Redistricting Board Allocation of Terms: "2022, 2024, 2026 ?? Something like that"

This post is a followup to a previous post on the impact of the Alaska Redistricting Board's decision on allocating senate terms to staggered cycles (it favored Dunleavy loyalists and punished GOP who worked with Democrats.).  This post looks at the vague and sloppy motion that passed to make it happen.  

KEY POINTS IN THIS POST

1. The motion to Allocate Senate Terms was so sloppy and so vague that it's impossible for anyone implementing it to not make their own assumptions about what it means.  The member who made the motion never really articulated how it was supposed to work.  No one seems to have written it down.  The chair didn't really repeat the motion - such that it was - before the vote.  This seems to violate basic procedures required of Boards and Commissions to have  the most basic standards of documentation when making public decisions.  Every legislative bill has to be clearly spelled out and written down.  The Redistricting Board's decisions are arguably far more impactful than most legislation passed in the Alaska Legislature and should be handled with the same care.  What the Proclamation itself and the Proclamation Report show are neat sets of 2022 and 2024 senate seats, but this doesn't at all reflect what is really scheduled - that 19 of the senate seats will run in 2022.  
2. It would appear that the staff had spoken off the record with the people who made the motion. Whether it was just when the Board was not on public record or in Executive Session is not clear.  In any case, this also raises questions about what was actually considered during the lengthy Executive Sessions prior to the board's voting on an Allocation Plan, and whether the Board's use of Executive Session was in violation of the statutes on Executive Session.  The session was supposed to be about the VRA (Voting Rights Act) and how the Eagle River pairings might be affected, so it shouldn't have spilled over into Allocation of Terms.  But how did staff know how to interpret the motion?  Why did Marcum ask the Executive Director, while making the motion,  "Is that how we say it, Peter?"
3. The Alaska Constitution says senators serve four year terms. Because truncation messes the required staggered terms, redistricting boards have resorted to assigning two year terms to get the cycle back in order.  But this should be rare.  In this round two senators were given TWO, two year terms.   The Board shouldn't have the power to make a senator have two, two year terms if there is an available option to avoid that.  The Executive Director clearly said they can't extend the term to six years.  Then why can they cut it down to two years, twice, in some cases?  When there are two two year terms for one or more senator, the board should be required to make adjustments to avoid this.

INTRODUCTION

I've mentioned in previous posts that I'm struggling to keep my head above the details of the last couple of days the Redistricting Board process.  Up to the last week or so, I'd say the Board was run well.  Things were mostly transparent, there was plenty of opportunity for public input, the meetings were accessible often via video conferencing and always by phone, and the Board has posted video of meetings and all the public testimony.  The last three days leading to the Proclamation, though, things fell apart.  The three GOP-appointed members stopped engaging in meaningful discussion with the other two members (except on Truncation which didn't have any apparent serious political implications.)

I've been trying to write posts that give readers not only the facts, but the context of the facts.  But in order to get something posted, I find I have to focus very narrowly here so that all the details aren't  overwhelming.  There are plenty of previous posts to get some context.  They are indexed on a tab above, under the blog banner.

My criterion now for narrowing my focus is: would this possibly make a difference when there are court challenges to the Board's Proclamation Plan?  That's the arena where the rest of this process will be played out.  Everything else, at this point, seems moot.  Later there may be time to reflect on what the 2030 board should learn from this board - both to copy and to avoid.  

In this post, I'm focusing on the motion to allocate senate seats to alternating terms.  The state constitution requires ten seats must run in one election year and the other ten the next election year.  This intended result, as I understand it, is that at least half of the Senate has some experience.  One of the Board's duties is to allocate the seats to these staggered terms. 

A previous post AK Redistricting Board GOP Members Use Allocation To Punish Moderate Republicans showed the partisan outcome of this process and gave some basic background information for readers.  For readers who haven't seen that post, I'd recommend it strongly so you understand why this is important.

Why might the Board's decision making process make a difference in court?  Like all decision making public bodies, the Board is required to follow basic procedures of documentation when passing motions. The public should understand what the motion is and how it will be carried out.  I'm arguing in this post that the motion that passed 3-2 at the November 9, 2021 Board meeting did not meet that standard.  It was sloppy, vague, and even the person who proposed the motion didn't clearly understand her motion.  With such a motion, the staff is left to interpret it their own way.  I think the staff did the best they could, but they had a motion that really, on its own, was extremely vague.  If the staff 'knew' what it meant, it wasn't because of the motion; it was because the staff already had an idea of how this was supposed to work, or because of discussions that were held outside of public view.  And let me emphasize that all my dealings with the staff were good - they were very responsive and helpful and forthcoming.  But they serve the Board members.

THE PROCESS AND MOTION FOR DECIDING ON ALLOCATION OF SENATE TERMS

I want to start here by offering you my transcript of the motion to allocate senate terms to election year cycles.  [The words on the tape aren't always easy to hear. People are wearing masks, don't have individual mics, etc. ?? indicates something was said but I didn't catch it. Mostly those don't seem to be important to the overall text.  I think this fairly represents what was said.  You can watch and listen to the tape yourself here. I'd note the timing numbers on the video are not always exactly the same.]

[5:12:04]

Binkley: Bethany did you have a motion?

Marcum:  I propose we go in simple numerical logical order, starting with A 2 years 4 years 2 years cycle like that.??  Is that how we say it Peter? 2 years 4 years 2022, 2024?  I

Binkley:  So it would be 2022

Marcum:  The cycles do not work??  The link to the cycle ???

Binkley:  It’s the year. . .

Torkelson:  It’s the year in which the election was held.

Marcum:  2022  2024  2026  ??? something like that.

Binkley:  Does everybody understand the motion, Uh, is there a second?

Simpson:  I’ll second it.

5:10:57 Binkley:  Is there discussion on the motion?  Does everybody understand the motion? Is there any objection to the motion?

Bahnke and Borromeo?? I object

Binkley:  All those in favor of the motion?

Ayes.

Binkley: All those opposed same sign.

Ayes.

Binkley:  Looks like two opposed, three in favor.  The motion passed.  Peter, what’s our next task?

Do you - the reader - understand the motion?  And what exactly it tells the staff to do in terms of allocating seats to one cycle or the other?  What does "A 2 years, 4 years 2 year cycles, something like that" mean?  That seat A serves for two years and seat B serves for four years?  All Senate seats are supposed to be four year terms.  Because the truncation likely will interrupt that ten/ten alternating cycle, some seats may end up with a two year term, but they aren't assigning seats to two and four year seats.  They are assigning seats to years to start their cycle.  

Even the motion maker - Bethany Marcum - isn't sure.  She says, "Is that how we say it, Peter?" [Peter Torkelson is the Executive Director of the Board - the staff person in charge of overseeing everything the Board needs done.]  Then she says: "2022, 2024, 2026 ??? Something like that."

"Something like that" doesn't make for a very clear motion.  Not a motion that's acceptable for a Board with as impactful a mission as this one has  No one seemed to write the motion down.  The chair doesn't restate the motion.  

One of the problems here is that 19 of the 20 seats are up for election in 2022, so how can the cycle begin in 2022?  To maintain staggered seats, some will have to run again in 2024 and others in 2026.  

Here's what the staff wrote about this in the Proclamation Report (p.7):

"The Board then considered setting Senate term allocations and adopted a pattern of alternating election terms for the coming decade.  Seats A,C, E, G, I, K, M, O, Q, S standing for election in 2022/2026/2030 and Seats B,D,F, H, J, L, N.P, R, and T standing for election in 2024/2028/2032 in keeping with Alaska’s constitutional requirement for alternating 4 year Senate terms.”

But this isn't quite right, because every seat except T under this plan will stand for election in 2022.  What the Board has actually done is start the allocation of terms process in 2024.  Nine of the ten seats listed as starting in 2024 are actually scheduled to run in 2022.  The actual plan doesn't seem to follow the motion, but then, the motion would be hard to follow the way it was stated.

The Proclamation itself tells us which seats were truncated, but does explain what that means.

Second, that the terms of Senate incumbents – B, D, F, H, J, and N under the 2013 Redistricting Proclamation labeling system be truncated because those Senate Districts have been substantially changed by this Redistricting Proclamation, and that the term of the incumbent of Senate District T, not be truncated because that Senate District is substantially unchanged; and

Page 1 of 2

  Then on the next page we have this chart that shows the cycles.

This chart implies that all those running in 2022 run again in 2026.  Not true.  This chart misses the fact that all the seats but seat T in the right hand column run for election in 2022.  

The allocations should have been for years 2024 and 2026.  That's when the differences between seats actually matter.  This list doesn't reflect what's actually happening.  

But no one ever said this. What they DID talk about was: “running in 2022 or 2024”;  “two year terms or four year terms”; “alternating years starting at Seat A or Seat T”; and  "avoiding appearance of partisanship by flipping a coin to determine if they would start at Seat A or Seat B."   

But they didn’t talk about when those terms would begin.  At one point in the excerpt, Peter Torkelson says, " It’s the year in which the election was held."  Why does he use the past tense?  That makes sense if he's talking about the last time the seat was up for election - 2018 or 2020 - but no one ever talked about that in regard to this motion.  

The lack of understanding of how exactly this was going to be carried out was made clear by Budd Simpson when he asked if the Board could extend a term to six years.  He asked this about a previous motion made by Borromeo to alternate terms starting with 2024 for seat A. [As opposed to Marcum's later successful motion starting with 2022 (or 2-year) starting for seat A.]  He was pretty sure the Board couldn't extend terms, but the question shows he didn't understand how this process was going to be carried out.  Or it was just his way to objecting to Borromeo's proposal.

"Nicole:  The motion on the floor is that we start with A and that is on the 2024 cycle.  

Binkley:  OK, the motion before us is:  We start with A on the 2024 motion [sic].  All those in favor of the motion say Aye. All those opposed

Simpson: ???? That seat is currently on the 2022 cycle…..So that would be??   It’s already on the 2022.  That is somehow it is extending that seat.  It’s already on the 22.  

Binkley:  We don’t know? what the rotation is

Simpson: There’s kind of a 50/50 chance.  I’m just saying that that seat is currently on the 2022 cycle and I don’t think we have the power to extend it to the 24 cycle. That kind of throws [5:09:40] everything off doesn’t it?

There are a number of problems here.  The first one, that he knows who is in Seat A, causes Melanie Bahnke to ask about what information he and Binkley had that she didn't have because she doesn't know who is in that seat.  It also is in direct conflict with what he has said previously in the discussion, that he doesn't know who anyone on the list is.  

But if it is true that a seat, who's term is up in 2022, would be extended to six years for Borromeo's motion (to start with Seat A and assign that to 2024), then it would be true for some other seats in Marcum's plan, soon to be approved, which starts with seat A with (and it's not clear because she said both 2-4-2- years and 2022-2024. ) 

But as I check again the 2021 Senate Term Allocation Table, Seat A's previous election is listed as 2020, so the term was actually up in 2024 anyway.  So Simpson was wrong.  (The Term Allocation Table hadn't been prepared yet, so Simpson wasn't consulting it.) So it was used as an argument against Borromeo's motion, but it wasn't true.  So it would have been useful if Bahnke could have seen, as she requested, what he was referring to, in order to verify what he was saying.

There are a number of issues here, but my point is that he didn't understand how the allocations in Borromeo's motion would be carried out if he thought one or more seats might be extended to six year terms by the process. (He rightly didn't think they could extend a term to six years.) He didn't understand that 19 seats would be up for reelection in 2022 and that the allocation of terms would really begin with 2024 and 2026, not 2022 and 2024.  (I'd note that at that point Board members didn't know that 19 seats would be up for election in 2022, because the Allocation of Terms process itself would add some more to the list.  But there had to be at least ten running in 2022 based on the old rotation cycles, plus they added some more through Truncation.)

The Point?  That the Board members really didn't understand the motion and how this was going to play out when it was implemented.  I'm convinced as I've said in the previous post on this, that the GOP-appointed members had been given an assignment to pass a certain package.  They didn't quite grasp all the implications, only that they needed to pass it.  

They did not really understand the motion.  And if they didn't, how could the public? 

So, just how did the staff members figure out how to carry out the motion?  Was it discussed during the Executive Session?  Probably not - it was too off topic even for them.  During a break in the Executive Session?  Possibly.  But probably during the work session or another break.  Just not on the record.  

WHY IS NOT KNOWING WHAT THE MOTION IS, A PROBLEM?

Because every governmental body that makes official decisions is required to use standard procedures, whether Robert's Rules of Order or a similar set of rules so that all decisions made are clear, unambiguous, and understandable.  

Here's a link to guidelines for Alaska State Boards and Commissions - for ethics and for open meetings.  I'm sure there are other sources of guidance for Boards.  The last pages of that document is titled:  

Handout 4- Ground Rules for Good Meetings 

Ground Rules for Successful Meetings

One ground rule that is directly relevant to the motion for Allocating Terms is number 4:

1. "4)  Re-state the motion and clarify amendments. This is a simple way for the Chair to be sure that everyone on the team is on the same page as you move through the process. It also gives support staff the opportunity to clarify the language or intent if needed. As a member of the board/commission, don’t hesitate to ask for clarification if you are unsure."

Another section reminds Board members:

"Most important, the consistent use of Robert’s Rules by the appointed members of Alaska’s boards and commissions builds the public’s trust and reflects positively on all involved."

[UPDATED Nov. 26, 2021 7:38pm - From Robert's Rules of Order for Dummies:

The member states the motion.

Offer your motion concisely (and with only minimal advance comment, if any at all) by saying, “Mr. Chairman, I move that. . . .”

"For all but the simplest original main motions, write out the motion ahead of time and be prepared to immediately submit the written motion to the chair or the secretary after making the motion. "

This was hardly the simplest of motions.] 

This is a fundamental given of all meetings where decisions that affect people are made.  John Binkley served in both the State House and State Senate. Phrases like "Is there a motion?" or "All opposed?" slip easily off his tongue.  So should clarifying the motion.  The state legislature has very precise rules for the wording of bills (p.17), for instance.  He did ask Board members if they understood the motion, but that's not enough.  This was a very flakey motion.  "Is that how we say it Peter?" and "2022  2024  2026  ??? something like that."  Even the person making the motion couldn't state the motion.  

But no one, not those favoring the motion, nor those opposing it, actually pointed out how vague and confused the motion was.  I suspect, perhaps, that different Board members thought they understood the motion, and those understandings were not the same.  

In fact, I suspect that, right after the motion was passed, the Board members had been asked, separately, to write down the motion, they all would have written down something substantively different.

And if they had been asked, again, separately, to write down instructions for the staff on how to carry out the motion, they would have all written something different.  

And without a clear motion that clearly spells out how the task of allocation is to be carried out, I don't see how the allocation process can be valid.  

PROBABLE ABUSE OF EXECUTIVE SESSION

The Board went into Executive Session around 5pm on Monday, November 8 and based on my blog posts that day, they were still in Executive Session around 7:45pm, because when I got home, I turned on the ZOOM and it was still running with a sign that said "Executive Session."  That continued the morning of November 9 until 10:35am.  

They came back into public view for about 20 minutes to pass Bethany Marcum's Senate pairings that split the Eagle River house districts and attached each one to other House districts giving Eagle River two Senate seats.  There was also a new map that changed the rest of the Anchorage Senate pairings. Then the Board adjourned until 1pm to allow the staff to work on calculations needed for the Truncation process.  

The public is still in the dark about what happened in the Executive Session and how the Bethany Marcum Anchorage Senate pairings got discussed.  Two of the Board members had serious objections.  

The same documents I linked to above with guidance  for Boards and Commissions includes material on Open Meetings and Executive Sessions.  Alaska's statue on Executive Session leans heavily toward openness.  

"Executive session procedure requires that the reason for calling the executive session is clearly stated. The attorney-client privilege exemption to the Open Meetings Act is limited to matters where public interest may be injured. This might include how to avoid legal liability, litigation strategies and candid discussion of facts, a proposed settlement conference, and a conference on a decision to appeal." [emphasis added]

It seemed to me that the Board did not carefully weigh whether the matters they were to discuss in Executive Session would "injure public interest" if they were in public.  They have assumed throughout this process that whenever they were talking to the attorney, they were covered by attorney-client privilege, although the statute says 'might.'  

I'd argue that the attorney telling the Board his interpretation of the Voting Rights Act was something the public should have been able to hear.  At that point, there were no cases against the Board.  And to my knowledge, none have yet been filed.  If the attorney's interpretation of the VRA was an unusual one, or aimed at supporting what the Board wanted to do, the public ought to know.  The rationale that the Board is discussing legal strategy in case the Board is sued and thus should be covered by ES is also questionable.  Indeed, "the public interest may be injured" by the Proclamation Plan of the Board and thus it would be in the interest of the public to have this information public.  This is not a situation where the Board wants to keep secret what they are willing to accept in a potential settlement.  This is not a discussion that might cause a defendant in a law case with the Board to know in advance what kind of deal the Board is willing to make.  This is advice to defend the Board's plan.  We already know that the pairing of Eagle River districts was in defiance of the overwhelming public testimony against that pairing.  And my previous post on Allocation of Terms shows that the Allocation process resulted in punishing Governor Dunleavy's Republican 'enemies' and rewarding his loyal Republican allies. These are partisan political moves that harm the public interest.  

And we don't know if in Executive Session the Board discussed other related but not ES covered topics, like Marcum's Allocation proposal that led her to ask:  "Is that how we say it Peter?"

While the Board is in Executive Session, they may only discuss the narrow topics that they went into  ES for and nothing else.  Their reason for going into ES was very broad - to give the Board advice on how the Voting Rights Act would be affected by Marcum's plan for Eagle River.  They appear to have been in ES for roughly four hours.  It's hard to believe that everything they discussed had to be hidden  to keep the public interest from being injured.  But I wasn't in the meeting,  And it was Borromeo who called for ES.  

UNNECESSARILY GIVING SENATORS TWO YEAR TERMS

When Budd Simpson raised the issue of adding two years to a Senator's term to make it six years, Board Executive Director Peter Torkelson said "You do not have the power to  extend a term from four years to six years."  But they do have the power to shorten a term from four years to two years because of truncation and allocation of terms. But it seems that this power should be used only where there is no possible way to avoid it.  The process previous boards have used and that was copied by this board, to just alternate starting election years alphabetically through the Senate seats A through T is a process that seems to make it more likely that more seats will be shortened.  

But should they have the power to give a senator TWO two year terms?  Under this plan two Senators get two, two year terms.  Senators Wilson and Wielechowski ran last in 2020.  Truncation requires them to run again in 2022.  And term allocation requires them to run again in 2024.  Two, two year terms, when the state constitution stipulates a senate seat is four year. 

In such situations, if there were a way to make adjustments to the plan to eliminate the two, two year   situation yet keep everything in compliance with the guidelines for truncation and allocation of terms, shouldn't the Board then have to go back and try to make adjustments?  After all, Peter said, "You do not have the power to  extend a term from four years to six years."  Why should they have the power to shrink a senator's term to two years, twice?  The constitution say four years. 

In Wielochowski's case, he's been cut short first by truncation.  But his district had a 24.5% constituency change.  That's well within the limit of 30% maximum change given the Board by their attorney based on past Alaska Supreme Court decisions.  In fact, Budd Simpson had proposed cutting it off at 25%, which would have left Wielechowski untruncated.  If Wielechoski were not truncated, he would fall in the same category as seat T.  He'd run next in 2024 (when his term expires) and he'd already be on the right cycle. I'd note that setting the cutoff at 25% would also "untruncate" two more seats - Sen. Myers (21.7%) and Sen. Begich (16.3%).  

Wilson's district was changed too much to escape Truncation. But Wilson's cycle (2024) could be swapped with someone who is already being moved to a 2026 cycle.  Say, give Sen. Stevens (who is not truncated) Wilson's 2024 year cycle, when he would normally run next  and Wilson takes Steven's 2026 cycle.  

Why shouldn't the Board be instructed to go back and make alterations, if possible, to prevent them from forcing a Senator to have two, two year terms?  I understand that the Board did Truncation without knowing exactly which seats were being truncated.  But in the end if the Board sees that their anonymous truncation and allocation decision results in forcing a senator to have two, two year terms, shouldn't they be able, even required,  to go back and see if they can adjust things so that the senator's normal four year term is only shortened once?  If as Peter said, they don't have the power to make a senator's term six years, why do they have the power to unnecessarily shorten a senator's term twice?

To my knowledge, these double two year terms have been part of the redistricting process from early on and no one has challenged it, but it seems like an issue that should be presented before the Supreme Court.  Is it better to have truncation at 16.3% and above and force a senator to have two two year terms, when a higher cutoff level - which is comfortably below the 30% threshold the Court has previously said was OK - is easy to do?  I think not.  The Constitution's requirement of four year senate seats shouldn't be violated so easily.

Note to readers:  I've been writing this post for over a week.  

First, the writing and then double checking the video to ensure I'm accurate is helpful for me to better understand what happened.  But as I find new wrinkles, I end up searching the internet to fill in new missing details. And the post starts to bulge in a different direction.  

But a key goal here is to bring light on the process and share anything that might be useful to attorneys challenging the Board's Proclamation Plan so that, whatever the outcome, the Supreme Court will have had a chance to review all the relevant issues.   

Second, this is all so full of details and nuances, that it's hard to write without forcing readers to go into all those details with me, something I know most readers won't do. Just having a label for what I'm writing about is difficult.  What the hell does "Allocation of Terms" mean? Nothing to someone not paying close attention to the redistricting process. But finding clearer labels like  "Assigning Senate seats to staggered terms" is almost as opaque and way too long. There are lots of examples of that kind of problem

That's why I have now narrowed this to issues that might have bearing on the Superior and Supreme Courts' decisions.  Imagine - this is the narrowed down version.  There is more that I have edited out, than I'm leaving in.  I hope to look at a few more issues in the next few days.  Like the constitutional requirements for those choosing Redistricting Board members with out consideration of politi

Negative

 My wife and I got our boosters about two weeks before getting on a plane.  Our 8 year old granddaughter got her first shot about the same time.  There's a longer interval between shots for her - don't know if that's for all kids or just here.  The island is about 82% fully vaccinated for folks over 12. And most people are wearing masks, even walking outside.  

But our daughter decided that we should take tests four days after we got here (long enough for the virus to show from our airplane trip).  So yesterday, while the granddaughter got tested at school, we used a home testing kit.  My daughter got tested and here stepson also got tested.  Everyone negative.

Waiting

Just one red line means negative.  Two would be positive.

So last night for the first time since we got here Thursday, we all had dinner together.  Maskless. 

Two tests were $45.  And I'm not happy that the rest of the world can't get the vaccines available to us.  So let your Congressional representatives know you want all of Africa to have access as well.  

Yes, I'm stalling.  Still trying to distill the key points on the truncation and cycle allocation post.   

How Much Do You Know About Kyle Rittenhouse?

True or False?

1. Kyle Rittenhouse 
1. was bullied as a kid  
2. was a bully at his school
3. fled the scene of the crime
4. turned himself in
5. was a Proud Boy
6. drove 200 miles to be in Kenosha
2. His
1. parents had three kids in less than four years
2. mother is a certified nursing assistant
3. sister is a Bernie Sanders supporter
3. Rittenhouse fundraising efforts 
1. raised over more than $1 million
2. were misused by his attorneys

Just letting you check how much you know.

I realized lately that the name Kyle Rittenhouse was bombarding my consciousness.  I knew he was the kid who traveled from Illinois to Kenosha and  killed two people who were demonstrating against police violence in Kenosha.  And his trial was starting.

But I realized I knew really very little about who the person was and what actually happened that night in Kenosha.  

So I googled Rittenhouse biography and came up with this New Yorker article on how he got to Kenosha, what happened there, and how the right raised money for him and the Proud Boys claimed him.  

Too often the relentless repetition from the media and social media implants images into our heads that take root there without our attention and we unconsciously and uncritically form opinions on things.  

For instance - something I learned in the article - 

"The Rittenhouse apartment was a mile south of the Wisconsin border, and Rittenhouse had been storing his gun in Kenosha, at the house of a friend’s stepfather."

There wasn't too much about his family life, but here's some of it:

"Wendy [his mom] sometimes felt too overwhelmed to help her kids navigate difficulties. In 2017, when Kyle was fourteen, she tried to resolve a conflict between him and two classmates, twins named Anthony and Jonathan, by seeking restraining orders. In a handwritten petition to the court, Wendy, who has dyslexia, wrote, “Anthony calls Klye dumb stupid say that going to hurt Kyle. Anthony follows Kyle around to take picture of Klye and post them on soical media.”

"That fall, Rittenhouse, a pudgy ninth grader in dark-framed glasses, joined the Explorers program at the Grayslake Police Department, near Antioch. The police chief viewed the program as a way to “teach self-discipline, responsibility and other appropriate ‘life lessons’ ” to youths who “may have a challenging home, social, or school life.” Rittenhouse participated in a similar cadet program through the Antioch Fire Department. Jon Cokefair, the fire chief, told me, “Most of the kids that are doing this, they don’t play football, they’re not cheerleaders—this is their focus.”

Jeff Myhra, the deputy chief who ran Grayslake’s Police Explorers program, told me that participants trained with harmless replicas of service weapons. Explorers wore uniforms and often helped manage parade traffic. Rittenhouse went on police ride-alongs, a practice that may impart a false sense of competence, or authority. One brochure declared, “Like Police Officers, Explorers must be ready and willing to encounter any emergency situation such as first responders to accidents or injuries.”

There's also a lot about how prominent Trump related lawyers swooped in to raise money for Kyle's defense and took big payments from the accounts for themselves.  

There is usually a way to find out more about what's happening than we get through normal life.  But we also have to take accounts like this New Yorker article with a grain of salt too until we have enough evidence that it's accurate.  

I recommend using normal channels of information to find out what's happening and who's getting attention.  From there it makes more sense to find someone who has done a deep dive to find out a lot more details about the person and/or the situation.  

You can find answers to the True or False quiz in the article.  Yes, I could give you the answers, but then you'd just have a lot of out-of-context trivia that would not make you wiser about what's going on.  

Alaska Redistricting Board: The Political Outcomes Of The Maps - A Different View

1. The Board has taken six different maps on the road and is sharing with the public.  
2. Two of the maps (Version3 and V4) are maps the Board members made.
3. The other four maps were made by 3rd parties interested in the process.  
1. AFFER - Alaskans For Fair And Equitable Redistricting
2. AFFR - Alaskans for Fair Redistricting
3. Doyon Coalition
4. Senate Minority Coalition  

You can get more information about the 3rd Parties in an earlier post.  Or you can look at the maps and see if you can guess which ones lean which way by the results.  Then check the link.

The Alaska Landmine published some maps and lists of information on how the maps impacted incumbents.  Here's the post for the Board's v3 and v4 maps.  Here's the post for the 3rd party maps.  The mapping and calculating the impact on incumbents were done by Robert Hockema.  

I've taken Hockema's lists and reorganized them in a way that makes it easier for me to see things clearly.  We all have different ways of taking in and making sense of information.  This works best for me.  But I want to thank Hockema for the work he did that lets us all understand how the different maps impact incumbents.  

Look at the charts.  I have some comments at the bottom, but I want you to raise your own questions and conclusions before you read my thoughts.  

[If I make the charts too big, they stretch over into the side column.  But these are higher than normal resolution and so you should be able to click on them to enlarge them.  If you're sight impaired, let me know and I can send you charts your computer can change to audio.]

1.  Board Map v3

2.  Board Map v4

3.  AFFER Map

4.  AFFR Map

5.  Doyon Coalition map

6.  Senate Minority Coalition Map

Thoughts

Factual Observations

1. All the maps pair some Democratic and some Republican incumbents and have districts with no incumbents
2. Some have more Democrats paired, others have more Republicans paired
3. Four of the six have at least one Democrat paired with a Republican 

Some Background

1. The Board agreed early on to "not protect incumbents."  They never agreed to "not target incumbents."  I pointed this out at public testimony and requested they add 'no targeting' to assure the public that the maps were not intentionally aimed at blocking certain incumbents.  They haven't done that.
2. The Board's executive director has publicly stated on various occasions that the Board's data base does not have political information in it.  Thus, to intentionally gerrymander, a Board member must 
1. already know where incumbents live
2. get that information from someone other than fellow Board members or Board staff, OR
3. have some other means of going after incumbents
3. In Anchorage, the bowl tends to be more Democratic in the north parts and more Republican in the south and hillside parts.  
4. The current districts tend to go north-south.
5. To pair Democrats in Anchorage without knowing exactly where they live, one could switch the north-south orientation of northern districts to east-west and probably catch some incumbents in the same district. 
6. Before mapping began, Board member Marcum mentioned several times that she'd heard from the public that east-west maps made more sense than north-south maps.
7. I also asked, in public testimony, that Board members publicly report if they got mapping advice from people other than Board members or staff, that was NOT given to them in public testimony.  Two Board members did publicly state they did not get information from anyone but Board members and staff.  The other three have not.  

Evaluative Observations

1. It's probably difficult to make maps that don't pair any incumbents while meeting the basic criteria for legitimate maps (compactness, contiguity, socio-economic integration, and low deviation) - but not impossible 
2. One can infer that some maps intentionally paired incumbents, that is they gerrymandered the maps to improve the outcomes in the elections for one party or another.  We can't know for sure, but given the leanings of the map makers, and peculiarities in some maps, it seems likely.
3. It's my sense that while some Board members and 3rd Party map makers have sincerely used the mapping criteria to try to make fair maps, some, when explaining how and why they made the maps appeared to be using the criteria to justify what appear to be gerrymandering attempts.  

"Neoclassical economics is a hell of a drug."

The kind of economics taught in intro courses - micro and macro - always seemed to me to be missing a lot.  Like how many truly rational decisions do humans make every day?  It always seemed like a ponzi scheme where you have to keep finding more and more people to buy your product/service. Standing steady is falling behind.  And there was the vast destruction of earth to find and exploit and transport the raw materials needed in production.  And the faith in the bizarre scientific formula:  The Invisible Hand.  And the total lack of ethics as a consideration.  

Then, slowly, within economics itself came people challenging the orthodoxy.  Experimental economics set up actual empirical tests of the previously sacred mantras of market economics.  Then behavioral economics started looking at human economic behavior more carefully.   

That, plus watching the price of text books go up and up and up, made this tweet resonate with me.

Neoclassical economics is a hell of a drug. It has no theory of prices, no account of inflation, and its models all presume the existence of a perfectly rational "homo economicus" who is a "utility maximizer" with perfect information.

1/ pic.twitter.com/A5PhehydHM

— Cory Doctorow (@doctorow) October 18, 2021

[Click on the Tweet Image to get to the whole thread]

There's a whole thread there that's worth  reading.  It links to a free online textbook called The Economy.  Here's the beginning of the Table of Contents:

Sorry it's not clearer.  But you can go to the book yourself.

Libraries And Schools Are Targets In GOP War Against Truth

First Anchorage mayor Dave Bronson appointed a library director who didn't meet the minimum qualifications of the job description - a masters in library science and some years experience working in libraries.    When the Assembly didn't approve her, he appointed a second unqualified head librarian who isn't likely to be approved. (Or maybe they've already voted her down, there's so much nonsense going on it's hard to keep all the details straight. I can't find proof one way or the other.)

So now he's reorganizing the city through his budget which, according to Cheryl Lovegreen would  put the library into the Department of Parks and Recreation which changes the head librarian to a position that doesn't need Assembly approval. 

In an earlier post I pointed out that these actions are deliberate and that the GOP is pushing library takeovers around the country.  

I don't know how much of this Mayor Bronson consciously understands and how much he is just following the party instructions supported by the various national anti-think tanks and those organizations set up to get ideologically driven legislation passed at the state and local level.  

In the earlier post on taking over libraries, I'd found that a key goal is to purge libraries of books about race, about the history of race relations, that discuss diversity in a positive way.  It's part of the anti critical race campaign.  Mustn't allow people access to alternatives to the sacred myths of US exceptionalism.  

All of this is about lying on a pretty spectacular scale.  Lying as a form of keeping the masses ignorant, as a way to make them believe in an alternative reality.  It's how you create a cult of followers who deny what's in front of their own eyes and accept what their leader tells them.  

What's this got to do with libraries?   Lying isn't new to politics. 

"Secrecy - what diplomatically is called discretion," as well as the arcana imperil, the mysteries of government - and deception,  the deliberate falsehood and the outright lie, used as legitimate means to achieve political ends have been with us since the beginning of recorded history. Truthfulness has never been counted among the political virtues, and lies have always been regarded as justifiable tools in political dealings.

--Hannah Arendt (1971) “Lying in Politics: Reflections on The Pentagon Papers”, 

The Trump presidency took lying to a new level, at least in the US.   Journalists kept tab of how many lies he told in a day.  Twitter made it easier to track. And people are saying things like, "the lying was the point." But it's more than that.  Politicians have always lied about their opponents so they could take over their jobs.

Now it's a frontal attack on truth itself.  The constant denial of truth and the ways we evaluate and measure what is true, is intended to destroy people's confidence in education and in science.   It's an attack to take over as the arbiter of what is true.

If we look at the evolution of intentional lying in the modern United States, of well funded and scientifically based (science was used to determine the best ways to convince people, not to seek the truth) campaigns, we see things like the tobacco industry's decades long campaign to convince the US public that smoking was not bad for your health (for example here and here.) and the oil industry's campaigns denying climate change.  Both industries knew they were lying.  We see it again today with COVID.  People earn lots of money packaging and selling lies. These are just the big ones that have been exposed. There are thousands of lesser ones to get people to by 'health food' or to lose weight and on and on and on.  

But counting the lies and offering scientific evidence that 'prove' the inconsistencies are all besides the point.  The new GOP is now about obliterating truth.  By creating false realities, they can challenge science itself.  Trump may or may not believe he really won the election. (I tend to think he knows the truth, but he's also enough of a narcissist that he maybe can't imagine he didn't win.  I don't know.)  By still challenging the election, he cultivates the doubts of his supporters, and hopes to harvest their votes in the future. And to cast doubt on the legitimacy of any election he loses.

They have to lie and to eradicate any kind of objective truth because the truth does them no favors.  The US Justice system has huge flaws that favor the wealthy and the white and delivers injustice to the poor and the people of color.  But they have to maintain the facade that it is fair, at least when it punishes the poor and not-so white.  The economic system now takes from the poor and gives to the rich through systemic laws and rules that make it hard, if not dangerous, for workers to unite for better pay and better working conditions.  Their unions that fought for 40 hour weeks and vacations and overtime pay and fair grievance procedures have been gutted.  But they must maintain the fiction that if you work hard and honestly you'll do well.  

The elimination of any sort of verifiable truth gives the GOP the possibility of splitting the population and continuing to get many to vote against their own self interest.  They do this by creating an emotional self interest based on race, religion, abortion, immigration.  It's built on a quarter truth and three quarters lies. (No, I have not measured the truth ratios.  Think about this metaphorically.)

Thus They Want To Gut Libraries And Schools

So, if elimination of truth and the ability to evaluate what is true is the GOP goal, then it makes perfect sense for them to go after libraries and schools - all levels - and to go after libraries.  Because these are institutions that give average people access to the truth.  And access to alternative truths and to logic and science.  

Our governor's drastic cuts to the University of Alaska are a similar effort to destroy public universities.  I also believe that schools are prime targets of private takeovers.  But that idea distracted me from recognizing the other, larger,  goal - obfuscating truth.  

Viktor Klemperer (cousin of conductor Otto Klemperer) was a distinguished university professor and WW I veteran when Hitler came to power.  Klemperer kept a diary during WWII - I Will Bear Witness in two volumes - where, among other observations,  he kept notes on the language used by the Nazis in their speeches and in the news.  This later resulted in The Language of the Third Reich: A Philologist's Notebook.

These books are careful studies of how the Nazis manipulated language to hide truths they didn't want the German people to hear and to believe the truths the Nazis wanted them to believe.  

Good lesson for citizens of the United States to learn.  

And since I brought Nazis into the discussion, I had found the GOP's embrace of White Supremacists AND their flipping this completely by crying that they are victims of Nazi like suppression of liberties (for having to wear masks, for example) pretty bizarre.  

But on reflection, it's part of obliterating any kind of objective truth.  We are Nazis and we are the victim of Nazis.  Consistency and truth broken, leaving logical thinkers sputtering in disbelief.  That is the point.  To capture truth and make it their own way to rule the world.  

At What Point Is A Politician Liable For Deaths Because Of His Actions Or Inactions?

Retired pilot Dave Bronson took office as Anchorage's new mayor on Thursday, July 1.  That was at a time when Alaska's COVID situation was relatively low.  So low that the State Health and Human Services Department only posted new numbers Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.  So my starting date on this chart is Friday, July 2, 2021.  My ending date is Thursday, September 23.  Yes, they went back to reporting the numbers five days a week.  There was a Friday report too.  One of the worst ever.  They added 41 deaths and the new resident case total was 1729.  The highest ever.  But that report included a lot of backlogged numbers.  Most of the deaths probably happened during Bronson's tenure, but the new cases inflated that one day total. I decided the Thursday report was damning enough.  

These numbers are for the whole state of Alaska, and the Mayor of Anchorage is only in charge of Anchorage, But Anchorage is by far the largest city in the state with almost half the population, and people from nearby the Matsu borough and the Kenai Peninsula work and shop in Anchorage.  Plus it's the transportation hub of the state.  Many people outside of Anchorage have to fly through Anchorage on the way to other places.  It's also the medical center of Alaska, the place where people from more rural areas, with smaller hospitals or just clinics, come for more serious health needs.  So what the Mayor of Anchorage does regarding COVID affects more than just Anchorage.   

Our mayor came into office  having at various times denied COVID was a serious problem.  He thinks people's individual liberties are violated by mask mandates and vaccine mandates. And that the health restrictions harm business more than the virus.  He recently said he didn't know what more he could do.  

The alarming change in the COVID numbers is the result of his willful ignorance.  His stubborn clinging to bullshit information.  (Sorry, misinformation is much too tepid a term for the organized and profitable propaganda that is aimed at Trump supporters.)

My sense is that Bronson is the kind of man who rarely if ever acknowledges he's wrong.  Maybe on something minor like flipping a coin.  But he's been adamantly certain about LGBTQ issues for many years.  It's hard for a man like him to do the right thing after investing so much of himself to following the wrong path.  And because he's mayor, his actions and or lack of actions, impact tens of thousands of people. 

 One hundred and forty-four people have died since he took over Anchorage.  

• Let's drop half of them as not Anchorage related.  
• Let's skip the first month in office (there were only 12 deaths reported between July 2 and August 2). That leaves us 132 deaths. 
• Let's cut out 50% of deaths since August 2,  since Anchorage only has half of Alaska's population.  That leaves us 66 deaths.  
• Let's just arbitrarily say that 10% (and this is really low) of those could have been avoided had Bronson taken rigorous action against the spread of COVID in Anchorage.  

That would be six people who would probably be alive, but for  Bronson's inaction.  Probably a lot more.  He may be passionate about the life of every single fertilized human egg that is created, but actual birthed human beings seem much less important to him.   And we're not even talking about all the people who have been very ill.  Or the businesses that are suffering because people are cautious about going out in public because the of huge surge in COVID cases.  

Third Party Groups Monitoring The Redistricting Process In Alaska -Maps In Today[Updated Slightly]

In addition to the two maps the Board approved last Thursday, the Board solicited maps from third parties.  In this post I thought I'd let you know which groups submitted maps and give a little background.  The benefit of third party maps is that they can show the Board, possibly, alternative ways to meet the various criteria, sometimes better than the Board's maps.  After the final maps the Board approves in November, third parties can use their maps to demonstrate in court that there are better ways to remap the districts.  Then the judges have to decide.  

Several groups have been watching the redistricting process.  I've been aware of a few of them.  The Board has agreed to share these other maps with their own proposed plan adopted Thursday, September 9, 2021.   This has been the practice in previous redistricting rounds.  I don't remember the exact language the Board used, but they have said they would share all the 'reasonable' (my word)  maps submitted.  I suspect that means that meet the various federal and state requirements.  Ultimately, they all want to be sure their interests are met in the final maps.  

Here are the organizations that have submitted maps by Wednesday's noon deadline. 

• AFFR
• Doyon/Sealaska "Coalition" [UPDATE Sept 16, 2021 11:30am:   Coalition of Doyon, Limited; Tanana Chiefs Conference; Fairbanks Native Association; Sealaska; and Ahtna]
• AFFER
• Mat-Su Borough
• Alaska Democratic Party
• Alaska Senate Minority

Alaskans For Fair Redistricting (AFFR)

From their website: 

"Alaskans For Fair Redistricting (AFFR) is a coalition of Alaska Native groups, organized labor, public interest and community organizations. AFFR was created amid the 2000 redistricting process to ensure an equitable map for the people of Alaska. AFFR’s membership includes redistricting veterans who have a clear scope of the necessary strategic process and data aggregation needed to achieve an equitable map. In addition, AFFR leadership is focused on community-driven collaboration, finding ways to make both the maps submitted as well as the coalition process reflective of and driven by Alaska’s communities who are often at most risk of disenfranchisement throughout the redistricting process--specifically, rural Alaska Native communities, and urban communities of color."

The Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AkPirg) is one of their financial supporters.   

Doyon/Sealaska Coalition [UPDATED Sept 16, 11:30am:  Coalition of Doyon, Limited; Tanana Chiefs Conference; Fairbanks Native Association; Sealaska; and Ahtna]

From Doyon Native Corporation  website page on land:

Under the provisions of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Doyon will receive approximately 12.5 million acres across Interior Alaska. To date Doyon has received title to just over 11.5 million acres, primarily around the 34 villages within our region. 

From Seaalaska's website:

"Headquartered in Juneau, Alaska, Sealaska owns and manages 362,000 acres of land on behalf of more than 23,000 shareholders. Sealaska’s land holdings in Southeast Alaska are roughly 1.6% of the traditional homelands that the Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian people have inhabited for more than 10,000 years." 

 Doyon has had a group monitoring the process and working on their own maps.  They have voiced an interest in having their villages in districts that maximize their representation in Juneau.  Their President and CEO Aaron Shutt has testified before the board in Anchorage and their Senior Vice President, External Affairs Sarah Obed has testified over the phone.  

Alaskans For Fair and Equitable Redistricting (AFFER)

This group was led by Randy Ruedrich, former president of the Republican Party in the 2010 round of redistricting.  I've been told they're active again this time, but I can't find any web presence.  I did see Ruedrich at the first public meeting in Anchorage.  I was thinking that AFFER had probably helped Board Member Marcum draw her map, particularly the Anchorage districts, that the Board approved in its proposal.  Seems I'm not the only one thinking that.  Rep. Zack Fields (whose district was combined with two other Democratic reps) tweeted today: 

"Pretty straightforward: Bethany Marcum drew map V1 based on Randy's guidance, clear partisan gerrymander with singular goal of adding R seats and districting Dems together at expense of compactness, socioeconomic integration."

Mat-Su Borough

When I got this information from Peter Torkelson today, he mentioned that at the first look the Matsu map, it seemed identical to AFFER's map.  If I recall right, there were a lot of overlaps between AFFER's 2011 maps and an Anchorage map submitted by some members of the Anchorage Assembly.  

Alaska Democratic Party

While there have been Alaska Democrats at Board meetings, I don't recall them identifying themselves as representing the party when they testified.  

Alaska Senate Minority

Sen. Tom Begich (D) gave a preview of their maps at testimony last week.  Begich, like Ruedrich, were present at most of the Board meetings in 2011-2013.  

The Native American Rights Fund (NARF)

Here's there guide "Fair Redistricting in Indian Country"

Here's their online Alaska Redistricting document.

They have links to all their 990 tax reports here and a note about their funding:

"NARF receives financial support from individuals, corporations, foundations, government agencies, religious groups, and tribal organizations. NARF is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, so contributions are tax-deductible. Fee arrangements are negotiated with clients having the ability to pay."

NARF monitors the redistricting to make sure Alaska Native representation is fair.  They have not submitted a map.

 

The Mayor's Attempt To Take Control Of The Library - Part Of A National Conservative Effort?

I wrote the title before doing some research.  I wasn't sure,  but now it looks like the answer is Yes!!

It was one thing when the new very conservative mayor of Anchorage tried to appoint Sami Graham head librarian despite the fact that she lacked the basic qualifications for that position.  (Like a masters degree in library science and experience as a librarian.)  But seconds after her appointment was rejected by the Anchorage Assembly, he appointed her his chief of staff and said she would also be in charge of libraries.

Why?  I know that Republicans have made a strong effort to elect conservatives to school boards,  We are already seeing conservatives being disruptive at the Anchorage School Board over COVID restrictions.  This isn't just a local effort. but I didn't know about libraries.  But it seemed consistent.  What kinds of things would they like to change?

Well I checked the internet.  Here are some things we might expect:

• Getting rid of books that deal with racism and non-English books ("Critical Race Theory" is the rallying cry)
• Getting rid of libraries' community center functions
• Slashing budgets, cutting back hours

This July 31, 2021 Truthout article relates the story of a conservative takeover of the Niles, Illinois library board.  It begins by highlighting the election of a conservative to the library board along with two other conservative candidates.  There were also some other conservatives already on the board.

"Since their swearing in on May 19, the new board has wasted no time in imposing its agenda. “Their focus is to change the very nature of the library,” Lynch says. “They’ve already slashed the budget from $7.4 to $5.9 million, fired staff or reduced their hours, gone from being open 70 hours a week to being open 54, and eliminated outreach to schools and nursing homes.” In addition, she says, longtime library director Susan Dove Lempke felt she had to resign from her position after clashing with Makula and the other conservatives over the cutbacks."

The Niles-Maine Public Library is not the only program facing draconian cutbacks or a right-wing takeover. In fact, in places ranging from Kootenai County, Idaho, to Ann Arundel County, Maryland, to Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, to the town of Frisco, Texas, local efforts are underway to limit what libraries offer — especially when it comes to promoting racial equity and gender inclusivity.

Some locales are making opposition to critical race theory — either through books or community lectures and discussions — their core focus, but other locations are adding virulent opposition to comprehensive sex education and LGBTQIA+ acceptance in a trio of concerns. What’s more, while most of these opposition groups purport to be homegrown and grassroots, all have access to the support and resources (including model legislation) of numerous national right-wing organizations. These include the Alliance Defending Freedom, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Family Research Council, Family Watch International, the Heritage Foundation and Project Blitz, as well as right-wing media outlets such as Breitbart, Fox News, the Daily Wire, Newsmax and the Washington Free Beacon. All told, NPR reports that as of late June, at least 165 local and national groups are working to “disrupt or block lessons on race and gender,” in both traditional classrooms and public spaces. 

This PBS News Hour article gives some reasons why libraries are under attack from conservatives.  Librarians, it argues, become activists simply by doing their jobs.  

“Libraries Are For Everyone.” That’s the message of a series of images created by Rebecca McCorkindale in the days after President Donald Trump announced the temporary travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries. She never expected her signs of inclusion to go further than a handful of libraries.

"But by the time she’d woken up the following day, she had received messages from librarians across the world wanting their languages represented. And libraries across the country — in Illinois, Minnesota, California, Virginia — had begun putting up the images as posters, along with displays about books on Islam, empathy and being a good neighbor.

“Libraries are the heart of a community, for anyone and everyone that lives there, regardless of their background,” she said. “And so we strongly believe that libraries are not neutral. We stand up for human rights.”

The article chronicles the many ways that librarians became more activist during the Trump administration.  

The American Conservative also looks at the activism of librarians from a more critical perspective in ‘Woke’ Librarians Take Their Politics To Another Level.  It begins:

"Everyone knows the old caricature of the local librarian: a white, middle-aged woman, slightly plump, a bit intimidating, shushing patrons while wearing comfortable clothing—cardigans especially—and unflattering shoes. Sadly, a more damaging and likely more accurate moniker has emerged in the age of Google: anachronistic. Internet search has degraded the perceived value of public libraries as their staffs spend their time teaching the elderly how to use the Internet or scrambling around for eclipse glasses that the local news assured “can be picked up at your local library.”

However, librarians today are doing less shushing and more shouting, as the academic social justice movement has penetrated the library stacks."

It's all condescending and sexist.  Theseare the most flattering paragraphs of the article.  

Electric Lit's  contribution to this discussion is entitled "The Real Reason Conservatives Are Scared of Libraries : Easy access to information can show marginalized people that we’re not alone. Not everyone wants us to know that."

Conservatives hide behind taxes to justify shuttering libraries, but demographic data suggests a more sinister intention. Many of those who benefit from libraries are among the nation’s most vulnerable populations. According to a 2016 report by the Pew Research Center, “Library users who take advantage of libraries’ computers and internet connections are more likely to be young, black, female, and lower income.” In the Pew Center’s 2015 study, researchers found that “lower-income Americans, Hispanics and African Americans are more likely to say that libraries impact their lives and communities than other Americans.”

In February [2018], the Trump administration released a budget proposal that would effectively eliminate federal funding of libraries, an institution that serves homeless people, addicts, people of color, immigrants, and those living in poverty. The issue isn’t about the cost of libraries; it’s that conservatives believe some people simply aren’t worth the money. Even more insidiously, it’s that conservatives fear what happens when those people get access to information."

This is not just a US phenomenon.  In a Guardian article entitled  The Tories are savaging libraries – and closing the book on social mobility,  author John Harris first writes passionately about the important community benefits of libraries, and quotes Andrew Carnegie:

“A library outranks any other one thing a community can do to benefit its people. It is a never failing spring in the desert.”

After this lengthy list of how libraries improve society, he offers the sobering news that Britain's libraries are under serious attack:

"But does anyone in government care? Since 2010, at least 478 libraries have closed in England, Wales and Scotland. Over the same period, the number of books held by surviving libraries has dropped by 14m, while librarian numbers have been cut by around 8,000. Statistics released this week by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy show that over the past five years, loans of books have dropped by a quarter, and that spending on libraries by councils fell by £66m in 2016-17 alone."

The fact that Bronson pointedly made Graham in charge of libraries even after the Assembly rejected her as head librarian suggests that taking on these Republican goals for libraries was part of his plan.  

Alaska COVID 2021 Highs And Some Vaccine Numbers

 Today's COVID tab entry:

Wednesday, August 18,2021 - Four new deaths reported today.  That's nine in the last two days.

Current COVID patients hospitalized 148 - that's 127 listed as 'Currently Hospitalized - COVID positive" and 21 more listed as 'Currently On Vent Statewide - COVID Positive or Suspected'.  Or, as I've been reporting 127/21.  That's an increase of one person since yesterday.  The cases dashboard says there are 13 newly hospitalized people.  That sounds about right - four people died and a few others maybe got better and left the hospital.  

28 available ICU beds Statewide.  Three in Anchorage!

633/617 new resident cases.  That's a new 2021 high for one day and the highest since Dec. 10, 2021.  The Cases Dashboard changed.  Instead of 'resident' and 'non-resident' options, we now get 'resident' and 'all' options.  But I couldn't get the all button to get me different data from 'resident' data.  Not sure why they thought this was a better idea.  Every time you change how you organize the data, you making tracking and comparisons harder.  So there has to be a really compelling reason.  And if you change the Dashboard, but it doesn't actually work . . .

About 10,500 tests.  Test Positivity is up to 7.43.  Another 2021 high.  Hasn't been this high since November 23, 2020 when it was 8.13.  

If you get to talk - not shout - with an anti-vaxxer, just ask when their relationship with their parents changed from parent/child to friend/friend.  

 These COVID updates don't usually show up in the main window.  They're at a tab under the top banner. Alaska Daily COVID-19 Count 3  I'm putting this one in here because Alaska's COVID situation continues to deteriorate.  Here's some added info on vaccination rate.

Last week- August 11, 2021:

The Key Numbers As Of August 18, 2021
# of people who have two vaccines shots in Alaska: 324,635. That's in increase of 3,101 since last week (Aug 11) # of people who have had one vaccine shot in Alaska: 36,519 That's an increase of 1,320 since last week.

It took Alaska four and a half months to get 50% of population with one or more shots.

It's taken three months to get the next 8%

And here's today's (August 18, 2021).  

In one week we have gone from from 58.8% with one or more shots to 59.5%.  From  356,823 people to 361,154 or a total increase of 4,669.

From 53% with two shots to 53.5%.  321,534 people to 324,635, or a total of 3,101 increase.

Remember, that the first number is people with one + shots.  So it includes all the people with one AND all the people with two shots.  To find out how many only had one shot, we subtract the two shots number from the one+ shots.

Last week: 356,823 - 321,534 = 35,289 people with just one shot

This week:  361,154 - 324,635 =  36,519 people with just one shot   

That would mean 1320 people got their first shots in the last week and 3,101 got their second shots

Looking at the graph on the bottom of this week's chart, I highlighted as close as I could get to 50% - (50.3%) on May 13, 2021.  

So, it took Alaskans about four and a half months to get to 50% with one or more shots.

And it's taken three more months to go another 9%!

I understand there are people who believe that the vaccine doesn't work, that it injects God knows what into their bodies.  There are people who make lots of money off of conning people into fearing the vaccines.  Those people who didn't vote in Anchorage's mayoral runoff election helped to vote an anti-masker/anti-vaccine guy into office.  Even though over 50% of people over 12 have been vaccinated twice.  People - you have to vote or we get crazies elected to make decisions for us.  

On a more positive note, I reached Nakorn Sawan the other day and have about 130 km left to get to Bangkok.  (No, I'm not in Thailand.  I'm doing this imaginary ride on the bike trails of Anchorage.  It looks like I'll make the 750 kms in plenty of time.  I can't tell people how wonderful it is to ride through the woods with creeks on one side several times a week.  I may have to do a short side trip after I'm done to keep me going until the snow falls.