out so you could see the four chancellors up close.  But, it turned out that Sharon Cissna was on the edge of this.  Since I've done several posts on her this week already, I didn't think I needed her in this one as well.  But cutting her out would have cropped the picture too closely.  Now that I've said all this, I guess I should show you what the original picture looked like before I cropped it.

The extra people on the left (excluding the photographer) are Sen. Joe Thomas and  Rep. Bill Stoltz and on the right side (l-r) Reps. Pete Petersen, Tammie Wilson, Anna Fairclough, and Sen. Johnny Ellis.)