"The state [of Alaska] Public Health Laboratories had more than 1600 kits as of Tuesday."

Since I haven't seen this number anywhere, I thought I'd post it now.  It came in an email from Deputy Director, Alaska Division of Public Health Jill Lewis in response to my direct question about how many tests we had.  Last week she'd mention the number 500 tests.  So this time I asked:

"Do you have any updates on the number of tests Alaska has? (The state website has now reported that over 500 tests have been given.)"

So, once again:

"The state Public Health Laboratories had more than 1600 kits as of Tuesday [March 17,2020]."

She didn't mention commercial labs and whether they have additional tests.

Alaska COVID-19 Update 3 More Positives For A Total Of 6 Since Friday [Updated With COVID-19 Video Showing Progression of V]

NOTE:  Today's update says it was updated yesterday at 7pm instead of today at 12:30pm, so these added numbers don't reflect 24 hours since the last posting.

This chart and the one at the bottom from here.

[UPDATED March 18, 2020 8:20pm:  Since the announcement above is listed as being posted at 7pm on March 17, and there was no new one today when I looked after today's scheduled post - I used it and assume it would cover for today.  But since yesterday's was posted at 7pm, I thought I'd check.  And sure enough there's a new update from 12:30pm today.  I checked and I got mine at 12:43pm so there's might have been posted shortly after that.  It looks pretty much the same.

Maybe that just had the wrong time stamp on it and fixed it.  But it's really helpful to notify readers why you made a change - in this case the date and time have been changed.

Meanwhile, three more cases have been reported in the news today.  Based on the video below and other writers, I'm expecting the number of positives to jump pretty quickly in the next week or two.]

In the last few days we've gone from 0 positives, to 1 positive, to 3, then to 6.  Since only a tiny percent of our population has been tested, I expect that numbers will start to go up quickly once testing is more widespread.  Meanwhile people are out and about without knowing if they are positive or negative.

I saw a distinction yesterday between diagnostic testing (to determine a patient's treatment) and surveillance testing (to keep track of the overall spread of the virus in the community.)  It seems to me that Alaska has focused on diagnostic testing.

Here's my update from the numbers I put up yesterday.  I'm trying to track this on a continuous basis so people can see the daily and weekly increases in people tested and results.  As I do these, only the last column should change each day.  I'd note again, that 'today's' posting says it was posted yesterday at 7pm.  (The notice has said everyday they'll post at 12:30pm daily weekdays).  So, technically, there are two posting from yesterday, so the increase is only up to 7pm yesterday.  And the increase is more for half a day.

Alaska Covid-19 Data by Steve on Scribd

This report also had a new chart attached to it that gives overall numbers.

Region*	Travel-Related**	Close Contact	Total
Anchorage	2	0	2
Gulf Coast	0	0	0
Interior	3	0	3
Mat-Su	0	0	0
Northern	0	0	0
Southeast	1	0	1
Southwest	0	0	0
TOTAL	6	0	6

 *Economic regions definitions

**Exposure/source of the virus was outside of Alaska.

You'll see the state is perhaps trying to console us by pointing out that all the cases are people who traveled and brought the virus back to Alaska.  But we don't know how many people they interacted with before they were tested and isolated.


[UPDATE 5:44pm]

The video below does a good job of showing (based on Wuhan data) how many actual cases there are compared to the identified cases, for various reasons.  One could argue this doesn't apply so well to us here in Alaska because, so far, the cases were brought in from Outside.  (All the more reason to be screening passengers on Alaska bound jets.  Our geographic isolation makes it relatively easier to check on people entering the state.)  But as people bring the virus in and spread it before getting sick, we're going to see similar dynamics.

2 More Positive Alaska Tests - Trying To Track COVID-19 In Alaska

The state COVID-19 page replaces yesterday's data with today's data.  So unless you've been screen-saving or otherwise saving the data each day, there's no real way I've found to keep track of things.  So in this post I'm adding a table that allows you to see testing numbers and results over time.

But first, today's report:

Two new confirmed cases showed up in Fairbanks.  According to the State 334 people have been tested.  I have not been able to get an answer to the question:  how many tests does Alaska have and how many do we expect to have soon?   The original number that was bandied about was 500.  We're 166 shy of that number.  It's not clear why people are being cagey about numbers of available tests.

Anyway, here's my first stab at tracking the tests:

Alaska Covid-19 Data by Steve on Scribd

Is everyone who should be tested getting tested?  This Tweet suggests that access to doctors and cost is a factor that might be limiting who gets tested.

Talked to a friend today. She has coworkers who suspect have COVID. They have no health insurance, so won’t/can’t get tested. Oh yeah they work in food service industry

— Sam Snyder (@builditbiggerak) March 17, 2020

107 More Negative Tests In Alaska - Message From Italy On What To Expect

This was posted by the state Friday - 143 people had tested negative and one positive.  That was an increase of one positive and 84 negatives since the day before (I only know this because I had a screen shot from Thursday).  And the day before was the total since January 1.  So they had rapidly increased the testing - more than doubling the people tested.

So here's today's numbers:

They don't post these numbers over the weekend.  All we know is that since the Friday post, they've tested another 107 people all of whom tested negative.   Presumably this includes people tested Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

In any case, the state is testing people at a much faster rate than they had been.  Though I didn't look at that page before Wednesday when only 60 people had been tested. Since then 4 times that many have been tested.

The only positive person was reported to be a foreign national cargo pilot who went directly to his hotel and then called for medical help.  He would have had contact with only a few people - other crew, customs, van or taxi driver, and the hotel check in desk.  A group small enough to have been contacted and tested.  But I'm only guessing at what should have happened.

Meanwhile I found out today that my email to the state public health department with my questions hadn't actually been sent Friday.  So I've resent it and got a confirmation they received it.

Some obvious questions that arise now:

1.  How many tests does Alaska have?  I was told 500 by a couple of people Friday.  No one could tell me if we got more.  If not, we've used half of them.

2.  Did more come?  I'm guessing there are more tests or they are on the way, since the testing screening has loosened up since I got turned down on Wednesday.

3.  Why test?  One of my questions is about the objective of testing in Alaska.  I couldn't find a stated objective on the website.  It seems there are several overlapping goals:
1.  treat the patient
2.  protect health care providers
3.  protect the general public

So did my doctor, on Friday, when they had ruled out flu and RSV,

1. decide based on her assessment of me as not likely to have COVID-19, turn down my second request for a COVID-19 test?  Or 
2. did she also consider the scarcity of tests and decide my taking a test would not be a good use of the tests?  (At that time I did mention that something had changed because they had tested over 80 people the day before, more than all the tests since they began testing.) Or
3. Was she considering the public health needs to test everyone who has any chance of having the virus to identify all carriers and then all the people they had been in contact with?   

Clearly the last one was not a highly weighted part of her calculation.  Since they were willing to test me for flu and RSV, I have to conclude the decision was made based on her assumption about the availability of tests.  But the model from other places is to test as many as possible to identify carriers and then all their contacts.  

Meanwhile, Anchorage is shutting down.  Schools have been closed.  University is only teaching classes electronically and the campus is pretty much closed.  Public buildings like libraries and museums are closed.  As of this afternoon, restaurants and bars are closed except for take-out and delivery.  Groups of more than 50 people are not allowed.  OLÉ classes I was signed up for at the end of March are cancelled.  The Alaska Press Club Conference in April is postponed.  

The only sporting event I'm aware of that has NOT been cancelled is the Iditarod race which began before people caught on.  The newspaper had an article about the village of Shaktoolik not allowing the mushers into the village, but set a checkpoint and rest place outside the village.  

What the article didn't include was mention of how the 1918/19 influenza wiped out - literally - many Native villages.  In some there were only a few survivors.  So their concern is not overblown.  In fact the report I linked to above says:

"This DHSS analysis also predicts, based on 2016 population data, how many people would die in Alaska if a similar pandemic were to occur today. If we had a flu season with the same rate of death as the epidemic wave in the late fall of 1918, the estimated number of deaths would be 11,970 Alaskans."

Does COVID-19 have the same rate of death as the 1918 flu?  It's complicated to figure out.

For those who are still skeptical about the reactions to the virus - or have family and friends who are still scoffing - I offer you this message from Jason Yanowitz who identifies six stages of the epidemic in Italy.  It was originally on Twitter, I'll just put up a few of the images as he walks through what people were thinking as things went quickly to terrible.

By Stage 3, 25% of Italy was under quarantine, but bars and restaurants were still open.

It's spread to the whole country.  

Stage 6 has everything shut down and people need registration papers to be out on the streets.  If you're out and positive, you can be charged with murder.  

There are so many people who have no concept of math beyond the simplest parts.  So graphs mean nothing to them.  The idea of exponential growth means, if anything, 'big growth'.  So maybe this Twitter thread can get people to understand that, NO, this is not big government ruining your lives, but big government doing what only it can do to save lives.  

Here's the link again to the article that has all these Tweets.

State Turns Down My Health Care Providers Request To Test Me For COVID-19; I Test Negative For Flu [UPDATED]

This is an update of my post Tuesday about my efforts to get tested for COVID-19 in Alaska.

My daughter, who's been monitoring this virus carefully, and has symptoms in Washington State, but can't get tested, is trying to see if it would be easier for me.  If I'm negative, then she can let her daughter go back to school.  If I'm positive, then she would meet the criteria of close contact with someone positive, so she can get tested.  (My granddaughter has no symptoms, just her parents.)

So she sent me a link to this State of Alaska Health Department Memo which includes this bit about Washington State:

"Testing Criteria for the State Public Health Laboratories  The patient has a clinically compatible illness ANDo Close contact to a laboratory-confirmed case of COVID-19o OR a history of travel within the past 14 days to an affected geographic area(e.g.,the patient just returned from Northern Italy a week ago or Kirkland, WA 3 days ago)without an alternative explanatory diagnosis (e.g., influenza) ."

So, the State of Alaska is acknowledging that the Seattle area is 'an affected geographic area.'

But first I had to eliminate "an alternative explanatory diagnosis (e.g., influenza)."


So I'd emailed this all to the clinic and yesterday morning I had an email back from another doctor acknowledging my concern and saying to come in for a flu test.

"Just walk in" didn't sound like he was taking this seriously as a possible COVID case.

I called the clinic to check that the lab had me down.  But as she got my travel info and symptoms again, she seemed to get more alarmed about my just walking into the clinic.  I said I agreed.  Could I just stay in the car and have someone come out and swab me?  She said she might do that.  But first she had to consult with the doctors.

She called back to say they want to consult with the state on my case.  She wasn't able to get through to a person and left a message.  I asked if I couldn't just get the flu test.  She said they didn't have the COVID and I might need both.  Then I'd have to go to the hospital.

She called back to say the state had said no to the test.

Let me remind you of the president's comments, "Anyone who wants a test can get a test."  I first emailed the doctor over the weekend.  But I'm closer than I thought I'd be.

She had me come in at closing time when there wouldn't be others there and said she'd get me a mask and she'd be in protective clothing.  My daughter had given us official masks as good-bye presents when we left Seattle, so I brought my own.

I got tested for influenza in one nasal passage and RSV in the other.  The influenza test results came back in minutes.  Negative.  The RSV will take a few days.

Then, since I'll have eliminated "alternative explanatory diagnosis," I should be able to ask again for a COVID test.

According to KTUU, the State of Alaska has 500 test kits.  Yesterday the State Website said there had been 60 people tested, 0 positive tests, and 14 pending since January 1, 2020.

Today's update shows a slight different reporting method.  Still 0 cases, but it doesn't mention how many are still pending, though there is one less test (59) than yesterday's 60 total tests given.  And the new one identifies tests by the state v. tests by commercial or academic labs.

from http://dhss.alaska.gov/dph/Epi/id/Pages/COVID-19/monitoring.aspx
note:  the info on this page changes daily

They don't tell us how many health care provider requests have been turned down.

And they don't tell us what they are saving the other 440 tests for.  They could do 40 tests a day for ten days (assuming there are that many legitimate requests) and still have 40 more tests.  In ten days there should be more tests available.

The point of testing is only in part to confirm that the high risk folks have COVID-19 and so health care workers can be protected when the patients come in for treatment.  But for prevention, they need to track down and test all those who have been exposed and to identify those with lesser or no symptoms who would be spreading the virus because they have no symptoms.

The World Health Organization Report on China makes this recommendation for "uninfected countries" which is more or less where Alaska is for now:

"Immediately enhance surveillance for COVID-19 as rapid detection is crucial to containing spread; consider testing all patients with atypical pneumonia for the COVID-19 virus, and adding testing for the virus to existing influenza surveillance systems;"

I have a call into the state to see if I can get some answers about how many tests requests they turn down and why.  But it doesn't look like they're calling back today, so I'll post this now.

[UPDATE March 12, 5pm:  Well as soon as you stop waiting, it happens.  I posted this and then a few minutes later I got a call-back.  The volunteer nurse I spoke to, L, was terrific (211 gets you to health and social service questions, and they gave my number to be called back).  Answered the questions she could and gave me another number to check on the ones she couldn't answer.  She confirmed the change in format today because of the use of non-state labs and the difficulty of keeping the 'pending' number current.  She couldn't tell me anything - other than the general criteria used to screen for testing - about the reasons people got turned down.  She emphasized everything is in flux, every answer is 'just for now' because things are changing so fast, and she mentioned this afternoon's announcement of the closure of Anchorage schools for a week.
Is there a limit on the number of tests they can give a day?  She didn't know.
Does the 500 tests include the 60 (or 59 today) already used?  She was pretty sure that 500 was what the State got total.
When I asked if the State has a specific goal for its testing program, she gave me reasons for testing - to help those at high risk know if they are COVID or not, to alert family members if they have a COVID patient at home, and to generally lower the risk.  When I pointed out that for public health stopping an epidemic, you needed to test lots of people until you find a few who were positive and then start testing all their contacts, she agreed.  We don't have enough tests.
She was very knowledgeable, very open about what she knew and didn't know, and I thank her and the others for stepping up and volunteering to fill in this need with (at least in her case) caring responders.  I'll try the number she gave me tomorrow]

[UPDATE March 12, 2020 6:56pm:  And Alaska's first case was announced after I posted the first update.]

Follow up post for Friday March 13, 2020 is here.

Alaska COVID 19 Testing - No Positives Because So Few People Are Being Tested? [UPDATE]

Thanks Jacob for your long comment yesterday.  Let me follow up yesterday's post here.

I got an email back from the doctor's office this morning.  Here's the response about testing for COVID 19:

"As for the testing for Covid 19. The recommendations are that you stay home and care for yourself as you would with any illness (such as a cold) if you are experiencing trouble breathing and feel you are in danger I encourage you to go to the emergency department. We are not testing unless you have certain symptoms and a qualifying history which based on your first message regarding Covid 19 you do not have. I encourage you to stay home and take care of yourself as you would for any cold. Let us know if you have any other concerns."

Here's the CDC's March 4 update (I was still in Seattle then) on who should be tested:

As availability of diagnostic testing for COVID-19 increases, clinicians will be able to access laboratory tests for diagnosing COVID-19 through clinical laboratories performing tests authorized by FDA under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Clinicians will also be able to access laboratory testing through public health laboratories in their jurisdictions.

So, limiting testing is due to the lack of enough tests and that should change.

This expands testing to a wider group of symptomatic patients. Clinicians should use their judgment to determine if a patient has signs and symptoms compatible with COVID-19 and whether the patient should be tested. Decisions on which patients receive testing should be based on the local epidemiology of COVID-19, as well as the clinical course of illness. Most patients with confirmed COVID-19 have developed fever1 and/or symptoms of acute respiratory illness (e.g., cough, difficulty breathing). Clinicians are strongly encouraged to test for other causes of respiratory illness, including infections such as influenza.

So, I've had fever and cough - but no difficulty breathing.  I'm also in the group at higher risk for severity if I get the illness.

"Epidemiologic factors that may help guide decisions on whether to test include: any persons, including healthcare workers2, who have had close contact3 with a laboratory-confirmed4 COVID-19 patient within 14 days of symptom onset, or a history of travel from affected geographic areas5 (see below) within 14 days of symptom onset.
International Areas with Sustained (Ongoing) Transmission
Last updated February 28, 2020
China (Level 3 Travel Health Notice)
Iran (Level 3 Travel Health Notice)
Italy (Level 3 Travel Health Notice)
Japan (Level 2 Travel Health Notice)
South Korea (Level 3 Travel Health Notice)"

So, you have two routes to a test:

1. close contact with a lab confirmed COVID-19 patient
2. travel to one of those countries

But if no one is being tested, we don't know if someone has had close contact with someone with COVID-19 who didn't show any symptoms or hadn't traveled to one of those countries.
And are places like Seattle (which has had the most COVID-19 cases in the US) NOT on the list because they are significantly different from the countries listed?  Or because the CDC does not want to declare places in the US as problem areas?

[UPDATE 8:07pm:  My daughter emailed me an Alaska State directive which gave "travel to an affected area" like Northern Italy "or Kirkland, WA" as an example of a place where someone might have recently traveled.  It also says we need to rule out influenza, so I've sent the link to that State memo back to the doctor's office, pointing out that I have traveled from a place on the list and that BI had two cases verified today.  And asking how I can get tested for influenza.
 I don't think I'd want to be working at the clinic answering all these emails.]

I'd note that my daughter emailed me today to say there were two confirmed cases on Bainbridge Island where I was for about a month.

The Alaska Corona Virus website tells us:

"In Alaska
Updated March 10, 2020; updates made daily by 12:30pm
Confirmed cases
Current: 0
Cumulative since 1/1/2020: 0
Persons Under Investigation (PUI)*
Current: 16 (pending tests)
Cumulative since 1/1/2020: 47 (includes negative and pending tests)"

Presumably, all these people traveled to one of the target nations, since they couldn't have been exposed to someone in Alaska, because no one here has tested positive.

Despite the President's saying everyone who wants testing, can get tested, we know that's not true.  I can't get tested, for example.  I'm sure someone could do an interesting comparison between now and in the 1980s when people could be tested for HIV.  There are great differences between the two diseases.

• HIV then was a death sentence, while for most people COVID 19 is a minor illness
• HIV had a huge stigma because of society's discrimination against LGBTQ people

It would seem the lack of testing - which would help identify and isolate the non-symptomatic carriers - is due to the federal lack of response in getting tests set up.  It shouldn't be hard to let private companies offer test kits.  It seems the genetic testing companies already have swap kits ready to get the samples.  But without strict verification in place, we could get lots of false positives and false negatives.  In this case, false negatives wouldn't be so bad.  False positives would

The sooner everyone can get tested, the sooner the asymptomatic carriers can stay home and the spread of the virus can be slowed down.

[Let me also add that I suspect the odds of me having contracted COVID-19 are low.  And if I did, the symptoms seem manageable so far.  And I've been pretty much in isolation since we got back last Wednesday night.]

[My testing saga is updated Thursday - here.]

"The solution was clear, Wendell said: Buy the votes of Senators" - Being Better Citizens Today By Knowing The Past

Alaskans are likely aware of William Seward more than the rest of the country.  After all, he was the man who arranged to buy Alaska from the Russians, and we even have a state holiday honoring Seward.  But that doesn't mean know much about him.  A local journalist, Mike The Man Who Bought Alaska:  William H. Seward.  He also wrote companion book - The Man Who Sold Alaska: Tsar Alexander II of Russia.  The books came out in 2017, to celebrate Alaska's 150th year as part of the United States.
Dunham, made an effort to educate us when he wrote the book

I read the Seward volume flying down to LA.  It's short and easy to read.

I learned that Seward did a lot of other things besides buy Alaska.  And I already did a post on some of that.

This post is to remind us that history is worth studying so that we understand more about the present.  I've got a few quotes that don't need much comment from me.

Immigration Fights

"Prejudice against Catholics,  especially Irish, was perhaps more intense in New York than prejudice against blacks.  Religious instruction was part of every elementary school curriculum and the doctrine taught would be Protestant, with a good measure of virulent anti-Catholicism thrown in.
Irish immigrants balked at sending their children to such schools and, as a result, many children of Irish parents didn't attend school at all.  Seward's efforts to see that educational funding was shared with Catholic schools raised the ire of the anti-immigrant party that took the name "Know-Nothings."  (p. 26)

Ignorant Voters

"To win the big Northern states of New York and Pennsylvania, Clay positioned himself as the pro-immigration candidate, hoping to obtain the support of German and Irish newcomers who tended to vote Democratic.  It backfired.  Anti-immigrant riots broke out in Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love.  The Know-Nothings backed Martin Van Buren, an unabashed nativist.  Clay lost New York and Polk won the election.
The Know-Nothing movement was to me a source of apprehension,"  Seward said.  "When I saw not only individuals but whole communities and parties swept away by an impulse contradicting the very fundamental idea on which the Government rests, I began to doubt whether the American people had such wisdom as I had always given them credit for."  (p. 30)]

Congressional Relationships I

"The first blows of he Civil War came in May of 1856.  Sumner gave a two-day speech dripping with pornographic innuendo and pillorying South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, comparing him to Don Quixote, infatuated by a harlot.
Two days later, Butler's cousin, Representative Preston Books, stalked into the Senate, found Sumner at his desk and demanded an apology.  Sumner refused, not even looking up from the paper he was writing on.  Brooks used his cane to pummel the Massachusetts Senator nearly to death.
Brooks was exonerated by the House of Representatives. . ." (pp. 39-40)

Bad Supreme Court Decisions

"In March 1858 the Supreme Court gave its verdict in the case of Dred Schott, a slave whose master brought him to a free state.  Scott argued that, as an American citizen in a state that did not allow slavery, he ought to be free.  The court, however, declared that under the Constitution blacks were not and could never be citizens.
Seward denounced the Dred Scott decision in terms that would be considered impolitic if applied to a Supreme Court decision today. "Judicial usurpation is more odious and intolerable than any other among the manifold practices of tyranny," he said, and argued that it was time to reorganize the judicial branch to bring it 'into harmony with the Constitution.'"  (p.  40)

Congressional Relationships II

"Through all the bitterness of the Kansas-Nebraska debates, the attacks in the press and even from friends, Seward remained personally on good terms with members of the other side, dining, drinking, joking and playing whist with them when they weren't in verbal combat on the floor of the Senate.
He closely cooperated with pro-slave Democrat Texas Senator Thomas Rust and even planned a trip around the world with him.  When Rust killed himself in 1857 after being diagnosed with cancer, Seward called it a tragedy for both himself and the country.
In the following year, Mississippi's Jefferson Davis spent weeks in a darkened sickroom because of an eye infection.  Seward visited almost every day, reading the newspapers to him and filling him in on the gossip of the capital."

Impeachment

"Seward took the lead in preparing Johnson's defense.  Working with Democrats and the few moderate Republicans still speaking to him, he obtained a top defense team and raised funds to cover their costs.  He turned to the most powerful lobbyist in Washington, Cornelius Wendell, a man who knew the minds - and the price - of every member of Congress better than they knew themselves.
The solution was clear, Wendell said:  Buy the votes of Senators.  The cost:  a quarter of a million dollars.  Seward raised the money.  Wendell got it to the right people."

As We Examine Hilcorp's Purchase of BP's Alaska Holdings, Looking at the Charter for the Development of the Alaska North Slope Seems Appropriate

Over ten years ago I came across something called the Charter for the Development of the Alaska North Slope.  This post tells that story.  I've been getting hits on the story form various places and organizations in the last couple of months.  I'm guessing that this interest is related to BP's selling it's Alaska interests to Hilcorp  so I thought I should post this again.  So here it is:

Monday, February 02, 2009

Charter for the Development of the Alaska North Slope

When I wrote a post about the Conoco-Philips ads in the ADN some time ago, the "Charter Agreement" came up and I wrote:

I also know that CP makes other contributions to the community such as $100,000 to the Museum in 2007. And there was a $3.68 million gift to the University of Alaska also in 2007. But we need to put an * on that. The University of Alaska press release on the gift also says,

The annual gifts stem from a charter agreement between the oil companies and the state regarding the BP merger with ARCO in the late 1990s. Part of the charter agreement identifies public higher education as a top priority for charitable donations . . .

So a minimum amount of contribution is required by this Charter Agreement that was a condition for the BP-ARCO merger. I called Scott Goldsmith, the author of the ISER report, to find out how to get access to the Charter Agreement.He wasn't sure if he ever actually saw a copy, but said he'd check for it tomorrow. [Update: I also called UAA Advancement and later the UA Foundation called and said they would find the Agreement and email it to me .] On the internet, nearly all references I find about BP or ConocoPhillips contributions to the University have that standard clause in them.

Well, a few days later, I got an email from the University of Alaska Foundation with a copy of the charter. But we were in high gear preparing to go to Thailand and what with the traveling and getting into things here, I didn't get around to posting that agreement. (It's down below) I haven't had a chance to study the whole charter, but I expect there is plenty to chew on.

For the time being, let's just look at the part that discusses community charitable contributions:

D. Community Charitable Commitment. Within three months after the merger is completed, BP and ARCO [what BP wasn't allowed to buy of ARCO because it would have given BP monopolistic power in Alaska eventually became Conoco-Philips if I got this right] will establish a charitable entity dedicated to funding organizations and causes within Alaska. The entity will provide 30% of its giving to the University of Alaska Foundation and the remainder to general community needs. Funding decisions by the entity will be made by BP and ARCO, with the advice of a board of community advisors. BP and ARCO will provide ongoing funding to this entity in an amount that is equal to 2% of BP's and ARCO's combined aggregate net Alaska liquids production after royalty times the price for WTI. Specific entity funding levels will be calculated annually on the same date each year, referencing the liquids production and the average NYMEX WTI prompt month settlement price for the 12 months immediately proceeding the calculation.

So here are some questions I have:

1. Who monitors these contributions to be sure that they are making the contributions required?
2. How do members of the public find this out?
3. Are they contributing what they are required to contribute?
4. Are they contributing more than they are required to contribute? (If not, can either company seriously claim to make charitable contributions? This was simply a business deal, a required cost of doing business in Alaska and not really charitable donations.)
5. Who is on these boards and are the meetings announced and public?

A quick Google search got me to the BP website. Searching there for charter agreement I got a copy of the 2007 annual report on the Charter Agreement for 2006. It is four lines over four pages - for the whole charter agreement. Plus a cover letter to Governor Sarah Palin. The part on charitable giving says this:

COMMUNITY CHARITABLE GIVING

The BP Board of Community Advisors met in February, 2006, at which time they
reviewed 2005 community spend [sic] and plans for 2006.

BP spent more than $10.2 million in support of community programs in 2006,
consistent with the formula detailed in the Charter.

Approximately $3 million was contributed to the University of Alaska Foundation
(1/3 of community investment).

ConocoPhilips's website gave me this message:

Connection to server www.search.conoco.com failed (The server is not responding.)

Why do I think that is the extent of the oversight? Even BP didn't think it was important enough to proof read it carefully. Am I being too cynical? Did the Governor's office demand back up information so they could see how the 2% times the price of WTI? I don't know. What about all the other issues in the Charter? What sort of scrutiny do they get? Just this brief annual report?

Since I'm pretty busy right now in Thailand, I'm going to have to hold off on pursuing these questions. Though I might send them to my representatives in the State Legislature.

Meanwhile, here is the rest of the Charter. I hope other bloggers and non-bloggers start reading it carefully to see whether the oil companies are living up to the agreement. I guess first we ought to figure out which state agencies are responsible for keeping track.

Charter for Development of the Alaskan North Slope

Publish at Scribd or explore others:  Government  Business & Legal  conocphilips  BP

Alaskans For Better Elections Now Have Petitions To Collect Signatures To Change Alaska's Elections To Ranked Choice Voting

A group called "Alaskans for Better Elections" has gathered enough signatures to get an initiative approved.  They've received enough valid signatures, however the Lt Governor, on the advice of the Attorney General has said the initiative was not valid because it covered more than one topic.  Alaskans for Better Elections has appealed that decision and a judge agreed with them.  The State is asking that the group should not be allowed to collect signatures before their appeal of the judge's decision is heard by the Supreme Court.

But this tweet suggests that the judge didn't buy the argument to delay the collection of signatures and the initiative petition to change how Alaskans vote and how large campaign contributions are reported is now available for signatures.  You can visit the website here..

Look who just picked up 500 petition booklets to get help get more open, transparent, and fair elections in our great state! Who is ready to sign? #alaska #akleg #RankedChoiceVoting #elections pic.twitter.com/htUuexf20A

— jason (@jgrenn) November 1, 2019

And, as I see it, the only reason to delay the collection of signatures would be to keep the initiative off the ballot, since they need to collect enough signatures before the Legislature goes back into session in mid-January.  Let them start now and if the Supreme Court agrees with the Lt. Governor's finding this initiative is invalid, they'll stop collecting signatures.  What's the big deal?  Unless you don't want them to get enough signatures in time.

What's the Difference  Between Initiative And Petition?
Initiative is the document that outlines what changes are wanted Petition with a summary of the initiative is what people sign

BUT, MORE IMPORTANT, what's the initiative going to do?


The initiative has three components, according to their website::

• End "Dark Money" in Alaska Elections
• Open Our Primaries to All Alaskan Voters
• Form Ranked Choice Voting Elections

Dark Money
Their counter to the US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v allowance of unlimited campaign contributions is basically this:

"All individuals and committees will have to immediately disclose the name and the true source of all donations over $2,000."

 Primaries

Right now, the state funds primary elections.
The Republicans choose to make their primary open to Republicans and people who are not affiliated with another party.
The Democratic primary is open to all voters and includes candidates from various parties (except Republicans) and independent candidates.
Voters must pick either the one party ballot or the other.

The ballot initiative would change that.  There would be one primary and all candidates would be listed for each office.  And this is supposed to work because of the third component of the initiative.

Form Ranked Choice Voting
Their website explains it this way:

In a ranked choice voting (RCV) election, voters are able to rank candidates in order of choice - 1st choice, 2nd choice, and so on. When the votes are counted, if a candidate has a majority of 1st choices, they win - just like today. But if no candidate receives a majority of 1st choices, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and voters who ranked that candidate 1st have their vote instantly go to their 2nd choice. This process continues until a candidate is elected with a majority of voters’ support.

Their website explains all this in a little more detail, but still in an easy to read format.


Here's the text of the initiative.  I promise that fewer than 5% (that's probably high) voters will read the whole thing.  It's 25 pages long.  Basically, it goes through the existing Alaska Election statutes and rewrites them to enact the changes they want.  Section by section.

The disclosure requirement seems like a good idea, just so voters know in a timely fashion who is making large donations to support a candidate.

The primary change is technically necessary to make the ranked choice voting work.

And ranked choice voting is designed to elect the candidates they support most, by allowing their second, third, etc. choice be known.  This should end two similar candidates splitting the vote between them and allowing a third, but less popular candidate to win.  It also means that two Republicans or two Democrats could end up on the final ballot.  This happens in California's new system, but they don't have ranked voting, just a combined primary.

Votes have been counted by machine for a while now.  But double checking by hand counting was pretty easy.  Checking the accuracy of the voting machine programs will be much harder if this initiative wins.  That means we'll need some sophisticated procedures to make sure the machines are programmed correctly and aren't tampered with.

Their website says Maine already does this and a number local governments do too.

One more thing.  Alaskans For Better Elections has all their disclosure documents on their website.  They also disclose that their three biggest donors are organizations Outside of Alaska.  That's not necessarily bad (unless your against a candidate or an initiative).  In this case, they seem to be getting money from national organizations that support the idea of ranked choice voting, but otherwise don't have a substantive interest in Alaska politics.  I'm guessing they aren't interested in exploiting our election for their financial gain.  Just to support their vision of fairer elections.

The three biggest funders are (the links go to Ballotopedia or Influencewatch descriptions:

Action Now - John and Laura Arnold Foundation
Represent Us
American Promise - Jeffrey Clements

Alaska Heritage Museum - Seal Gut Parka, Wooly Mammoth Tusk, And Other Dazzling Objects

It's not exactly hidden away, but I've never noticed a sign outside announcing it.  The Alaska Heritage Museum is inside the lobby of the, now, Wells Fargo Building.  I say 'now' because this used to be the National Bank of Alaska Building (from Alaska.org):

"Even though the art-gallery-sized space feels intimate, this is the largest private collection of its kind in Alaska.  The museum was started by the First National Bank of Alaska in 1976, as a way for the bank’s owners, the Rasmussen family, to create a space for high-quality art and artifacts largely from Alaska's native tribes, such as the Northwest Coast Indian, Athabascan, Aleut, Yupik and Inupiaq tribes."

Alaska.org also says the museum is in downtown, but I think most Anchorage folk would disagree, saying it's in midtown.  A heftier walk for tourists in downtown hotels, but still doable.

My Pecha Kucha class was in the library of the museum and after the last class, I decided to take some pictures to give folks an idea of the range of items.  By the way, the museum is free, and as the sign says, it's open Mondays through Fridays from 12 - 4 pm.  

Those are murres, not penguins, as pawns on the left.

 The sign says this is an Athabascan Chief's Coat.  The beaded coat and the seal gut parka below were the two most stunning items for me.

   

Here are assorted SE Alaska items.











Mike Healy is an interesting Alaskan character - an important sea captain of the north as the story says.  All the while, it seems one of his major attractions to historians, is the notion that he 'passed for white" although his mother was a "light skinned" slave.  Of course, that sort of characterization reminds us that for the dominant culture, if you have 'a drop of black blood' then you are black.  Even though most of your heritage is white and no one suspects you aren't white.

I've put this sign up twice to highlight the problems I'm having with editing on iPhoto lately - the edits don't stick when I export the photo.  I upped the contrast so it would be easier to read.  So if I'm insistent, I have to take a screen shot of the edit and use that.  Which is what I did for the version below.  But, of course, that degrades the quality in different ways.

A reminder, also, that most pictures enlarge and focus better if you click on them.

Here are some much older artifacts.  Some 2000 years old.










Even older - 12,000 to 15,000 years old - is this wooly mammoth tusk.

And much more recent are these Russian samovars.


The museum is at the corner of C Street and Northern Lights, in the Wells Fargo Building.

OLÉ - The Innocence Project: "50 To 150 People In Alaska Prisons Are Innocent"

It's sort of like I ordered way more off the menu than I'm going to be able to eat.  Yesterday was the Pecha Kucha (pronounce in the four syllables you see) class and today began with the Innocence Project and the Pebble Mine.  And I seem to be coming down with a cold.  

But let me get a little up here since I didn't post yesterday.  Let's get some of the Innocence Project up.  This is the work of saints - helping people wrongly convicted to get out of prison.  The speakers were Mark Johnson, (sitting) the head of the board for the IP, and Bill Oberly the employee who does most of the work.  I took the picture after the presentation when they were answering individual questions.  

Every time I read about a prisoner getting out of prison after 10, 15, 30 years because of evidence that clearly exonerates them, or a confession by another of the crime, it breaks my heart thinking of someone taken from the family and thrown into a cell.  For example from The National Registry of Exonerations.

Many prisons are inhumane for guilty prisoners.  Imagine if you didn't do the crime.  

If imagining that is hard to do, watch Netflix's When They See Us*  about five teenagers who were imprisoned for a rape they didn't commit because of a prosecutor who coerced confessions and ignored evidence that didn't fit her story.   This is the story of the kids convicted of the Central Park jogger rape.  I confess, that I didn't want to watch it, but saw it was getting awards and so we decided to try the first episode.  It's mostly painful, but the actual rapists eventually confesses (after meeting one of the five in prison) and they do get out.  There's an extra episode which is an Oprah show of sorts (she was the producer I think) where all the actors who played the boys and their older selves are interviewed.  And then the original real prisoners are interviewed as well.  

*This is not a great link here, but when I link to Netflix, to goes to my subscription which won't work for others.  It may go to the right place for other Netflix subscribers, I don't know.  And reviews at Washington Post and New York Times have paywalls.  You might also want to check Wikipedia.  

It's pretty powerful, and one line from the film's director really caught my attention.  She challenged people who talk about the system being broken.  It's not broken, she said, it was designed that way.  And when it comes to people of color and poor folks that seems to be accurate.  

So that was my most recent connection to this sort of injustice and was good background for understanding the enormity of the wrongs that the Innocence Project tries to right.  

A little bit from today's class from my notes.  

Innocence Project's MISSION

1. Identify , investigate, and exonerate individuals who have been wrongly convicted in the State of Alaska
2.  Education - doing that today (at OLÉ).  Provide ed opportunities for advocates and for the public that foster a culture that champions the defense of the innocent.  
3. Implement policies, practices, and reforms  that will prevent wrongful convictions and hasten the identification and release of innocent persons.

Number 1 is the main priority.  

History

The Alaska IP is part of a national Innocence Network   All independent, but share experiences, best practices.  There originally was just one, but it became clear quickly that they couldn't cover the whole country.  A Northwest PI was started, but they couldn't even handle all of Washington, let alone the rest of their territory.  Alaska's Project Innocence began in 2006.  

The Project has 6 criteria for accepting cases.

1. Individual is incarcerated
2. Individual has at least two years remaining on sentence.
3. Factually, the client is actually innocent.  (They don't work on technical legal issues for people who aren't innocent.)
4. Evidence is available which may prove actual innocence
5. Individual has exhausted all court actions under the facts of the criminal conviction upon which the individual is incarcerated where the individual has appointed counsel as a matter of right
6. Notwithstanding numbers 1 through 5, the Board of the Alaska Innocence Project may accept any case at its discretion.  (but number 1 - actual innocence - is necessary)

They said that research suggests that 1-3% of people in prison are innocent.  Given Alaska's prison population, that means 50 - 150 people!   

The only people exonerated so far through the Alaska Innocence Project have been the Fairbanks Four, which is a big deal.  There are more potential cases in the pipeline.  

Here's a link to their website.  You can find more there.  We've got three more session on this topic.    

Sorry for such a truncated post, but really need to get to bed.  I have a 9am class on State and Federal Courts tomorrow and a 3pm class on Homelessness.