Anchorage Mayor Tries To Veto Amendment To Proposal During Assembly Meeting

[Follow up post Thursday June 30 with attorney's memo.]

I haven't been to an Assembly meeting for a long time.  But I went because I know something about boards and commissions and I wanted to see what they were going to do with the ordinance on boards and commissions.  I'll write more on the ordinance they passed adding back sunset provisions for many boards and commissions in another post soon.

What really caught my attention was the mayor's attempt to veto an amendment to a proposal right after the amendment, but not the ordinance, was passed.  As I've said, I haven't been to an Assembly meeting for a while and I've never attended them regularly.

But it seems to me pretty clear that there is supposed to be a separation of powers.  The Assembly does the legislation, then the mayor needs to implement them or veto them, but only AFTER they pass. To veto an amendment in the middle of the Assembly debate seems  totally bizarre.

Assembly members quickly responded.  I wasn't planning on posting about the meeting and hadn't brought my computer or even a note pad.  But someone said something about line item veto being reserved for budget items.  Municipal Clerk Barbara Gruenstein said that a veto had to be accompanied by a written explanation.  Assembly chair Ossiander asked an administration attorney and a person I assume is the assembly attorney.  The administration's attorney said she thought it was ok.  The other attorney said she thought it wasn't, and agreed that a written statement explaining the veto had to accompany it.

Someone added, perhaps it was the mayor, that the Municipal attorney had written an opinion that the mayor could line item anything.  But that memo didn't show up and the Municipal Attorney didn't explain it while I was there.

Then Assembly member Trombley argued that since the item to be vetoed would affect the budget, it could be considered a line-item budget veto.  Member Flynn said something to the effect of, "Nice try, but no way."

For me the issue is separation of powers.  The mayor was, in my opinion, interfering in the Assembly process.  He can say he plans to veto it, but he can't just stand up at the Assembly meeting and veto things on the spot, even before the ordinance is passed, even if he writes a note explaining why. (Who knows what all attorneys can do to twist the process, but it just feels unseemly for the mayor not to wait for the process to play out, before he plays his authorized role.)

And if there was an opinion written by the Municipal attorney on an issue of such significance, why wouldn't it be shared with the Assembly in advance, instead of dropping it in like a bomb, perhaps to see if he could get away with it?  I think the answer is worth another post - a discussion on how seriously divided the Assembly has become.  Divided so that they are toeing the ideological line on practically every minor amendment.  Even when it wouldn't matter particularly.  So divided that both sides seem to assume the worst about the whatever the other side proposes.

UPDATE June 29 11:30 pm:  Let's see if I can make this work. The Muni video of the Assembly meetings has a way to embed specific parts of the video, but I'm leery. These should be:
a. The mayor vetoing the amendment. (if it works, I'll put up b)
b. A bit later when they get clarification

a) didn't capture the part it was supposed to get. I'll try b.  This one is closer to the part I was trying to get, but still misses it.  I'll leave it for now, for anyone who wants to see how Assembly members talk to each other.  Meanwhile I'll try again to get the right clips.
[Friday July 1: I've deleted the video clip because and can't turn off the autostart and having the video automatically go on is just plain annoying.]

[AUTOSTART DISABLE HELP NEEDED: Anyone know how to change the html to disable the autostart? Autostart and play are both set to false. What else is in there that needs to be changed?]

I'm having trouble loading up the video again. Meanwhile, my Firefox access to Blogspot gets me a "Bad Request Error 400" message - I'm using Safari now. Did that come from the Muni video link? It started after I was using it.

But I did learn from the video I wasn't able to upload that the second attorney, Julia Tucker does work for the Assembly and she did raise the issue of separation of powers.

You can go to the Muni site yourself and load up the video.
The motion gets passed and the mayor says he vetoes it @ 1:24:00 - 1:25:26
Then they do other things while waiting for a clarification of the Mayor's basis for being able to veto.
Then they get the clarifications from the Mayor's attorney and the Assembly's attorney @ 1:30:50-1:34:00.

Adam Trombley's Hero is Dick Cheney, Maybe

13 Anchorage Assembly candidates showed up at a forum at UAA Wednesday night.  Three or four times that many people were there to listen.  Not a whole lot was actually said.  You really had to make gut judgments based on how they spoke and their non-verbal messages.  It was good to see all the candidates, but there wasn't anything that interesting.

Except. . .

There were written audience questions -  read by moderator Channel 2 newsman Jason Lamb - directed at specific candidates.  Adam Trombley was asked who his political heroes of the last 20 years were.  He quickly said, "Dan Quail."  That appeared to be a joke because he asked how much time he had - about 15 or 20 seconds - and he finally said, "Dick Cheney."

Yes, he said Cheney was his hero.  Cheney helped get us into Iraq on false claims of WMD's.  He was part of the group that outed a CIA agent to get revenge on her husband, and helped get his aide, Scooter Libby, out of his prison sentence after he was convicted. Torturing prisoners gave him no qualms.  The list goes on and on.  Here's a link to a Boston Globe article that looks at Cheney in the 1970s.  I realize there are conservatives who would strongly disagree with this characterization, but I'm confident that Cheney will not be a hero in the history books.    That's how I see it. So I thought I should check with Trombley.

Afterward I asked Trombley if he was serious or not.  He wouldn't give me a straight answer.  I don't know what that means. He's a candidate for a local office.  He said his hero is Dick Cheney, and when asked about it afterward, he refuses to answer.  Watch his response and judge for yourself.   Do we want Assembly people who refuse to answer serious questions that get to their values?



[UPDATE April 4:  If you want to judge for yourself if he was joking, his original response to the question is here.]

He is supported by the Mayor Sullivan.  From a poster on Trombley's website:

Adam is the BEST Conservative choice for East Anchorage Assembly. Please join me in supporting Adam Trombley. - Dan Sullivan

Sullivan is the man who ordered the public television in the City Hall lobby to be tuned to Fox News.    So, Cheney could be his hero. 


Just in case you aren't aware that we vote next Tuesday, here is a list of the candidates, including who was and wasn't at the forum at UAA.

Traini's Back In

It seems my mid town vote matters after all. According to an ADN story by Kyle Hopkins, the Supreme Court has decided that Traini is eligible to run.

I've already written on this extensively. It's unfortunate that the only way, apparently, to clarify the ambiguity in the law, was to legally challenge someone running for office for an 'extra' term. I've looked at the Municipal Charter and at the Muni's hired attorney's opinion, and think that he shouldn't have been eligible. But the reasoning Kyle reports the SC used - when there is a doubt in the law, interpret for the candidate - does make some sense too.

The decision clarifies this for future races, which is good and was clearly necessary. Unless the charter is changed again, 'term' does not mean 'partial term.'

I'm sure all this put a damper on Traini's campaign - as Kyle's post says - and Traini may challenge the election if he loses. I still think it is contrary to the spirit of the term limits. He will have served, if he wins and completes his term, more than nine years.

Bert Hoak - Running for Assembly

My curiosity was piqued reading the ADN description of Assembly Candidate Bert Hoak's time in Cambodia. So I googled a little. It looks like Hoak got his 15 minutes of fame running a book store in Cambodia.

There's also a Hoak's Lakeshore restaurant in Buffalo, New York that was owned by a Bert Hoak who could have been Bert's father.

I shouldn't be surprised that we have so many people with such interesting life experiences in Anchorage. There is no doubt he would make an interesting addition on the Anchorage Assembly. Having watched real life and death issues in person in Cambodia, this isn't a man who's likely to get caught up in the pettiness that can sometimes be the Anchorage Assembly. This isn't an endorsement, I only know a few tidbits about him. But this is a man I'd like to take to dinner and have a long conversation with when I get back home.


From Mekong.net we have these observations from Hoak originally written on a mailing list:

Although my opinions on Cambodia are by no means unique, my observations were made from a perspective that was unique. Unlike many others, I continued on after the completion of the UNTAC mission and was daily witness to the rapid decline of Cambodia...socially, politically, and environmentally. The business that I operated dealt with clientele that included NGO, tourists and professional travelers, journalists, academicians, and diplomats. It was common for our clientele to share their experiences from throughout Cambodia. I know of no other who had the benefit of such a such a unique vantage.

The pain, the suffering continues. In spite of Cambodia being the highest per capita recipient of foreign aid -- for more than five years. The deforestation increases...in spite of foreign aid. The drug network increases...in spite of foreign aid. The Human Rights abuses, the killing of journalists, editors, dissidents and others continues, and will continue, in spite of foreign aid. Our continued aid will only serve to prop up a despotic regime...to prolong the misery...to prolong the ecological devastation, even to the point of no return.

Again and again we hear that foreign aid should be continued so that we can have some influence on the "government" of Cambodia, or as [Australian] Ambassador [Tony] Kevin states it: "By remaining engaged (continuing foreign aid) outside governments and agencies have some leverage on RGC behaviour....that by withdrawing, that leverage is lost."

I lived and worked in Cambodia for almost five years. Throughout that time there were repeated and continuous instances of murder, atrocities, ecological rape, and the violation of even the most basic Human Rights...not to even mention the abject terror that the rural Cambodian comes to expect in Cambodia today.

Throughout those years I waited...together with millions of Cambodians, waited for the international community to act, to make some stand, to give some sign of hope that the outside world would not sit idly by while Cambodia again slides into despotism.

A July 1997 New York Times article says about Hoak:

Many of those who are leaving are people like Mr. Hoak who volunteered to help the United Nations prepare for elections and stayed on to make Cambodia a second home.

Bert's Books became a landmark, the only good English-language bookshop in town, where browsers could pull a dusty paperback from the shelves and sit on the roof looking out across the Tonle Sap River at the palm trees and fishing villages on the opposite bank.

Housed in what was once a brothel, Bert's Books also became a popular guesthouse, where a single room with bath and extra-large bed could be had for $6 a night.

There's even mention of him in the scholarly journal Human Rights Quarterly, but UAA's electronic data base only goes back to Volume 17 and the article is in Volume 16. The google snippet says:

work of the United Nations Volunteers-people like the Alaskan, Bert Hoak, ...

And one more in the same vein as the NY Times piece dated July 1997 from geocities:

Mr Hoak, 46, has worked in Cambodia for five years, including a stint with the United Nations and as owner of the well-known Bert's Bookshop, Guest House and Restaurant, a popular meeting place for travellers and resident expats.

Clutching visa applications for himself, his Cambodian wife and their young son, Mr Hoak said they were going to his hometown of Buffalo, New York, after watching this nation go from bad to worse.

"I came here in 1992 as a United Nations volunteer to work in the election" which resulted in a seemingly absurd power-sharing arrangement between two prime ministers, Hun San and his now self-exiled rival, Prince Norodom Ranariddh.

"I witnessed sexual excesses" by UN personnel during preparations for the 1993 poll, said Mr Hoak, referring to widespread complaints that some of the international "peace-keeping forces" harassed Cambodian women and enjoyed trysts with prostitutes.

Nevertheless, after the UN spent nearly $3 billion (90 billion baht) to stage the elections, Mr Hoak stayed on and opened his riverside "cerebral hostelry" three years ago, attracting backpackers, aid workers and professionals who strolled through the neighbourhood's squalor to munch cheap food, swap tales and search his stacks for fine literature.

Looking for other tidbits, I found Hoak's Lakeshore restaurant in Buffalo, New York (Hoak's home town.) I don't know how many Bert Hoaks there are, maybe this was Dad's place. The link has the menu.

In 1949, two brothers, Edward and Bertrand Hoak, purchased what was to become Hoaks restaurant. The restaurant was opened in November of 1949. Gus Hoak and Gus Sr., Pop Hoak, added their wit and personality to the everday operation of the young business in 1955. Eds sons purchased the business from Bert in 1977. The restaurant offers a lovely view of the Buffalo skyline and the Canadian shore, whih is only surpassed by the beautiful sunsets. We are constantly striving to maintain the fine tradition and quality of service and food which has made Hoaks a familiar name to those seeking a friendly family amosphere. Banquet rooms available. Download our banquet menu here.

When is a Term not a Term?

Thursday, February 28, 2008, 10:34pm
The ADN says that Dr. Peter Mjos is challenging the City Clerk's decision to let Dick Traini run for a fourth term because the charter says you can only serve for three consecutive terms. The City Clerk's decision is based on an opinion written by a hired attorney. The attorney concludes that partial terms were not intended to be counted in the term limit provision and since Traini's first term here (he had served prior to that and then was defeated by then future mayor George Weurch if I recall correctly.) There's lots here to chew on.

1. The political consequences of this lawsuit for this race and the next mayoral race
2. How good is the opinion of the hired attorney?

1. Political Consequences

1. For this race. If I understand it right, there are only two candidates. If Traini were deemed ineligible to run, then his opponent Elvi Gray would win. But it also seems to me problematic to have a candidate yanked off the ballot by the courts and for the voters to not have a choice. This could cause a backlash. What if the courts don't finish by election day, and Traini wins. Then the court says he shouldn't have run? The people voted for the term limit provision, but they also would have voted for Traini despite the term limit provision. They would be saying with their votes that the term limit provision doesn't include partial terms.
2. For the upcoming mayoral race. If, in fact, Mark Begich runs for the US Senate, (and that has gotten more likely while I was writing this) and gets elected, a big 'if', he would leave his mayoral position several months before the next mayoral election. If I remember right, the Assembly chair would become acting Mayor. It seems to me better to decide this issue now in an Assembly election than to have it still an open issue if we have a partial term mayor running.


On the one hand, if the law is ambiguous - and if it weren’t the City Clerk would not have asked for an opinion - it should be clarified. But ideally the timing for the clarification should be such that if a candidate is eliminated, others can run for that office. Levesque’s opinion is dated January 7, 2008. I don’t know when the Clerk made her decision or when it was made public - before or after the closing date for candidates to file. To that we must add the time it would take a citizen to decide to file a law suit, since that isn't a casual decision.

On the other hand, are the additional few months Traini served worth depriving his constituents a choice in the election? Shouldn't there be another way to challenge the meaning of the law so it could be done between elections when it doesn’t have immediate consequences on specific people and specific political races?

Does the motivation of the person filing - for political reasons or to clarify the law on principle - matter? Can we ever know the real motivations? Could it be a mix of both? If it is for political gain - to Elvi Jackson’s advantage if Traini were to be found ineligible - one could also say that Traini pushed the limits by running for a fourth term when there was a three year term limit. (He's not the first according to Levesque's analysis - Ossiander did it on the School Board and Daniel Kendall did it on the Assembly. That doesn't make it right, it just means no one challenged them.) Even if the ruling is technically in his favor, it would seem to violate the spirit of the charter. While an attorney’s opinion went in his favor, only a judge’s opinion or a charter amendment could - as I understand it - be legally binding.


2. Levesque's Opinion

Joseph N. Levesque, the attorney who wrote the opinion for the City Clerk concluded

A review of the language used in the MOA Charter term limit provisions reveals that the term limits for elected offices are for either two full consecutive three-year terms or three full consecutive three-year terms. The meaning of the language is clear and unambiguous, partial time served through either appointment or election does not count for the purpose of counting terms. Both the available legislation history and established precedent support this conclusion.

To write that the language is clear and unambiguous seems to suggest that his client, the City Clerk, is a little dim. If it's so clear and unambiguous, why does she have to hire an attorney to tell her that? But an attorney once told me that if he wrote an opinion, it would be a strong, firm opinion, whichever side of the issue he took. So maybe this just reflects that, once Levesque decided it should go for Traini's position, he went for it strong.

How does Levesque reach that conclusion? Partly by logic and partly by referring to the legislative history and intent. The logic doesn't work for me at all. The history and intent - at least the part he refers us to - is more supportive.

The "Logic"

I'll comment on a few things he writes, the whole opinion is here.

Quote 1: (Levesque cites McQuillin whom he describes as "a legal authority on municipal law")

Although an unambiguous statute prescribing the term of an officer will be construed as written, where the legal provisions prescribing the term is [sic] uncertain or doubtful an interpretation will be adopted that limits the term to the shortest time. (p. 2)

So if the Municipal Charter isn't clear on this, we should adopt an interpretation that limits the term to the shortest time possible. That would mean, not allowing someone to run for a fourth consecutive term even if one term was only a partial term. But Levesque comes to the opposite conclusion quoting McQuillin again as saying "the phrase 'term of office'... means the fixed legal period during which the incumbent may legally hold the office."

Do you think the Charter Commission that wrote this language read McQuillin and knew that this was 'the' definition of 'term'? Levesque's opinion talks about 'terms,' 'full terms,' and 'partial terms." Each one uses the word 'term.' But let's move on.

Quote 2: Here Levesque is citing a case called Pope.

"No person shall be elected as a member of the city council for more than two four-year terms..." According to the courts [sic] reasoning, the words 'elect' and 'appointed' have different meanings and a 'four-year term' is not the same as a 17-month term. (pp. 2-3)

But in the Pope case the law specifically said 'elected' and in the Anchorage charter, the word is NOT 'elected' it's 'served.' "[a] person who has served on the assembly for three consecutive terms may not be reelected to the assembly until one full term has intervened."

Note: it says "three consecutive terms" (not full terms) but it also says, "until one full term has intervened." So when they were writing this, they were aware of the difference between full and not full terms. When they wrote about how many consecutive terms someone could serve, they didn't use the word full. But they did use it when they wrote about how much time must intervene before one can be reelected. I would guess this is the precise language on which Mjos is basing his challenge.


Quote 3 - I include this under logic rather than intent, because it is so logically flawed.

Morever, if the intent was for the term limits to include partial terms then language addressing partial terms would have been included. (p. 5)

Don't buy a used car from this guy. You could just as easily make the opposite argument: "If the intent was for the term limits to only be full terms, then language addressing full terms would have been included." This is pure sophistry. And since they did, as I pointed out just above, include 'full term' when talking about how long one had to wait before being elected again, one could logically imagine that they didn't intend the consecutive terms to be full terms or they would have said so.

Since Levesque himself uses the term ‘partial term’ and the charter talks about ‘three year term[s]’ and “two year term[s]” (for mayor), it would seem that the word ‘term’ means time spent serving as assembly member, however long that turns out to be. There could be partial terms, two year terms and three year terms, but all are ‘terms.’ Thus a partial term is a term. The charter prohibits three consecutive terms.


Legislative History and Intent

Levesque cites the original Charter Committee Report #4 and the Charter Review Commission Report to get to the intent of the ordinance. This is after citing legal precedence that legal intent trumps the literal meaning of the law.

He has two citations that logically support his position that one has to serve consecutive FULL terms before term limits apply. (Or should I say "full term" limits apply?)

Intent Quote 1: On page 6 of Levesque's opinion, he cites Committee Report #4:

The charter will limit the Mayor to two successive full terms. A policy question for the Commission is whether a limit on successive terms of Assembly members should be imposed...

He has already decided that what applies to the Mayor regarding full or partial also applies to the Assembly (and School Board) and that from this it means the Commission clearly intended it to mean full terms.

My problems with this are:

1. This is plucked out of Report #4. I'd have to know how many reports there were and what they said (did a Report #6 change its mind?) and read the context of this quote to be sure it means what he says it means. And given some of the other stuff he's written here, I'm not inclined to do that without checking.
2. If the Commission discussed full terms and partial terms and were conscious of this distinction, why, in the end, didn't they say 'full term' when they wrote the Charter? Perhaps at the end, they voted to strike the term 'full.' Of course, I'm playing devil's advocate here. The rest of the context may well support his contention.

Intent Quote 2: On page 8 Levesque writes:

The Charter Review Commission recommended that the term limit provisions be evaluated and voted on by the public, but that any adopted term limits be applied prospectively allowing any incumbent eligibility "to run for two additional full terms."

From this he concludes that they meant (for the Assembly) consecutive 'full' terms. I didn't know you could run for partial terms. And this is talking about what the limbo Assembly members (those serving when the rules were being changed) could do.

It's possible the Charter members did mean what Levesque says the meant, but it isn't possible logically, from these scraps of evidence to jump to the conclusion that Levesque presents:

A review of the language used in the MOA Charter term limit provisions reveals that the term limits for electd offices are for either two full consecutive three-year terms or three full consecutive three-year terms. The meaning of the language is clear and unambiguous, partial time served through either appointment or election does not count for the purpose of counting terms. Both the available legislation history and established precedent support this conclusion.

Personal Note

Anchorage is a small town. Dick Traini was a student of mine and I respect him and have voted for him. But Elvi Gray's positions are closer to mine and I have contributed to her campaign. Furthermore, I know Dr. Peter Mjos and even posted a picture of him on the ski trail not too long ago. I'm also trying to balance my desire to share all I know with my obligations to respect the confidentiality of personal conversations I've had with friends. The rules about sources are being debated for professional journalists, and as a citizen blogger, the trust of my friends and family trumps my obligations to my readers. I don't want my friends to stop talking to me if they fear I'll blog it. If I can find an independent source of information, I might use that but not confidential conversations.

I also don't believe in term limits. I recognize that the system tends to favor incumbents, but term limits imply the public is too dumb to vote right and so we have to prevent them from reelecting someone. But it is the law, and we should follow the law or change it. One way to do that is to challenge it when one has legal standing to do that.



My Conlusion

My conclusion is that this is not clearcut and that a hired attorney is not how we determine law. Getting this to a judge gives us a final decision. But it is also problematic that this decision is coming so late in the game that if Traini were determined to be ineligible, another candidate could not run. I also think that things could get seriously messy if the decision is not final before the election and/or Traini should win and then be declared ineligible. It would put a cloud over Elvi Gray if she got elected that way. It would be better for her to ask the voters, as part of her campaign, to show the meaning of the term limits by voting for her and not voting for a candidate who, if elected, could serve more than nine consecutive years, which would seem against the intent of the term limits.

But I think it will be messier if this issue is not resolved before the next mayoral election when there could potentially be a candidate running who will have served a partial term. If reelected, would that person be able to run for a third consecutive term? (Mayor is limited to two terms.) We need to get this cleared up. Unfortunately, it appears that the only way to do that is to challenge a candidate who is running for a fourth term.

In in the big scheme of things, if someone can serve an extra year, even two, it probably is no big deal. But I don't think that things are nearly as unambiguous as Levesque would have us believe.

Good Discussion on Immigration - Justice Talking

Justice Talking had a pretty extensive discussion of laws requiring that police check immigration status of people who might be illegal immigrants when making routine traffic stops.

Overview (from the site)

The issue of immigration has been a flashpoint in the Presidential debates. Border fences, identification for illegal immigrants, and other reforms have all been debated. And Mitt Romney has been in the hot seat because some say he didn't act fast enough when he found out illegal persons were cutting his grass. All of these issues raise important questions about U.S. immigration policies, particularly the current crack-down on hiring illegal workers. What happens to workers caught working without papers? Join us for this edition of Justice Talking for a look at our nation's work rules and what they mean for illegal immigrants.

The link shows you who all was in the discussions and there's a link to the show. Given that Assemblyperson Bauer is trying to get this back on the agenda, I'd suggest Anchorage folks listen to this.

I really don't understand what drives people on an issue like this. An interesting point made - that is relevant to Anchorage - is that the purpose is overcome laws that prevent police from checking. At the hearing the Assembly had, the police chief, as I recall, said there was nothing to prevent police from checking, but they should be forced to check.

Listen for yourself. There's a Windows Player link and an MP3 download link.

Anti-Sanctuary Ordinance Buried Indefinitely

I got the following email tonight from the blogger at Independent Alaskan:

Despite the fact that the Anchorage Assembly postponed public testimony regarding Paul Bauer's anti-sanctuary ordinance, Assemblyman Allan Tesche moved to postpone the ordinance indefinitely. The motion passed 8-3 (Bauer, Coffey & Sullivan voted no). A second vote for reconsideration was 8-3, so the issue will not be brought up again!!! It's done!

I guess after someone last week who claimed to be Debbie Bauer wrote things like this on the ADN blog:

As for my husband's anti-crime ordinance, what don't you understand? Google for yourself and find out just what illegal immigration has done to this country. It speaks for itself. Not a waste of time, but one man's effort in making our city a safer place in which to live. So if you want to live with illegal's move, cause this city is going to change for the better.

Are you here legally? Everyone that is making the issue of illegal immigrants has something to hide themselves.
We are proud to be the decendents of immigrant familes that processed thru Ellis Island in the 1900's.

that wiser heads on the Assembly realized where this debate could have headed if not stopped now.


While getting the link to the ADN blog just now I noticed that Kyle Hopkins just blogged the same story with a sour note at the end:

In a surprise move -- surprise to me, anyway -- the Assembly voted to postpone indefinitely a proposal from Assemblyman Paul Bauer that would let police ask you for proof of U.S. citizenship.

That means it's dead.

Bauer just handed me a written statement in response. It says, in part:

"The eight Anchorage Assembly members voting to postpone indefinitely the ordinance "Local-Enforcement-Anti-Sanctuary" is a slap in the face of law-abiding, legal citizens."

If Paul Bauer is so strongly in favor of obeying the law he might want to work on the people who run red lights, speed past schools, and beat their wives. I suspect they, and drunk drivers, cause a lot more harm to Anchorage than illegal aliens.

Funny how things work. I got an email that linked me to a page with this video. It has quotes from the bible about how people should help 'aliens'. I had been recalling that there were a number of passages I recalled that said people should take in and help strangers (which I was taught meant something like people from other lands). I think the video is a little heavy handed. But it saves me the time of finding these quotes myself. I know that quotes can be taken out of context so I got my bible out to check on the passages. The wording is a slightly different, but the key difference in the passages I looked up was that the video uses the word 'alien' where my bible says "stranger.' But alien is probably a closer translation to what those words mean in modern American English.

Assembly Work Session on Anti-Sanctuary City Ordinance

The basic issues:

1. Paul Bauer has introduced an ordinance that would, among other things, require police to check immigration status of people they stop for traffic violations and to develop a working agreement with Homeland Security. This comes about because Anchorage has made itself a "Sanctuary City."

2. Hispanic civic organizations are strongly opposed because they believe they will be singled out as well as other people who 'look' foreign or have accents.

3. The Assembly Sub Committee had testimony from the following:

• Paul Bauer, the Assembly member who introduced the ordinance, had 30 minutes to present a slide show.
  
• Municipal Attorney said their analysis did not find constitutional problems, though there might be some problems with separation of powers issues - the assembly makes laws and the administration implements the laws. So if the ordinance would tell the police how they had to do their job, that might raise problems.
• The Municipal Prosecutor had several issues
• the negative effect it would have on police-community relations - that it would reduce trust of government and thus tips people give the police which is an important part of crime prevention and investigation
• the effect on reporting domestic violence - women would not report their sponsors for fear of losing sponsor plus other issues
• workload for his office
• Chief of Police Heun said the would continue doing what they do now. If they stop someone they ask for a driver's license. If the person doesn't have one they call it in to check and talk to them to see if we have probable cause to detain them. We have a functional arrangement with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).
• Robin Bronin, Alaska Immigration Justice Project (my notes aren't too good at this point, she reiterated points about impact on community and also about domestic violence I believe.)
• Angelina Estrada-Burney from Bridge Builders - Their organization's board has unanimously voted to urge the Assembly to vote no on this.
  
• Margaret Stock - this was by far the most impressive testimony. She introduced herself as a conservative Republican. I shouldn't be amazed anymore when I meet someone from Anchorage who turns out to be a nationally recognized expert on a topic. In this case - checking the web after the work session - I've found all sorts of things about her. From ilw.com:
  

  Margaret Stock is an associate professor of law in the Department of Law, United States Military Academy, West Point, N.Y.; an attorney; and a lieutenant colonel in the Military Police Corps.
  

  She had a number of problems with the ordinance.
• The term sanctuary city is not a legal term, but one created on talk shows and blogs
• The Immigration Reform Law Institute that is pushing this 'ideological experiment' is using Anchorage as a Guinea Pig but if Anchorage gets sued, they won't help with the legal costs, and they are proud that Paul Bauer has introduced their ordinance.
• Generally went through a list of practical implications of this type of ordinance, written, she alleged, 'by people with no practical experience with immigration law'
  
• the illegal alien lists used are extremely unreliable
• causes people who are not a problem to be reported
• lawsuits will result as people are wrongly detained
• The Cost Benefit analysis is way off - it will be a very expensive ordinance because of future litigation
  

I've said in previous posts that both my parents were immigrants to the US and that my grandparents were unable to get visas to the US and perished in Nazi Germany. So I'm come to this with a bias.

I did get a chance to talk to Paul Bauer alone after the meeting. He talks calmly, politely, and reasonably. He has a background in the security field and said he was stationed in Berlin for a while in the military and they gathered information from East Berlin. So it is quite believable that security is a high priority item for him, for which some individual liberties are legitimately sacrificed. And at some point I might agree with that general principle, but I suspect that on a continuum from 1 to 10, he would be ready to sacrifice liberties at 1 or 2, while I would be waiting for 8 or 9. He also talked about prevention - that he wanted to deal with gangs before they became an issue and the same here. Even if illegal immigration is not a problem yet in Anchorage - and everyone agreed that we don't have very accurate numbers - he wants to get ahead of the curve.

But his arguments about national security [he started with a slide of Al Qaeda terrorists] seem to be contradicted by other parts of his argument, particularly when he emphasized that 50% of the "illegals" were Mexican and another large percentage were of other Central/South American heritage. I don't think that we are worried about Mexican being terrorists.

I don't really understand why people get so emotional about immigration. All non-Native Americans were once immigrants. There is some primal fear that is at work here. I can't help but believe that for many it is the fear of 'the other.' This is legislation that the blatant racists can get behind and say is about "obeying the law," not race. Just because sites like Alaska Pride support this law, doesn't make it racist, but it doesn't make me feel more comfortable.

If you check websites on immigration, clearly this is a hot button issue. Is immigration the 'gay marriage' of the 2008 election? Is this one of the Republican wedge issues? Is this ordinance and the attacks on Begich over the budget part of the conservative offensive to tarnish the Deomocrats' most successful politician?

Assembly Work Session on Anti-Sanctuary Ordinance

[1:42 pm. The meeting is over, the subcommittee voted to recommend not passing this ordinance. This is a very rough live blog that was updated now and again during the meeting. I will try to clean it up later today.]

Live Blogging Assembly Work Session
12:00
Assembly Work Session on Local Enforcement and Anti-Sanctuary

Assemblymember Matt Claman opened the meeting at 12noon. Assembly member Paul Bauer is making a presentation with power point. The first slide was a set of pictures on Al Queda people who entered the US illegally.


Now a list of defininitions - illegal immigration
Qualified Alien - definition - lawfully permitted ....
Alien who has been battered or subject to extreme cruelty

Reasons for Illegal Immigration
War, reunite families, prostitution



Illegal Immigration is NOT victimless crime

Misdemeanor vs. Felony
sedond and subsequent times becomes felony

Recognize concerns about profiling. 50% of illegals are of Mexican origin and 24% are of non-Mexican South America

Gateway states - California, Washington, Oregon - laws that allow immigrants to come
Cal 2.83 million, Wash - 280,00, Oregon Sanctuary State, as is Alaska - because of Anti Patriot act resolution

Health Costs to US - people get health benefits but tax payers pick up the burden, and they spread diseases long ago wiped out in US

Mexico's defense of illegal immigrants - 20 Billion dollars to Mexico - they will not enforce their borders, release valve for them

Alaska Justice Center numbers - estimate 7-10,000 in AK

12:25 - Bauer finishing up his presentation - talking about the ordinance he is introducing
Where people indicate he is not a citizen, ...

Official Use of Individual Immigration Status Information - federal rules, no one can be prohibited

If we pass this we just say you come to agreement with homeland security. This does not preempt our laws.

12:36pm Continued live coverage Municipal Attorney says he does not think the ordinance is unconstitutional. Though there is something that could raise questions about separation of powers. The assembly makes law and the administration implements them. We are not sure the assembly can tell the administration what it must do is a potential problem.

Questions:
Teshe

Claman -whether the resolution turned Anchorage into a Sanctuary City?
Attorney: Not exactly sure what the popular press means when it uses the word Sanctuary City. But based on the legal research, this did not make law. This resolution did not change the legal environment of the municipality of anchorage.

[I'm learning how to do this - taking pictures, trying to upload, etc. The Library wifi is slow, so bear with me]

12:00 Matt Claman opening the meeting
Bauer will present first, then others


Teshe - I appreciate Mr. Bauer’s presentation, I’d like a copy of the slides.
I would like to make a statement at the end. There are a number of people here who want to address this. Thank you to Mr. Bauer for his presentation.

Claman: Only question. Dr. Selkregg? I handed out a copy of the Muni Attorney’s memorandum. The Question I had that is based on the 2003 statement that Anchorage is a sanctuary city. A resolution is an opinion and does not have affect of a law. Hard to understand how that changed us to a sanctuary city?

Bauer: since this became a big issue, cities have made themselves sanctuary cities. The state started in in May and in July the city did. The situation growing so much, the Congressional Research Service, when they asked about enforcing immigration law, a list of cities that they called sanctuary.

Claman: Did you write the ordinance yourself?

Bauer: I’m not a lawyer, it comes from a public interest group attorneys that used this as a model. This is very minor compared to what is out there.

Claman: Is the group you are discussing the Immigration Law Insittute?
The next person I’ve asked to make a presentation is the Municipal Attorney

M. Attorney:

Selkregg - Question about outcome of the law. Could you explore that with us? I think it’s a critical issue.

Attorney- Footnote 2 - refer to CRS report. Katie, Texas - even though a law may be permissable on its face, sometimes laws are extremely difficult to apply in the field on a day to day basis. The expeirences that happen in the field attract law suits. Racial discrimination suits, wrongful arrest, defamation. I think about APD and have no questions they won’t try to carry out the law impeccably. This kind of law regularly attract constitutional claims about the way they are applied.

Selkregg - I’d like to know more about what is happening in other cities as the outcomes of this kind of law. Laws may look like ok, but the actual impact may be bad - such as laws that affect who can vote.
12:48pm
Selkregg - concerned that Bauer said not everyone would be asked about their citizenship
Bauer - In your view - how do you view the ordinance yourself? What do you think it means. Ms. Selkregg says its the end of the world, we'll get all sorts of law suits
Attrny: We haven't said it unconstitutiona. By and large, it passes muster. It imposes some responsibilities on APD.
Bauer: Specifically/
Attrny: ob - responsibility to ask about citizenship of detained person; cooperate with federal forces. We've said there is nothing on the face of that that is unconstitutiona. It requres APD to enter a cooperative agreement with Homeland Security. But we did say there was a separation of powers.
Bauer:
Claman: Sorry you had your three questions, lots of other people, I may have to limit questions

added 1:13pm
Municipal Prosecutor: Some concerns about how this will affect our office. Similar to concerns APD has. Law enforcement needs to have close ties to community to do its job. These are the people we protect. They are also important sources of information, which we need as evidence to prove our cases. AT times this is hard to get, no one wants to talk to the cops. This requirement to enquire about people’s immigration status, it would deter immigrants from coming forward to cooperate with police to solve crimes. Concerns about domestic violence victims not filing because of concerns about their immigration status or their batterer will no longer be their sponsor. I should note there are special provisions for specific types of visas for victims of domestic violence under federal policy. Important to place emphasis on protecting victims of domestic violence. Anything that could deter immigrants from reporting domestic violence concerns me.

Finally, effect on workload in my office. We are source of information on legal matters for APD. Prosecutors take a lot of calls when they are off duty about legal questions and providing advice to police - we will be their primary source of advice. Very complex body of law.

Committee Questions:?
Bauer: Position of prosecutors office, because of close ties of APD to community, that we should neglect helping out and enforcing illegal aliens in the community. You did hear illegals cause a burden to the community.
Prosecutor: I’m expressing concern about enforcing laws.
Claman - we have four more people have to stop already one pm.

Rocky Heun, Chief of Police: Willingness to answer questions. Police will always fall back on probably cause and ????. No matter how law shakes out, we’ll continue doing, what we do right now. To investigate and enforce the law. We will make a traffic stop, for instance. If a person doesn’t have a drivers license, then we start talking. Attena go up. Check to see if they really have one, and talk to see if we have enough probable cause to detain them. We contact ICE, we have a functional relationship. ICE will give us advice - take guidance from ICE if we have probable cause to believe that someone is an illegal immigrant.
Scope of the problem as we know it. Mr. Bauer and I contacted ICE and we couldn’t get the scope of the problem. I went back to the APD files:
Arrests 2005 total of 6 2006, 7, this year 5. Total 18
We made total of 15,000 in 05 this year 10,750

APD arrests of illegals 42,817 chargeable offenses , we had 18 illegals. That doesn’t mean there are illegals we aren’t in contact with. Office of Detention and removal of ICE regularly check the jails to see if there is anyone there to be remanded. I don’t know those numbers so I’m interested in the FOIA request that Bauer has filed.

Tesche: Do you have statistics about violent crimes committed by illegals that hasn’t been made public?

Heun: I don’t have that, but I can get back to you.

Tesche: I want to test the proposition that there is a crime wave by illegals.

Bauer: One question. In your contacts what were circumstances of arrests that led APD to make contact with these folks.
Heun: Most were traffic stops, based on our suspicion
Bauer: Why dig further?
Heun: Not having a drivers license, you engage in conversation that leads to things.
Selkregg: I know you’ve been working with the immigrant community, if we pass this proposal, how will it affect our relationships.
Heun: Intl. Associ. Of Chiefs of Police have guidelines. This is a concern. Always a concern when any element in the community perceives itself to be isolated from the police.
Claman: Immigration Justice Project
Robin Bronin, Alaska Immigration Justice Project

Robin Bronin, Alaska Immigration Justice Project
….Congress has been creating legislation to help immigrants come forward, especially those who have failed to get their documents because a spouse has been abusing them.
Claman: We would like copies of both documents.
Bauer: Do you now or have you ever harbored or supported illegal immigrants and if you did would you give us numbers and could you help us develop our statistics?
Bronin: I don’t have that information 1:17

Bridge Builders, Angelina ????: Sent email to all members of assembly, that board members of BB have passed a resolution against this ordinance. Our member come from various ethnic communities of Anchorage. We want Anchorage to become the first city without prejudice. This ordinance would be harmful to our goal.
We work with the police and ASD hoping that Anchorage will serve as a cultural mecca, that people will value the diversity of Anchorage. Distressed with the anti-immigration sentiments on blogs and media that this ordinance has generated.

Bauer: Hi Angelina. One question. As the ordinance is drafted…. What fear do you see that legal immigrants would have?

Angelina: Who would be asked - profiling? Would people with dark skin or an accent be asked but not others?

Bauer: I agree with you. And the ordinance does have things that get that through. The presentation prior stated statistics… in no way can you get away about illegal immigrants.

Angelina: We believe in equal respect for all people here.

Selkregg: Have you asked UAA and hospitals about this?
Angelina: We work with them but haven’t asked

Fed. Employee, attorney, : I’ve been an attorney in Professor at West Point, Dept. Of Law. But today only talking on behalf of myself.

Dept. Of Defense has a significant number of illegal immigrants fighting in Iraq. We do grant postumas citizenship to those who die in combat

I’m a registered Republican and conservative who lives on the hillside.

Sanctuary City term is not a legal term. It is basically a talk radio and blog term. The slide show had lots of errors. All the Al Queda entered country legally.

Ordinance offered by people with no practical experience with immigration law. It is ideological experiment. Not a problem in Alaska. We are a guinea pig for this organization. They are very proud Bauer has introduced this here in Anchorage and brag about it on their website.

This generally causes people who are not a problem to be reported. Hard to determine who is or is not a citizen. I’ve had people walk into my office who said they were illegal aliens and after 45 minutes I told them they were citizens. And vice versa. Very had to figure out if someone is illegal alien. Run the name through the data base, but the data base is full of errors. Rep. ???, ran her new attorney’s name through the data base and found she was listed as illegal. She’s not.

Cost Benefit - lawsuits happen, expensive, go on for years, ordinances get struck down. Facing millions of dollars in attorney’s fees. The institute doesn’t pay the attorney fees for legislation they foist on them.

It requires checking anyone who is not a citizen.

Bauer: It’s 1:30 this meeting is over.

Claman: We started 6 minutes late, so we will go six more minutes.

Tesche: I don’t know enough about immigration law to ask a question.
Johnson: C/B analysis - Bauer says he wants it passed because it will create fear. And attached link
Bauer: You need to get your facts straight.
Claman: We’ll resolve that off the record.
Bauer: I have a lot of questions. You have impeccable qualifications. I did training at West POint ROTC. Millions of dollars of lawsuits.
???: Not this one, this one hasn’t been tested.
Bauer: Thank you. This is a totally different ordinacne.
???: Yes, we’re a guinnea pig they got you to file
Bauer: They didn’t get me. I chose on my own there were two models and I DID NOT chose number 2.
Claman: Close public hearing. Subcommittee ready to make recommendation?
Tesche: I would incorporate all the comments on the record and propose a do not pass.
Johnson: I listened to everyone and have had calls. I felt all along, to be honest, that the resolution of 2003 was non-binding. I have to say I do not feel this is a Mu;nicipal Issue and I’m not comfortable tying up MOA resources and support do not pass.
Claman: As chair. I don’t get past the sanctuary city analsysis. It’s an expression of opinion and they are valuable and they differ. It is not binding on what we do. I can’t get to the point of sanctuary city. Also recommend do not pass.

The attorney name is Margaret Stock.

The meeting is over. I’ll post this then try to clean it up and add stuff later. 1:10pm

Library Day, Anchorage is Our Home

Lunch with A.S at the Thai Kitchen. Decided to bike it because it would be easier to park than the car at the UAA library afterward. It was nice being in the library, it's been a while.










Found my book - Scott Gant's We're All Journalists Now. Someone on the Next Hurrah had recommended it. And it fits right in the my previous post on bloggers credentialing. When I read this in the inside cover

Are bloggers journalists, even if they receive no income? Even if they are unedited and sometimes irresponsible? Many traditional news organizations would say no But Gant contends otherwise...

Then the bike trail home, by the south fork of Chester Creek at the bridge at UAA.






But I left the bike home later when I went downtown to the museum for the showing of Anchorage is Our Home - co sponsored by Healing Racism Anchorage and the Hispanic Affairs Council of Alaska (HACA). The film is a series of clips from interviews of people in Anchorage talking about racism they have encountered, how it affected them, and the kind of Anchorage they would like to see. The Mayor dropped by and said a few words - mentioning particularly Paul Bauer's proposed new Assembly Ordinance to require Anchorage Police to ask anyone they stop for any 'legal' reason to produce proof of their legal status in the US. There is an Assembly Work Session on this Wednesday at noon in City Hall.

You want to know who supports Bauer's proposed ordinance? Check out the Alaska Pride blog. While you are there check out his White Nationalist links some of his

Other Favorite Sites

* The Truth About Martin Luther King
* Council of Conservative Citizens
* American Nationalist Union
* American Renaissance
* Jeff Rense
* Conservative HQ Forum
* Boycott Cabela's

General WN Blogs

* Anti-Semite Sam's Blog
* Aryan Matters Blog
* Bill White's Blog
* Dietrich's Blog
* Estonian Sunshine Blog
* Expose Them All
* Masher News Blog
* Nationalist Dissident Voice (UK)
* Panzerfaust Blog
* PC Apostate Blog
* Snow White's Blog
* South Africa Blog
* State Line Star
* The Rabbit Hole
* Tuonela's Blog

* White Reference Blog

I don't have the heart to provide the links to these sites, but you can get them on the Alaska Pride site. Look at a few of these and then tell me that racism doesn't exist in Alaska.

Local Elections

Wednesday night was a fundraiser for Sheila Selkregg's campaign for the Municipal Assembly. Her mother had this position when we got to Anchorage. Sheila's got great professional credentials and like her mom, she's doing this because she believes in community, in the possibility of creating a better place to live through technical skills, compassion, and imagination. There were a lot of people we hadn't seen for a while. It's great to have someone else take the time to invite people you want to catch up with.


And Thursday night was Elvi Gray-Jackson's fundraiser. I've known Elvi since the early 80's. She too is a strong, competent woman, passionately pursuing a better Anchorage. And we live in Elvi's district.