Weekend Reading - IRS Tax Help & School Choice; 'Kavanaugh's Cabal'; 5000 Year Old Meds

A few things I've read in the last couple of days you might find interesting or alarming.


1.  From an LA Times article titled, "Some small business owners could avoid cap on state and local tax deduction after IRS clarifies new rules"

"Small business owners could avoid a new federal limit on state and local tax deductions after the Internal Revenue Service said Wednesday that rules it released last month to prevent efforts in California and other states to circumvent the cap apply only to individuals. 

Businesses will be allowed to claim a full federal tax deduction for contributions to charities or government programs — particularly those offering school choice scholarships — that offer state tax credits, the IRS said."

Betsy DeVos is an example of how Trump has put people in charge of agencies who are ideologically opposed to the missions of the agencies.  I learned about the national right wing organizations pushing for 'parental rights' when I covered the hearings, led by current Alaska gubernatorial candidate Dunleavy.  Dunleavy's mantra was 'parental rights.'  It's code for destroying public schools, money for charter schools, home schooling, and other ways to funnel public education funds into private hands running private schools.  So here we have an attempt by the Trump administration to punish high tax states (because their people care about good government services) by eliminating the federal tax deductions for state and local taxes.  Well, that was part of the tax cut legislation.  But now they're saying, well, that's only for individuals.  Businesses are exempt, especially if they support 'school choice' - a buzzword for charter and other private schools.

Alaskans - better get lots of people voting in November so that Dunleavy comes in second, or better yet, third.



2.  David Brock: I knew Brett Kavanaugh during his years as a Republican operative. Don't let him sit on the Supreme Court.

"Brett and I were part of a close circle of cold, cynical and ambitious hard-right operatives being groomed by GOP elders for much bigger roles in politics, government and media. And it’s those controversial associations that should give members of the Senate and the American public serious pause. 

Call it Kavanaugh's cabal: There was his colleague on the Starr investigation, Alex Azar, now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mark Paoletta is now chief counsel to Vice President Mike Pence; House anti-Clinton gumshoe Barbara Comstock is now a Republican member of Congress. Future Fox News personalities Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson were there with Ann Coulter, now a best-selling author, and internet provocateur Matt Drudge."

At one time or another, each of them partied at my Georgetown townhouse amid much booze and a thick air of cigar smoke.

I did look Brock up before posting this. This piece is posted at an NBC link called Think.  He wrote a book called Blinded by the Right and has since become a Democratic 'operative.'
James Fallows is a journalist I've followed for many years and he's usually pretty savvy.  Here's his tweet about Brock's article.

I was a newsmag editor during the period David Brock is describing here:https://t.co/Lv5wNqOd8D

What Brock says about B Kavanaugh’s role on the Ken Starr team rings true to my experience in those days. I think most other DC journalists from that era would say something similar

— James Fallows (@JamesFallows) September 7, 2018

I was suggesting Kavanaugh was a zealot based on watching the hearings this week.  But Brock makes him out as much worse than that.  And the more recent documents the Democrats got from the Archive suggest that he lied to the Senate committee at various confirmation hearings including this one.

3.  From an Andrew Sullivan piece in New York Magazine that doesn't really tell us much more than we already know:

"This emperor has had absolutely no clothes from the very beginning. The only thing in doubt all along has been the Republican Party’s complicity.
And that complicity remains. If anything, it is intensifying. As Jim Fallows constantly points out, any single Republican senator — Sasse, Corker, Collins, Graham, Paul, Murkowski — could check this president by voting against him, on any number of issues . . "

I had tried to call Murkowski's office earlier, but the message machines was full.  This reminded me to send her an email asking her to vote no on Kavanaugh's confirmation.  You can too, here.


And for something totally different:

4.  From Science: 5000-year-old ‘Iceman’ may have benefited from a sophisticated health care system

Ötzi, the 5300-year-old “Iceman” discovered frozen in the Italian Alps in 1991, was a medical mess. His teeth were rotting, he had a bad stomach bug, and his knees were beginning to degenerate—not to mention the arrow in his back that probably killed him. Now, a new study concludes that the herbs and tattoos he seems to have used to treat his ailments may have been common around this time, suggesting a sophisticated culture of health care at this point in human history.

No, No, No - Bill Walker's Not A Progressive - Confusing Rational For Progressive - Updated

This was in a letter to the editor Sunday in the Anchorage Daily News (ADN):

"Instead, the three-way race pits two progressives against each other, encouraging them to battle it out between themselves while the conservative has no real opponent."

The Republican Party has been mean and nasty and obstructionist and focused on narrow partisan hardball tactics, particularly since  Obama was elected.  (Of course, it has nothing to do with race, wink, wink.)  A prime example was McConnell's,

"Our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term."

And despite bringing the approval of judges to a near standstill, and blocking even debate on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland completely, they have the nerve to complain that the Democrats want to get documentation before considering Brett Kavanaugh now.  Senators used to refer to each other as the Honorable Senator from ...  Now they make personal attacks:

'I question their sincerity. ... What more do they need to know?'

[I assume I needn't mention the elephant in the White House because everyone is fully aware of his total lack of any kind of social decency or conscience.]

This all leads to how people are now confusing someone being polite and rational as being Progressive.  Maybe that augurs well for Progressives in November, but I would like to point out that being Progressive isn't simply about being rational and well mannered.  It's about policy that include all Americans, about taking care of those who have greater hardships and obstacles, about having access to affordable health care, about focus on the community AND the individual, about breaking down legal and social structures that help the rich get richer and insure that poor stay poor.  It's about America as the democracy that sets an example to the world and recognizes that it's immigrants who have kept the US vital and creative and economically strong.

Bill Walker was a Republican until the day he filed as an Independent to run for the Alaska governorship.  He did this to avoid running in the Republican primary where he'd lost the primary four years earlier.  Compared to Dunleavy?  Walker is definitely a better choice, but for a Progressive there can't really be a question between Begich and Walker.  Walker told us in 2014 he was running for Governor to get his gas pipeline put in.  That's been his focus.  And he has seemed often to be the only adult in Juneau.  Though the other Republicans have refused to take the state's financial dilemma seriously and the Democrats didn't have the power to get other revenues sources.  But Walker is also a pro-life Republican.  And  even with his dedication to the pipeline project, it hasn't happened and more and more people are skeptical it ever will.  His Chinese 'partners' are known to be corrupt.  And even with Trump pushing coal, alternative energy is the future, and not the distant future.  Close enough that the cost of the pipeline is likely to be unrecoverable by the time it's built.  The Chinese are sending their first experimental cargo ship to Europe through the Northwest Passage because global warming is making that viable.  And I'm pretty sure that tankers will be able to take North Slope LNG directly from Prudhoe Bay by the time any pipeline is finished.

If I had to pick a Republican to be Governor, Walker would be probably one of the least harmful.

But he's not a progressive.  He's about as progressive, as Richard Nixon, under whose watch we got The Clean Air Act, The Clean Water Act, The Environmental Protection Agency, the opening of China, and the Privacy Act.  And Roe v Wade was decided by the Supreme Court while Nixon was president.  Nixon didn't talk publicly about Roe v. Wade, but when his office tapes were released much later, he'd acknowledged the need for abortion at times (in case or rape or a black and white baby.)

Decency and rationality are important qualities in politicians.  When I watched the Watergate Hearings live back in the 1970s, all the members of the House Judiciary Committee displayed those characteristics - whether Republicans or Democrats.

The attention to John McCain's various memorials this past week reflect this same hunger for decency and rationality on the national level.  It didn't used to be a Progressive monopoly.   If McCain had died on the campaign trail in 2008 after selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate, I assure you Democrats wouldn't have been fawning all over McCain.  It's only now, seeing McCain's principled stands in contrast to a truly awful Republican president, that his passing has been honored so lavishly.  Democrat after Democrat has said, "I honor him as a genuine human being and statesman, even though we disagreed on most issues."

I asked Tom Begich (and to Mark) in July why Mark decided to run.  Their polling data at the time showed Dunleavy winning in a head to head race with Walker, so jumping into the race, as they saw it, wasn't 'giving the election to Walker.'  Tom was hoping that after the primaries, they could look at the polls and decide which one should run.  So rather than splitting the vote, Begich felt his entering the race was the only way to block Dunleavy.  That post with video is here.  

The deadline to withdraw a name from the ballot is any day now.  But if both stay in the race, no one should be confused about there being two progressives.  There are two decent candidates, two conservatives, and one progressive.

[UPDATE a little later:  Jeanne at Mudflats spells out Walker's conservatism in much more detail.]

[UPDATE Sept 4, 2018:  And the idea that Begich and Walker are both progressives is exactly the message the Republicans want Alaskans to believe.  This, from Must Read Alaska, the blog of Suzanne Downing*:

"Begich and Walker both occupy the same space in the electorate — the progressive, Bernie Sanders Democrats and others on the political left. Dunleavy has the political right locked down."]

* Downing is identified in some older opinion pieces as the Communications Director of the Alaska GOP, but I can't find any mention of her on the current AK GOP website.

Why is Mark Begich Running For Governor? Tom Begich Explains

Like a lot of people, apparently, I was surprised and concerned when Mark Begich threw his name into the Governor's race.  A three way race could well give the office to the likes of Mike Dunleavy.  (I'm afraid my opinion of Dunleavy is not very positive, though I acknowledge it's based on one event - the hearings he chaired in Anchorage during a special session.  His committee's task was simply to pass a bill - Bree's Law, to teach kids to defend themselves from sexual predators -  that the Senate had passed unanimously the previous year but the House hadn't gotten too.  The House subsequently passed it and now the Senate merely needed to pass it one more time.  It should have taken five minutes.  It took days.  Dunleavy tried to water down bill and add his own - already rejected during the regular session - amendments.  Here's one of the posts that sums up much of those hearings.)

I consoled myself and others about Begich's decision by saying, "Mark is a good politician and candidate, he knows the issues and he is a real extrovert.  But much more important is that he wouldn't jump in this race without talking to his brother, State Senator Tom Begich. And Tom knows the numbers of Alaska politics better than just about anyone else.  I know this, and got to know Tom, when I was covering the Alaska Redistricting Board.  Tom was at most meetings along with his equally knowledgeable Republican counterpart Randy Ruedrich.

So, when I saw Tom at the immigration rally on Saturday, I gave him pretty much that preface I gave others.  Here's what he answered.  [It was noisy Saturday.  There was music and lots of people talking around us.  The audio is mostly understandable, but I've made a transcript.  There were a few parts I wasn't completely sure of, but nothing that changes the basic meaning.  The transcript follows the video.]



Reasonably close transcript:

Steve:  Tom
Tom:  Hey Steve, how’re you doing?
Steve:  I trust your judgment . . .
Tom:  I’m glad
Steve:  . . . But I’m really concerned about Mark jumping into the race, so tell me why this is happening.  Is this going to lose the race altogether?
Tom:  Not a chance.  When you look at the numbers we use  to analyze the race, what is . . . the key  here is to make sure a progressive is elected governor of the state of Alaska. I spent time talking to the Governor, the Lt. Governor, and others.  My brother.  Facilitating for the last week before the filing deadline.
And you know, it was our belief, based on the data, based on those discussions, that the governor wasn’t going to be in a position to win this race.  And, you know, we can’t sacrifice a progressive agenda, we can’t take that risk.  The imperative was to be sure that the strongest progressive candidate was in the race.  And that that candidate was part of our base party.  Try to remember, our primary is open to Independents and Democrats.  The Governor was ??? going to be in that primary and changed his mind.  That’s a problem.  There would have been another D probably if Mark hadn’t filed.  And Mark would have been, was, is the strongest D.
I never would have supported my brother getting into this race if I didn’t think he could win this race, and I’m certain that he can.  That being said, the question is how do we all come together as progressives?  There’s not a lot of hostility here between the Governor or between my brother.  What there is, is the need to have the strongest candidate face Mike Dunleavy.

Look, we’re talking about the situation now where the Supreme Court at the Federal level where you’re going to have Choice at risk, LGBT rights at risk.  There are a number of things that are going to take strong governance at the local level to ??? those issues.  Mark is the best candidate by far for that.
So with all that said, I believe Mark has the wherewithal to do it and the ability to do it.
Let me add one last thing.  Mark as the Democratic candidate brings other resources to the table.  The Democratic Governors’ Association resources, DFC resources that otherwise wouldn’t be coming to the state.  [http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org]   That’s going to help our down-ballot races, which matters a lot.
I know that both campaigns are going to continue to talk throughout this process, throughout the primary.  I’m certain that at the end of August, everybody will sit down and talk about who’s in third, who’s in second and make the right decisions.  I just believe that’ll happen.  But if it doesn’t happen, we have data that shows Mark wins a three horse race and he’s the stronger candidate in a two horse race.  And that’s what matters.  We have to win for progressives, we have to win.
Steve:  So you’re saying, if Mark didn’t get in the race, Dunleavy would have won anyway?
Tom:  I believe that to be true, yes.
Steve:  Thank you very much.
Tom:  You’re welcome.  

After I stopped the camera, I did ask Tom about the data he was basing this on.  He mentioned some polls, but pointed specifically to a poll that had been posted on Midnight Sun which showed, in a three-way race,  Dunleavy with 38%,  Mark Begich with 33%, and Walker with 23%.  These numbers were based on Begich having just gotten into the race and not having done any campaigning.   He also said that the Permanent Fund was really hurting Walker.  He also pointed out that Walker was a pro-life Republican.  He'd lost in a previous Republican primary so last round he entered as an Independent.  Walker and the Democratic candidate - Alaska Native and former head of the Alaska Permanent Fund Byron Mallott - realized that neither could beat the Republican Sean Parnell in a three way race.  So their Lt. Governor partners bowed out and Mallot joined as the Lt. Governor candidate with Walker as the candidate for Governor.  And they won.  Walker's main goal at the time was to build a natural gas pipeline, force the oil companies to release the natural gas they had on the North Slope, and ship the gas to Asia.  While there is action on that project and an agreement has been signed with a Chinese partners, there is also a lot of skepticism about whether it will ever be built.

If the poll numbers don't change much by August - or if Begich moves up - would Walker be willing to step out of the race?  The Democrats did that in 2014 to help Walker get elected.   I imagine he'd want Begich to commit to the pipeline and perhaps be given a position to lead that fight.  Walker has acted as a rational adult in Juneau- at least as I saw it, making decisions based on facts and practical realities rather than ideology.  But his cutting back the Alaska Permanent Fund while the Republicans blocked any other sources of revenue - recouping the oil taxes they cut earlier, an income tax, even a sales tax - doesn't sit well with Alaskans.  

Alaskans Need To Prepare To Stop The Dunleavy For Governor Campaign

[What Do I Know?  tends to shy away from taking explicit partisan stances on political races, preferring to present facts and let the reader decide.  And technically, my objections to Sen. Dunleavy are not because of his party membership, but because of his individual actions.  The specific actions I saw that so disturbed me were in defiance of the vast majority of his party. This post is an early warning]


From a Walker/Mallot (for governor) campaign email:

"The Walker Mallott campaign released polling this morning that shows Governor Bill Walker and Lieutenant Governor Byron Mallott leading a two-way race against potential opponents Mike Dunleavy and Kevin Meyer by 36% to 33%."

From my perspective, this is truly scary.  I watched Dunleavy up close in May of 2015, when he chaired a committee responsible for passing Erin's Law (which had overwhelming bi-partisan support) during a summer special session.  Here's a quick summary of my  impressions a year later as in a post where I wondered whether Mat-su shouldn't be allowed to be annexed by Texas.

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

During that special session, I coined the term "to dunleavy" which summarized my impression of what Sen. Dunleavy was doing to Erin's Law during that session.  (The link explains the poster.)

Note:  This is a warning about Mike Dunleavy and not an endorsement of Walker/Mallot.  There are still possibilities of other candidates to challenge them both from the Left and Right.  And I would add that I think the Kevin Meyer is a much more decent person, but he suffers from the fact that his full-time employer is Conoco-Phillips.  While that, inexplicably, is not a conflict of interest in the Alaska legislature, it would be seen as much by most people who study governmental ethics.

I Propose Annexing Matsu To Texas

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

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

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

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

 and

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

and

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

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

My Math Says At Least 2000 Kids Will Be Abused Because Of Dunleavy's Changes To Erin's Law

On May 24, Senator Dunleavy posted a long response on Facebook to the critics of his changes to HB 44, now CS HB 44. 

I've responded to it already here.  But as he continues to defend himself, I thought it would be useful to focus on what I think is the only real issue here:  the number of kids who will be molested because of the changes he made to the Erin's Law.  He argues he hasn't weakened the bill at all.  I truly can't fathom how he has come up with that conclusion.  Well, I've tried and I posted one possible explanation.  Here, I'm going to address this issue about the number of kids.  Then below, I've copied his long Facebook defense with my responses, paragraph by paragraph.

There's only one issue: 

(The only other possible issue is that without the changes, the bill wouldn't have passed.  But since it's already passed the House and the clean version passed the Senate last year unanimously, I think that argument can't seriously be made.)

In my mind, there is only one issue that matters when discussing the changes in Erin's Law that Senator Dunleavy's committee has made:  How will these changes impact the number of kids who will be molested because they did not get taught at school - because of Erin's Law - how to recognize potential abusers and their grooming techniques, how to say no, and that it's not their fault and so they need to tell an authority (parents, teachers, police, etc.) what happened.

Erin's Law, the original HB 44 amended to include teen dating violence awareness education, had the following features:
1.  School districts were required to use this program
2.  It covered kids in grades K-12
3.  If parents did not want their kids to participate, they had to say they did not give permission (opt out)

Now, the Erin's Law section of the Senate Education Committee Substitute for HB 44 has the following features:
1.  School districts are not required to implement the program
2.  It covers grades 7-12 only
3.  Kids cannot get this program unless their parents give them permission (opt in)

Just these changes alone will reduce the number of kids who participate in this program.  We can argue about how many kids will be affected.  Dunleavy tells us that 20+ school districts of 53 are already offering some version of this training.  I've looked at the list and it includes the largest districts - Anchorage, Fairbanks, Mat-Su, Juneau.  Thus while it's less than half the school districts, it's more than half the kids.  So, well over half the students are in school districts that do some of this.  The list doesn't tell us what is content is covered or whether it is K-12 or just 7-12.

Let's do some rough numbers.  Census data tells us that as of 2013 25.6% of the 736,732 people in Alaska are under 18.  That means in 2013 there were 188,600 kids in Alaska.  Of these 7.5% were under five and so not in school.  That comes to 133,348 school age kids and there would be  more now.   For argument's sake (and I'll be conservative with the numbers I offer) let's suppose that 30% of those kids are NOT getting sexual assault awareness training at school now.  That would mean about 40,000 kids. 

Currently, schools have the power to adopt such training or not.  One has to assume that those who are supportive have adopted it.  The others, for whatever reason, have not.  Now that this bill has been changed from mandatory to optional for schools, there's no reason to think that a lot of them will suddenly change their positions on this.  But to be charitable, let's say that 50% of the kids who aren't getting this, will be covered next year because the schools voluntarily adopt it.  And, again being charitable, let's assume those schools offer it to kids in K-12.

That still leaves 20,000 kids who won't get exposed to sexual abuse awareness training.

The numbers that proponents of Erin's Law have cited were 1/4 of girls and 1/6 of boys will be molested by the time they are 18.  ('Molested' a wide array of actions from being flashed to groped to raped.  And these events often continue over years.)  I didn't hear anyone challenge those numbers, but again, I'll be charitable and round it off to one out of ten.  Among the 20,000 kids not getting Erin's Law training, 10% would be 2,000 kids who will be molested because they were not given access to sexual abuse awareness.  I think my number is low because I've been very conservative with my hypotheticals and because Alaska's rate of abuse is higher than the national average.   I acknowledge that Erin's Law education won't prevent all sexual abuse of kids.  But Erin Merryn testified that she's been given anecdotal reports from police where the law is in place that they have been told by kids that it mattered and that statistics on abuse have dropped.  (And given the higher awareness for such crimes, often the numbers go up, not down, because more people report.)

This is the low-ball statistical impact of the changes that Dunleavy has made to the original HB 44.  There is a direct relationship between the changes that were made and this figure of 2,000 kids who will not be prepared to evade molestation because of those changes.  This is just for the first year. Even if the number were 'only' 1000, it would be horrific.  And each of these kids will have emotional and psychological damage that will lead to extra work for teachers, law enforcement, the courts, not to mention their families. 

Despite Dunleavy's claims that other parts of the bill make it a better bill, none of those changes strengthen the original intent or will get a single more kid into sexual abuse awareness classes. One could argue (and I do below) that some weaken it.

Because Dunleavy has insisted on watering down the bill and burdening it with 22 more sections, he will bear responsibility for every molestation that the original bill would have prevented.  He can say what he wants, but there is a very direct correlation between his actions here and the future abuse of a large number of kids in Alaska.  Whether that number is 500, 1000, or 2000, each one is his responsibility. 

Dunleavy has not given equivalent benefits that his changes will cause that would offset the damage to these kids.  He talks broadly about parental rights, but never identifies specific harm passing the original Erin's Law would have caused. 

The only possible way Dunleavy could be excused from this responsibility is if he could prove that the original bill would not have passed the full Senate.  Since it the passed the Senate unanimously last year, I think that proving it would have failed this year would be a difficult task.

From my perspective the impact on Alaska kids is the only thing that is important in this discussion.  What other states do, abstract benefits of parental rights, unspecified unfunded mandates, and the other things Dunleavy offers are just not relevant.

So that's my case here.   If I'm wrong here, show me.  My numbers are conservative.  It's Dunleavy's job, if he wants to refute this, to show how passing the original HB 44 his committee got for a vote , would have caused greater harm because it didn't have his amendments.  I have a good imagination, but I can't see how he can do much more than shuffle words around.  Nothing that changes the numbers.   

Below are Dunleavy's original Facebook Post and my comments paragraph by paragraph.  I've put Dunleavy's words in blue and mine in black. 

The Committee Substitute (CS) for HB 44 known as “The Alaska Safe Children’s Act” by some and “Erin’s Law” by others was introduced in the Senate Education Committee that I chair on Tuesday. [May 19] The CS was heard and adopted by the Senate Education Committee and moved out to the next committee of referral, Senate Finance. A Senate Finance hearing has not been scheduled yet but I do anticipate one will be in the next few days. If the bill is passed out of Senate Finance, it will then go to the Senate Rules committee and soon after most likely to the Senate floor for a vote. If approved by the Senate it would go to the House for a vote as well.

Pretty straightforward so far.  He figures it will be scheduled in the Finance committee "in the next few days."  As I publish this on May 29 the HB 44 Timeline still has May 21  referral to Finance as the last date is mentioned..  I can't find where it has been scheduled.  

The CS for HB 44 has been the topic of much discussion this week. The focus of the discussion seems to center on the following:
• The belief that the change from the word “shall” to “may” with regard to compelling school districts to mandate the training will make the law, if not meaningless, less effective, because school districts would not be required to implement the training – it would be optional and give local districts local control
• The concern that the CS has too many new sections and topics than what was in the original HB 44.

Point 1 - There were two levels of concern.   One, as Dunleavy mentions, changing the requirement  for school districts from 'shall' to 'may.'  But people were also concerned that parental option changed from allowing parents to opt out (they were required to say they wanted their kids to NOT participate in the program) to opting in (they are required to give permission before their kids can participate.)  A third significant change was to eliminate K-6 kids from getting sexual awareness education.  These ages are the most vulnerable and least able to defend themselves.  They need this the most.

Point 2 - It wasn't simply that there were too many new sections.  If they believed the sections  strengthened the bill, I believe supporters of Erin's Law would not have objected.  In fact they went along with the addition of a new section that mandated teen dating violence curriculum.
The concern was a) that there were so many new amendments (the bill now has 23 sections, one of which is the original bill)  that had little or nothing to do with Erin's Law; b) that some of the amendments (in addition to the Erin's Law section mentioned above) that were aimed at parental rights actually hurt kids' chances of getting sexual abuse awareness education; and c) some of the new sections had controversial provisions such as prohibiting schools from contracting with agencies that provide abortions.  They even prohibit school service providers from having non-school related contracts with abortion providers. (This seems to conflict with the US Constitution's guarantee of freedom of association.) 

Let me explain why the changes to the CS were made. With regard to changing “shall” to “may”, this change was made at the request of school districts that testified at hearings that we had during the regular session. Their concern was that with potential budgets cuts and possible staff reductions, making the training mandatory in law now before we know what the budget will be could put the districts in a difficult spot in deciding how to use their limited resources. As one school official said, “We agree this training will be good for kids, but will we have the funds to implement it?” Another asked, “With budgets being cut, what do we give up to make room for new trainings such as this?”
Another thing that warranted the change was the issue of which curriculum or program to use, and more importantly, which is most effective? While this issue of identifying available, effective curricula is in the process of being addressed, some school district officials are concerned that they need time to review curricula before implementation in schools.

I'm sure that school districts did complain about this. The words 'unfunded mandate' were mentioned in the hearing.  Schools do have a lot of things they are required to do.  But my wife, who taught English to non-native speakers in the Anchorage School District and thus saw what happened in a number of different schools, would regularly tell me about how much time teachers spent on things that were not mandated - like celebrating various holidays.  If teachers want to make time, they will. More on this below the next section.

Currently, there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 20+ school districts out of 53 total Alaska school districts that are already doing some form of the training now voluntarily without being compelled by the state. School districts are asking for time to allow them to identify the resources to implement the training properly and effectively. This is part of the reason for the change.
The other stated issue some folks are having with the CS is that they believe there are too many sections to it, and that the number of sections may jeopardize the bill’s passage.
Hundreds of bills are introduced during legislative sessions, with a fraction of them ever getting passed by both the House and Senate and then being signed into law by the Governor. So there is always a chance a bill may not get the required votes for passage, including this CS. While I have had some legislators say they may not be able to support the CS as it is, others have stated to me that with the changes and additions to the CS they are now more likely to support the bill. It is always difficult to say what the final vote will be. However, I do have a sense that it has a very good chance of passing.

Dunleavy rightly points out that a number of school districts (he says 20+) already are doing some form of this training.  Then he cites some concerned about:

1.  Not having time to prepare.  This includes getting appropriate materials and training teachers.

I'd note that all teachers are already, by state law, mandatory reporters.  That means they are required to report suspicions of child abuse that they see.  So they should already have some fairly detailed training so they know how to do this.

Book shared at 5/20/15 Education Committee Hearing

I would also note that I could find no time-line in the bill.  Thus one assumes that like most legislation without a date, it goes into effect in 90 days.  If having time is the issue, then simply giving schools a year or two to get prepared would seem to solve this issue. Leave it mandatory, but give them a delay option. A school district could apply for a waiver and explain why they needed it.  But I don't think this should be an issue.  There are already schools doing this training and they have resource materials.  One person who testified shared books that are being used that even have
adaptations to Alaska Native cultures.  (And I note that there are many different Native cultures so one needs to consider whether these are appropriate for all the cultures.)  There was also testimony that the Rasmuson Foundation had pledged to help provide materials and training. 

2.  The legislative process and the slim chances for this bill.  The original HB 44 already passed the House.  Last year a clean version of this bill passed the Alaska Senate unanimously.  So even if a few people told you they had problems with it, the odds are high that you wouldn't lose half  those who voted for it last year.  If you had simply passed the bill that was sent to the committee the way it was, I think (and you know) it had every likelihood of passing.  But because of the significant changes there are now issues that will cause people who supported the bill to reconsider.  Do they support all the new things you've tacked on and is it worth passing them (things you couldn't get passed in the regular session) to get a watered down Erin's Law?  Furthermore, t's not likely the legislature would go back and add K-6 in a future session.  More likely they'll say, we've already taken care of this issue.
And, if it passes the Senate, because of the many changes, the House has to redebate it.  We're in special session now and the state is close to shutting down if the legislature can't agree on a budget.  Debating all the changes to Erin's Law is not something they have a lot of time for.  Perhaps you thought this would get your pet legislation passed.  But it might get everything sunk. 

So what’s in the sections of the CS? In the Comments below, I will post links for: (a) the actual text of the CS for HB 44, (b) the original version of HB 44, and (c) a sectional analysis of the new CS completed by Legislative Legal. While the Legislative Legal analysis lists 23 actual sections of the bill, these components of the bill are worth noting. . .
Section 16 deals with sexual abuse and sexual assault awareness and prevention efforts in public schools. This is what some refer to as “Erin’s Law.” The other component of this section relates to dating violence and abuse awareness and prevention efforts in public schools. Some refer to this as “Bree’s Law,” named after a young Alaskan woman named Bree Moore who was tragically murdered by her then boyfriend.
Sections 2, 5, 6, 7, and 17 relate to SB 89, known as the “Parental Rights Bill.” I introduced this bill earlier this year in an effort to reiterate in law the inherent rights of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children. SB 89 has had several hearings this year in the Senate Education Committee and State Affairs Committee. It was passed out to the Senate Rules Committee where it awaits scheduling for a floor vote.
Sections 3, 4, 8, 9, 19, 11, 12, 13 14,15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 all relate to eliminating or modifying requirements of the state on school districts and educational personnel. The purpose of these sections is to identify items that can be modified or repealed to enable school districts to save resources, in order for them to potentially use those freed resources for academic and educational matters.
Section 23 saves the state money and removes a testing requirement. This section is basically HB 80, sponsored by Representative Lynn Gattis, which passed the House this year. It repeals the mandate from last year’s HB 278 that all secondary students take the SAT, ACT or Work Keys test before graduating from high school. HB 278, which required the state to pay for the test, failed to specify a score that students must receive to consider passing. HB 80 reverses the mandate and funding from the state. In doing so, the state will save $525,000 annually and will give back countless hours to school counselors and administrators who have been proctoring these tests.

Sen. Dunleavy is either being careless or trying to slip some things by us here.  Talking about parental rights could take up half a dozen long blog posts.  I'll just say I see there is a national movement on parental rights.  Their website and rhetoric remind me of other conservative 'think tanks' like ALEC and Americans for Prosperity.  They use a phrase everyone agrees with - parental rights, in this case - to attack government and schools.   Parental Rights in this bill includes the right to keep their kids from learning about sexuality, STDs, birth control, and definitely abortion.  And sexual abuse awareness.

It's interesting that while the language in Section 2 requires parents to object each time they want to withdraw their child from school activities to which the object, the language for Sexual Abuse Awareness (Erin's Law) requires them to actually give permission BEFORE the child can attend. 

I'd note that two of the sections listed - 5 and 17 - have nothing to do with parental rights, at least not as I understand that term.  Instead they are aimed at cutting all school contracts with agencies that provide abortions and agencies that don't provide abortions but have contracts with agencies that do.  Those were just slipped in there, it seems, on the assumption that most people won't check.  While Dunleavy has changed a lot of things to optional, the abortion providing agency blackballing has been made mandatory.  What happens if the abortion providing agency also has the best and cheapest training and materials on STD's or pregnancy prevention?  Schools will be forced to pay more and get lower quality materials.  That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of giving school districts more flexibility and local power.  It seems Sen Dunleavy is able to impose his religious beliefs on school districts which might limit the parental rights of parents who would welcome the expertise that, say, Planned Parenthood, has acquired over the years on these subjects. 

There are also sections I would support.  Section 2.4 allows parents to withdraw their kids from school to observe a religious holiday without penalties to the children and Section 2.5 allows parents to review the content of all classes, programs, performance standard, or activity.  These are good things.  Kids shouldn't be punished for observing the holy days of their religion and parents should have access to all the content used in schools.  But they have nothing to do with Erin's Law. 

In my opinion and that of others, the changes in CS HB44 make it a better bill because it addresses a number of outstanding issues that have already had the close attention of the House and/or Senate but which were not yet passed into law because we ran out of time in the regular session. By rolling the issues into a CS as is commonly done in the legislature, a number of “birds can be killed with one stone.”

 Except. . . . that Erin's Law was as close to a slam dunk pass as there could be, until you added  22 new sections on to it, some of which are truly questionable.  Yes, this sort of horse trading on legislation is done all the time, but this is a special session, with limited time, and the Governor's direction was to pass Erin's Law, not all these others.  And, as I've noted elsewhere, all this leveraging and taking advantage that you say is 'commonly done' may well be part of the reason that politicians' approval rating is so abysmally low. 

Now let me address some of the claims by using facts and data.
“You put this CS together to kill the original bill.” - Nothing could be further from the truth. Everything in the CS, I support and in talking with others, many others do as well.

 I suspect this is true.  Rather I see this as a way to piggy back on a bi-partisan bill to get legislation that you failed to get passed in the regular session.  But stuffing this with 22 new sections to the one section of Erin's Law is probably even greedy by normal standards.   And given the news that people are asking you to run against Sen. Murkowski, this would seem a perfect ploy for getting points with the far right of the Republican party in the primaries.  I'm not saying you don't also believe in this, or that the political benefit was part of your calculation, but appearances do matter in politics.  Though you may not have expected the amount of push back you've gotten.  

“By changing the ‘shall’ to a ‘may’ you have effectively nullified the intent of the bill.” - I don’t think so and it is certainly not my intent. If anything, I think we get more support for it by giving school districts more control and more time to identify ways they can implement the training. As stated earlier, many school districts are already doing the training. I am confident that within a short period of time, the remaining school districts will be implementing the training as well.

This really gets to the key point I made at the beginning of this post.  At the top of this post I went through the math, step by step, and it shows that at least 2000 kids will likely be abused without the protection of Erin's Law because of the changes Dunleavy made.

This is a BIG DEAL.  Your intent is not the issue.  They say the road to hell is paved, not by bricks, but by good intentions.  The outcomes are what matters.  Your actions are setting up lots of Alaska kids for abuse because they won't get training on how to recognize abusers and avoid them and report them.  For me, this is the bottom line.  The number of kids who will be harmed because of your meddling with what was a clean bill, certain to pass.  Nothing else matters.  The rest is just noise.

You give no evidence except your 'confidence' that the other schools will follow through.  And even if they did, you've made it significantly easier for abusers to keep their kids out of these classes. 

“Dunleavy, you don’t care about kids. You don’t want Erin’s Law to pass!” - Boy, where do I start? First of all, last year I voted FOR Erin’s law. Read this link: http://www.adn.com/…/alaska-legislature-can-have-impact-abu… Remember, it was also introduced last year and passed the Senate 20 to 0. So I DO support the law. With regard to not caring about kids, seriously, my profession is public education. I care and that is why I support the bill.

I'm sure you care about kids.  I don't doubt that.  But I think you've been able to compartmentalize what you are doing here and you simply don't see the impacts this will have on real kids all across the state.  You can read my post on Hannah Arendt to understand how this might happen.

And since the bill passed the Senate last year unanimously, I'm convinced it would have passed this time if you had simply passed the original bill without trying to tack on a bunch of other things you wanted, no matter how important you think they are.  This is a test of a human being - whether you can help others without taking a cut for your help.  You failed that test.  I understand, because of your time in the legislature, that you consider this standard procedure.  I'm just telling you that it's not part of the ethics I practice.  I challenge you to find a quote from any ethical tradition that tells you to only help if you get something in return.  Show me where Christ tells us to be sure to take your cut when you help others.

“Then why change the ‘shall’ to ‘may’ if you supported it last year? Why the change?” - Good question. Last year we had oil prices well over $100 per barrel. We were not staring at a $4 billion dollar deficit. We were not having to cut school district funding; we were adding to it. The state and school districts were not under the pressure we are under now. Again, the “may” gives districts time to identify resources to implement the training.

A couple of things here.  First, for every kid who is sexually abused, there is more work for the teachers, the school districts, and in many cases police and mental health agencies, and on and on.  Not preventing child abuse is itself an unfunded mandate, because the damage of abuse costs the kids, their families, their schools, and their communities a lot.

Second, if your concern was timing, why not just allow districts to apply for deadline waivers if they can show there's a hardship?   But make them explain why they need the waiver, because people testified that the Rasmuson Foundation and others have offered to make materials and training available.  Make them specify their reason for a waiver and then let Rasmuson help them overcome the obstacles.  We'll see if these are the real issues or not. 

“There should be no amendments or new sections to this bill. Go back to the original bill.” - If we were to do that, then there would be no “Bree’s Law” component of the bill, no training for dating violence and abuse, because that component is itself an amendment. The “original” bill did not have the “Bree’s Law” component. It was an amendment just added this spring. That change, as well as the others in the CS, have all gone toward making it a better bill. Go to the following link and you can follow the bill as it was amended in the House. http://www.akleg.gov/basis/Bill/Detail/29…
The House amended the bill. The Senate was in the process of amending the bill in the regular session by identifying mandates that could be removed from school districts to free up resources. This effort was led by Senator Gardner. Senator McGuire also offered an amendment to the bill – the “Bree’s Law” component a few weeks before the session ended. My point is that bills often go through many steps and amendments before they become law.

 Again with this red herring about amendments.  There are lots of reasons to amend bills.  One is to make them better when problems are raised or when new options (like the teen dating violence) present themselves.  Another is to try to piggyback your own pet legislation onto a bill that is likely to pass so yours goes along for the ride.  And sometimes they are added to delay or kill a bill.  Despite what you say about the 22 added sections making it a better bill (the teen dating violence change isn't even one of them), we'll just have to disagree.  I've stated already above my reasons for thinking the amendments weaken and water down the bill.   Yes, bills go through many stages because people have different goals and values.  You were in a position to let this go through and you hijacked it for your own benefit.  By that I mean that you got stuff tacked on that you wanted passed.  Stuff that doesn't in any way increase the likelihood that kids will be protected against sexual abuse. 

“Erin Merryn, the lady behind the Erin’s Law movement, states you have hijacked the law and have changed it from its original version.” – This is what she has said. But she also recognizes that there are different versions in different states. I will post in the Comments below a document prepared by the National Conference of State Legislatures which identifies greatly varying action taken in implementing Erin’s Law in various states. While some states do require schools to provide the education, others simply allow them to, and yet other states create task forces to study potential implementation of the training. I believe Alaska’s CS is a version that will help children.
What’s next? The CS is in Senate Finance waiting to be scheduled for a hearing. Hopefully this will occur soon. It’s time to help Alaska’s children.

I really don't care what other states do.  Alaska has the worst statistics of any state when it comes to sexual abuse, violence against women, and related crimes.  Your responsibility as an Alaskan legislator is to those kids in our state who need the information that the original Erin's Law would provide them.  You sound like a teenager telling his parents, "But Mom, all the other kids do it."  You aren't a teenager, you're a legislator with the power to help helpless kids.  You are responsible for every kid that doesn't get sexual abuse awareness education and then gets molested because of what you've done to Erin's Law.  And the numbers, as I've pointed out above, will be significant. That's not opinion, that's not arguable.  It's based on actual numbers and the stats on rates of abuse.  You took a strong bill and watered it down.  There will be kids who don't get the information and help they need because of those changes.  And you're the person who has made the changes and defends the changes.  

If I'm wrong here, show me.  My numbers are conservative.  It's your job, if you want to refute this, to show how passing on as it was the original HB 44 your committee got, would have caused greater harm because it didn't have your amendments.  I don't think you can. 

"TO DUNLEAVY" (v) "When a situation unexpectedly comes along giving you the power to help another in need, you instead try to extract some gain for yourself while harming the other."

 EXAMPLE:  "He dunleavied HB 44." As in when you find yourself as the chair of a committee in a special session with just one bill with strong bi-partisan support, and instead of quickly passing the bill, you water down its key provisions, and then add a lot of unrelated amendments that you had tried to pass in the regular session, but couldn't.

This is not how I intended to begin this post, but it seems to encapsulate a lot of analysis in a few words.  Below is the whole post which will show how I got to this point.  


I’ve learned while blogging over the years that it’s easy to form opinions about people I’ve never met and that when I meet them, I'm forced to deal with their complexities, not the cartoon image I originally formed.  I put up a post the other day entitled Sen. Dunleavy Plays Politics With Bill To Protect Kids From Sexual Predators.  I even suggested that if he didn't understand how significant his changes to HB 44 were, he was ignorant and if he did understand, he was venal.  Those are pretty harsh charges.  Not the kind of thing I usually write.

So I went to Wednesday’s hearing to see Dunleavy in person.  I wanted to  get a better sense of Dunleavy and reassess my judgment.

The title and poster are the result of realizing that 'venal' was not the right word, but I had trouble finding the perfect word.  I couldn't; so I coined one.  I would add that I found Dunleavy to be strongly committed to a set of values and I think he's sincere about them and is willing to fight to promote them.  He appears to be one of those folks who is so certain that he's right, that it's easy for them to disregard those who disagree with him.  However, his manner was respectful and, for the most part, restrained.  He did get passionate at the end about the importance of protecting parental rights in a time when government is so invasive in people's lives.  Making decisions is much easier for such people, because they don't appear to doubt their correctness.  While he listened to opposing arguments, he easily dismissed them all, and there were no changes to the bill before it was passed. I'd note that this characteristic crosses party lines, but it comes easier with those used to having the power.  I know that a lot of other legislators probably fit the Dunleavy definition I've written.  Dunleavy just happens to be the person  I was trying to understand that led to this definition.  

So, to start from some arbitrary beginning . . .

What I'd like to do here is evaluate my own charge (and others') that Dunleavy was "playing politics" as well as to evaluate whether my either/or characterization was fair.  (Spoiler:  it wasn't.) 



What Does "Playing Politics" Mean?  

Cambridge Dictionary:  to use a situation or the relationships between people for your own advantage

The Free Dictionary: 

1. Lit. to negotiate politically.

2. to allow politics to dominate in matters where principle should prevail.

Next, I'll go through the arguments against the committee substitute for HB 44 and Dunleavy's responses.  Then I'll give an overview of the changes to HB 44.

I'll try to come to conclusions on the pro and con arguments and, finally, whether this is an example of  'playing politics.'  [I tried to cleanly separate out the analysis in its own sections, but as you'll see, some has slipped in earlier as well.]  So hang in there, or skip down to the sections that most interest you.  Going through this closely has raised a lot of issues for me that weren't originally apparent.


The Reasons People Argued Against The Changes To HB 44 (Erin's Law)

1. The Changes Gut The Bill -  Making parents sign permission forms before a child can be in the program  ('opting in'), instead of requiring parents to object if they don't want the child in ('opting out') means fewer kids will be exposed to this critical information. Likewise, not requiring school districts to adopt this material will reduce the number of kids who get this information.
   
   Further, the original bill called for age appropriate material for all kids from kindergarten through 12th grade.  The amended version limits it to 7th-12th grade.   50% or more of the target audience is cut out.   People argued that by 7th grade it is too late. Kids are molested much earlier than that and need the training early.
    
2. Adding amendments to a clean HB44, that the governor specifically mentioned for passage in the special session, raises a number of problems:
1. Jeopardizes passage of the bill.   HB 44 was a very focused and clear three page bill which passed the house this year 34-6 and the senate last year unanimously (without the teen dating violence part).  The new version is  a mashed together nine page bill with several controversial sections that have not had careful discussion or had public testimony and could get HB 44 stalled or killed, especially under the bizarre circumstances the legislature is now in. 
2. Raises constitutional problems:  It's questionable whether adding the new language will be constitutional.
3. Tacks on Dunleavy's pet issues.  The amendments came from bills that Dunleavy introduced or supported  but couldn't get through during the regular session.

Dunleavy's Responses:  [I was hoping the audio of Wednesday's hearing would be up  so I could pull out exact words. It wasn't up yesterday when I wrote most of this and I still don't see it today.]

1. Changing the program to "opt in" for parents and giving school districts the choice to not use it is important because parental rights are being eroded by schools and the government.  Parents need the power to control what their kids learn at school.  Sen. Giessel added at one point, that parental rights don't come from government, but from God.
2. (Addressing Senator McGuire directly) There is nothing wrong with amending bills, it's how the legislative process works.  You amended the original Erin's Law to add in training on teen dating violence awareness.  I didn't do anything different.  And this bill was delayed in the regular session while you were out of town because of a family emergency.  
1. All the added sections were important and related to education.  They strengthen parental rights and clear up other issues.  The last part, getting rid of the requirement for schools to offer ACT, SAT, or KeyWorks tests, saves money.  
2. Here's the legal opinion.  Dunleavy had staffer Sheila Peterson relate a message from Leg Legal on this.   She basically said, if a judge were to rule narrowly, there would be problems.  If broadly interpreted, it would be ok.   I got a copy of the memo on Wednesday, (but I can't find it online for you with the other documents).  I would say Peterson's interpretation was not inaccurate, but rosier than what was written. 
   
   The memo says in part:
   

   "In the Governor's proclamation declaring a special session, the subject is limited to consideration of:[T]he passage of bills on the following subjects:
   1.  House Bill 44 - Sexual Abuse/Sexual Assault Prevention Programs, previously under consideration in the Senate and the House . . . ."
   
   "If the subject is construed narrowly, many of the provisions of the committee substitute you requested would fall outside of the subject, as they are not related to sexual abuse or sexual assault awareness programs. . .

   
   "If, on the other hand, the scope of the subject is interpreted in accordance with legislative rules regarding germaneness and the constitutional single subject rule, it is likely permissible to include at least some of the provisions you have asked to add to CSHB 44(FIN) through the committee substitute."

   
   It goes on to say that if it were all passed and challenged in court, it's not clear if the court would use the broader regular session test of germaneness or a narrower one relating to the Governor's proclamation for the special session.  But note, the opinion says that even with a broad interpretation  "at least some of the provisions" would stand, implying that others wouldn't.  The charge against the substituted bill was that it raised constitutional questions.  This opinion verifies that. At best for Dunleavy, it says "you might have a chance that some provisions would survive."
   
   3.  Dunleavy agreed the other material came from bills he and others had proposed.  He saw nothing wrong with this.  Legally, he's right.  But there was very little or no discussion about the various aspects of the bill except for the idea of strengthening parental rights and eliminating the college and work prep testing,  which only have been in existence for one year.  This would, he said, save money in the bad budget year. (I know a road through the university he could cut which would save way more money if that's his goal.)  He added that such amendments were just part of the legislative process. 
   
   His conclusion was that his amendments made this an excellent bill.  His defense was more opinion and rhetoric than logic and fact. 
   
   While people have graphically presented the harm caused by sexual abuse, Alaska statistics, and how cutting provisions of the bill will expose kids to abuse and even death, there was no evidence presented that showed what harm would be caused to parents and kids if the bill had been left as it was.  Dunleavy only invoked general concerns about the erosion of parental rights.  

What Was Added?

The new sections includes a slew of topics.  I've tried to group them for simplicity here.  S1 refers to Section 1, etc.  I've put the whole list of sections provided by Leg Legal in a box on the bottom so you can see for yourself. 

Brief overview of issues added to the bill.  (S16 is the amended version of the original HB 44)

Parental Permission : S2- gives parents permission to withdraw their kids from any school activities involving human reproduction and sexual matters or divulging of personal or family family affairs S6, S7 requires parental permission for all school surveys, info on access to survey info Challenging Courses For Credit: S3, S4 limits grades and assessment procedures for challenging courses for credit Prohibits Contracting With Abortion Providers S5, S17 (The prohibition covers 'organizations that contract with schools' as well as school districts) Rules For Training Of School Employees S8, S9, S10, S11, S12, S13, S19, S20 Physical Exams for Students and Teachers S14, S15 Allows Districts To Adopt Sexual Abuse And Teen Dating Violence Awareness Training (This is the original HB 44, but amended as explained above) S16 Allows For Existing Department Records To Be Used For Background Checks S21 Repeals Requirements For College And Career Preparedness Testing S23

The original bill, you can see, is now only one of 23 different sections!


ANALYSIS

Complaints about the changes and Dunleavy's responses

1.  Was the bill 'gutted'?

Clearly, fewer children will be exposed to this training than before because:

1.  Parents must give permission before a student can take the program.  Getting prior permission is more difficult than requiring parents to take steps to opt their children out.
2.  Schools are no longer required to implement this program.  Again,  requiring all schools to use the program is likely to cover more kids.
3.  Exempting K-6 grade kids cuts out half the target audience and means kids who are most vulnerable and least prepared to deal with sexual abuse will not get the training.

I learned long ago, as a teacher, that if I asked, "Does anyone have a question?" I got the same number of raised hands as I did when I asked, "Who understands this?"  Taking action is more work than not taking action, and fewer kids will get into these classes if parents have to sign a permission slip than if they have to sign a 'no permission' slip.

I would note that one of the documents available online includes a list of school districts that already have training.  It includes the biggest school districts - Anchorage, Mat-Su, Fairbanks, Juneau - and a number of smaller districts.  So lots of students are already getting this training in some form.  However, the list only says whether there is sexual abuse awareness training and teen dating violence training.  It doesn't say what grade levels get the training or any other details.

I do understand how Dunleavy can convince himself that the changes are minor, and because so many districts already offer some training, he's not totally wrong.  But half the kids (K-6) were cut out of the bill!  We simply disagree on the significance of the threat to parental rights compared to the threat to children's safety.  We have dire statistics that show Alaska is the worst state in the nation when it comes to child sexual abuse, domestic violence, and general violence against women. We don't have evidence that Alaskan parents' rights are less than in other states and that this causes them irreparable harm as we know that abuse causes.  Suppose the changes mean that 30 kids per year or per month, will get abused because of the changes in the bill.  Because their schools don't offer the program or their parents don't sign the permission slip, or they're in K-6, they won't get training  and thus won't be able to recognize an abuser and won't be empowered to protect themselves or to report it right away.   Given our numbers, that's a real possibility, and to me, it's a big deal.  I don't see the compensating benefits in the changes that make up for the harm to those kids who will be abused because they didn't get the  this education.  No one identified any specific harm that would be caused to parents or their kids if the bill would have been passed as it was, without changes. 

To me the amendments clearly weaken this bill.  The changes are not minor. 

2.  Were the bill's chances of success weakened?

2-1.  Controversial and unvetted issues.  Two new sections (S5 and S17) appear to be aimed at one organization - Planned Parenthood.   Dunleavy is strongly anti-abortion and believes his religiously based views trump my views and others' views.  Dunleavey's views are the minority opinion in Alaska and the United States, but he believes he knows better than the rest of us.  Anchorage's recent mayoral election when a strongly pro-choice candidate soundly beat a strongly anti-choice candidate, emphasizes this.  Inserting the anti-abortion language in this bill poisons it and Planned Parenthood is not shy about going to court. These are not uncontroversial amendments.

S2 gives parents permission to withdraw their kids from any school activities involving human reproduction and sexual matters or divulging of personal or family family affairs.  I think there ought to be a lot of public discussion to clarify exactly what that means.  Would it prevent a teacher or school nurse from asking a child about bruises and how they got them?  Would it prevent a teacher from asking a student why he was falling asleep in class every day or is suddenly very quiet and non-responsive?  While I can think of a lot of things that teachers should probably not be asking about one's family, I also think the language is so broad there could be conflicts here with mandatory responders' ability to determine whether a child is being abused or neglected at home.  But there was no discussion on this at the hearing whatsoever.

I understand the concern for parental rights.  When my kids were in school, my wife and I were very active in monitoring our kids' education.  We spoke up when we disagreed and advocated for improvements.  I also understand that a lot of parents do not have the knowledge and experience or professional training to be able to effectively advocate for their kids.  I think having parent advocates  available would be very helpful for many parents.  But when we speak of parents' rights, we have to recognize that there are parents who are dysfunctional and fail to support and protect their kids.

S21 allows people applying for work to use the background check that is already on record with the department.  I can see the benefit of not having to go through a whole new background check.  But what happens when there are recent violations that didn't exist when the first background check was made?  I don't know if this is a serious issue, but there was no discussion on it at all.  It's one more thing in this bill that could give a little more opportunity for abusers, and prevent passage of the bill. 

The real irony of all this is that it's parents and other close relatives who do most of the sexual abuse of kids.  Protecting the ability of abusive parents to prevent those kids from getting sexual abuse awareness education so they can protect themselves from their parents and other relatives is inherently, though not intentionally, imbedded in the  parents' rights that Dunleavy is pushing.  Dunleavy took umbrage that people insinuated  that he was complicit in hurting kids by his amendments.  Good people can take principled actions that cause harm.  And I'm sure George W. Bush takes umbrage in the charge that invading Iraq resulted in greater instability and death for Iraqis and destabilized the region.  Those sections added to this bill that strengthen parents' rights, also take power away from abused kids.   It's the abusive parents who will be most interested in keeping their kids out of these classes. 

The need for lengthy discussion to clarify the legality and implications of these and other sections that were added into the bill, do raise legitimate concern about the bill's passage.

Sen. Dunleavy's responses were aimed at equating these amendments to Sen. McGuire's amendment that added teen dating violence to the bill during the regular session.  He changed the debate from whether the amendments were controversial and germane, to whether it was ok, in general, to make amendments.  He didn't really defend his position other than to say the amendments made the bill stronger, which, in my analysis, is definitely not the case. 

2-3.  Constitutionality -  The legal opinion said it would depend on a judge's interpretation  and the outcome could not be predicted.  And even the broadest interpretation would only protect some of the new sections.  In other words, the attorney couldn't say that the bill would survive a court challenge.  The opinion said that some of the sections might survive.  I don't see how anyone can logically argue that opinion doesn't support the critics' charge that the changes raise constitutional issues.   

2-4  Just taking an opportunity to get his own pet issues passed - Some of the amendments come from SB 89, a bill on Parental Rights that Dunleavy sponsored and two of the three other education committee members who voted for this bill -  Giessel and Huggins -  co-sponsored.  Adding these measures onto HB 44 clearly gives Dunleavy (and the other committee members) an unexpected shot at something they already had lost, but the amendments in no way help the original HB 44 get passed.  One could argue that they, along with the changes to HB 44 itself, make it harder. The point isn't that it's bad to add amendments in general, but that these amendments don't strengthen the bill and hurt its chances of passage.


I'm not making judgments on the merit of the changes to HB 44, but rather evaluating them against the challenges of the critics of the changes and the defense of the changes.   The intent of my comments is not to challenge the new provisions, but merely evaluate whether they strengthen or weaken the goal of Erin's Law.  There's no question, that a 'sure pass' by the senate has been made questionable.  That a pass of the revised bill would result in a much less effective Erin's Law, and one that has a questionable chance of surviving a legal challenge on constitutional grounds.


"Playing politics" or not?

So, this gets us to whether Dunleavy was playing politics or not.   Let's retrieve the definitions:

Cambridge Dictionary:  to use a situation or the relationships between people for your own advantage

The Free Dictionary: 

1. Lit. to negotiate politically.

2. to allow politics to dominate in matters where principle should prevail.

Using the Cambridge definition, there's no doubt.  He had the choice to leave HB 44 as it was and send it for speedy passage.  Instead, he made changes that weakened the bill (we can debate how much it weakened the bill, but there's no question that it did)  and added in language from a bill he had sponsored but hadn't gotten passed, which weakens the chances of the bill's passage.  (I haven't talked about the details of what happens next, but even if the bill passes the Senate, which it likely will, it has to be reconciled with the original House version.  Since the House sponsor is also the Speaker of the House, there's a good chance that won't happen.  But if it does, there's the question of whether the Governor will sign it or veto it. Erin Merryn, the woman who is the namesake of this sort of legislation and has gotten it passed in 23 states has said she does not support the amended bill. )

Dunleavy took an opportunity to negotiate something he wanted onto a stand alone bill that had a strong chance to pass and the changes now put the bill in jeopardy.    I'd say that fits the first two definitions quite neatly.

I would allow that Dunleavy might reasonably argue whether the facts fit with the second Free Dictionary definition.  He probably would argue that he was very much working on principle.  He strongly articulated his belief in strengthening parental rights.  But I would counter argue that those who have fought to pass Erin's Law are also doing it on principle, and that if most people had to choose between sacrificing protection from abuse for kids,  or protecting parents' rights, the kids would win.  It has been, after all, patriarchal rights and the idea of children (and wives) as chattel, that have allowed for all kinds of child abuse for centuries.  It's not an either/or proposition, it's not easy to balance.  But when kids get abused, it gets much easier to decide, but then it's too late.  And in a democracy, the principle of fair process has got to be one of the most important for a legislator.  Otherwise, legislators can simply take advantage of their positions of power to forward their own interests.  Which is not to suggest he did anything that isn't perfectly legal, but he has watered down a pretty sure winner and further burdened it with marginally related amendments.

And when I originally put up the post about Dunleavy playing politics, and even when I started this post, I wasn't aware that Dunleavy was considering running for the US Senate seat against Lisa Murkowski and didn't even consider how this debate and attention might help him with the most conservative side of the Republican party.   I suspect that he would have made these amendments anyway, but it adds ammunition to those who claim he's playing politics here. 

Is Ignorant or Venal a valid claim?

Venal means, according to the Oxford dictionary:

"Showing or motivated by susceptibility to bribery"

I see no evidence of anything like bribery here and I was totally wrong to use this word (and I have corrected it in the original post and apologized to Dunleavy.)  It was a bad choice of words. 

But I do think that Dunleavy's defense of his position was not entirely straightforward.  He had to know that his amendments to HB 44 watered it down and that his amendments were of a very different type than McGuire's.  Yet he never acknowledged this.  McGuire's amendments were directly relevant to the original bill and strengthened it.  Dunleavy's are marginally relevant, weaken the bill, and advance his agenda to the detriment of Erin's law.  He's right that this is part of the legislative process, and I'm sure that's part of  the reason that politicians are held in such low esteem.    

But if venal is the wrong word, what's the right one?  I've been unsuccessful finding the perfect word.  For example,  'crafty' which the Oxford dictionary defines as:

"Clever at achieving one’s aims by indirect or deceitful methods"

has some of the elements, but isn't quite right.

I don't know if  Dunleavy was merely indirect or actually deceitful.  I'm not sure he's even being clever or that he will achieve his ends. I don't know for sure what his ends are.  What I really need is a new word.

So I'm coining a definition for "TO  DUNLEAVY"   which I'll define as:

"When a situation unexpectedly comes along giving you the power to help  another in need, you  instead try to extract some gain for yourself while harming the other."  

EXAMPLE:  "He dunleavied HB 44."   As in when you unexpectedly find yourself as the chair of a committee in a special session with just one bill with strong bi-partisan support, and instead of quickly passing the bill, you water down its key provisions, and then add a lot of unrelated other amendments that you had tried to pass in the regular session, but couldn't.

From Legislative Affairs Legal Services - Sectional Summary of SCS CSHB 44

Section 2.  Requires local school boards to adopt policies allowing parents to withdraw their children from any activity, class, program, or standards-based assessment required by the state to which the parent objects. Section 3.  Limits AS 14.03.073, which allows students to challenge courses for credit, to apply only to students in grades nine through 12. Section 4.  Clarifies that school districts do not have to establish assessment tools for all courses offered in grades nine through 12 for purposes of challenging a course. Section 5.  Prohibits school districts and educational services organizations that contract with school districts from contracting with abortion services providers. Section 6.  Prohibits school districts, principals, other persons in charge of schools, or teachers from administering a questionnaire or survey unless written permission is obtained from a student's parent or guardian. Section 7.  Amends AS 14.03.110(d) to require schools to inform parents or guardians of who will have access to results of questionnaires or surveys. Section 8.  Requires regional school boards to establish procedures to provide required training for school employees. Section 9.  Requires borough and city school boards to establish procedures to provide required training for school employees. Section 10.  Requires the State Board of Education and Early Development (the board) to establish procedures for training employees of state boarding schools. Section 11.  Allows school districts to determine how frequently to provide training related to selection of nondiscriminatory textbooks and educational materials. Section 12.  Allows school districts to determine how frequently to provide employee evaluation training for certificated school employees. Section 13.  Allows a school district to determine how frequently to provide alcohol and drug related disabilities training for school teachers, administrators, counselors, and specialists. Section 14.  Removes "additional" from AS14.30.070(b), which pertains to physical examinations for students required by the Department of Health and Social Services. Section 15.  Prohibits school districts from paying the costs of physical examinations for teachers. Section 16.  Provides that the governing bodies of school districts may adopt policies establishing training programs for employees and students related to sexual abuse and sexual assault awareness and prevention and, in grades 7 - 12, dating violence and abuse awareness and prevention. Section 17.  Prohibits school districts from permitting abortion services providers to offer, sponsor, or furnish course materials or instruction related to human sexuality or sexually transmitted diseases. Section 18.  Makes conforming amendments to AS 14.30.370. Section 19.  Allows school districts to determine how frequently to provide school crisis response training. Section 20.  Requires continuing education related to domestic violence and sexual assault to be provided once every five years for state or local public employees. Section 21.  Allows a person who possesses a valid teacher certificate and applies to work at a facility licensed or certified by the department or who applies to work at a child care facility or residential child care facility to request that the person's criminal justice information and national criminal history record check on file with the department be used to satisfy criminal history check requirements for the Department of Health and Social Services. Section 22.  Modifies state agency training intervals for recognition and reporting of child abuse for mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect and allows school districts to determine how frequently to provide the training. Section 23.  Repeals AS 14.03.075(a), (b), (c),and (e)(1), and AS 14.07.165(a)(5) and (b) which relate to college and career readiness assessments; and AS 14.30.070(a) and 14.30.120, relating to physical examinations required for students.