Parnell Still Doesn't Get It - Response To Sandy Parnell's Commentary

9/5/14 Governor Finally Sack Katkus After National Guard Bureau Office of Complex Investigations (OCI) Report On Sexual And Other Abuse 10/4/14 "Governor Says He Responded To Every allegation but was misled by leaders." 10/9/14 What Did He Know And When Did He Know It? Still The Relevant Questions

I've already written too many posts on Sean Parnell's reaction to the National Guard scandal. 






But when I read Sandy Parnell's commentary in today's ADN, I couldn't help but do one more.

Here are some things she says that beg a response.

"I was with my husband, Sean, when he got the call in February with concrete information that called the Alaska guard command into question."

"concrete information"  -  Anyone with concrete information knows you have to act.  But sexual abuse victims and their advocates rarely walk in with concrete information.  It's the nature of the crime that it's done in secret and without witnesses and without much evidence.

The governor is supposed to be a savvy person who can judge people and situations and then can act appropriately.  The governor, in this case for sure, misjudged people and didn't know what to do.

It's like going to the doctor. A good doctor will diagnose the symptoms, do the necessary tests, and get you cured before you go to stage three.  But when the patient came in to see Sean Parnell, he said, "there's no concrete evidence."  He let the cancer in the Guard fester and grow causing far more pain and anguish than had he treated it right away.  He simply didn't know what tests to perform to get the evidence needed, so he said there was none.

Doctors go through hellishly intense schooling.  Politicians just need enough money and backing to get elected.  Fortunately for politicians, there's usually not much concrete evidence of their bad judgments either.  Nor can they be sued for malpractice.  Unfortunately for Parnell, the evidence of his incompetence has been spelled out pretty clearly.  And an upcoming election is the political version of a malpractice suit.

The point here is that when the Guard came to see Dr. Parnell, the Guard was sent home, and presumably didn't even get an aspirin.

"I am thankful that the bureau’s OCI responded so quickly and so professionally when my husband called for this independent, outside investigation."

Yes, too bad Sean Parnell didn't act that quickly and professionally back in 2010.
 

"The insinuation by some that Sean would not take action is wrong. That is not who my husband is, and that’s not what I have seen him do. He took action, immediately, every time. When he got the facts, he acted. With every specific allegation of assault, he followed up personally.

I believe that Sean and Sandy Parnell believe this.  Unfortunately, the action he took was inadequate and ineffective.  That's why people are upset.  The governor wasn't up to the task and people at the Guard suffered another four years, before real action was taken.  

My husband is committed to protecting the integrity of their mission, and ensuring they can carry out their work for all Alaskans in an atmosphere that is safe, with accountable leadership.

 Again, I believe Sandy believes this.  Again, that's nice, but we need a governor who is as competent as he is committed.  We don't have that.


I realize that it's hard for anyone to admit incompetence.  It's particularly hard for a politician several weeks before an election.  Good intentions aren't enough.  You also need the ability to take timely, decisive, and effective action.

The governor can't blame this on a divided legislature, because it's not divided.  It's full of his fellow Republicans.  And because this was something the governor could have and should have handled all on his own. 

One more comment on that first quote:

"I was with my husband, Sean, when he got the call in February with concrete information that called the Alaska guard command into question."

Allegations of sexual abuse require a high degree of confidentiality.  These aren't things you should share with people not directly responsible for acting, including the First Lady.  Governor Palin was criticized for including Todd in policy issues.   I say this, recognizing that the relationship between a husband and wife is special.  Spouses need counsel from each other.  But if that happens, the spouse's role is to never disclose what he or she knows.  Like in a commentary in the newspaper where she acts as a witness to what her husband learned and when.   

"Lost Causes Are The Only Ones Worth Fighting For" - Should Parnell Keep Fighting Same-Sex Marriage?

A lot of people are criticizing Governor Parnell's decision to continue to appeal the rulings allowing same-sex partners to get married in Alaska.  Mainly, they argue, given the Ninth Circuit and US Supreme Courts' recent actions, appealing is a lost cause.  But are no lost causes  worth fighting for?  Which ones would you fight for?  Which wouldn't you?  And what factors make the difference?   I'm going to start that discussion in this post.


"Lost Causes Are The Only Ones Worth Fighting For"

After the death of a US senator in the movie Mr. Smith Goes To Washington Mr. Smith (Jimmy Stewart)  is  appointed to take his place. His hero is the senior Senator from his state, Mr. Paine.  But Smith learns that Mr. Paine is supporting corrupt legislation and Smith filibusters to stop the legislation.  Near the end of the filibuster, tired and near collapse, Mr. Smith says:

"I guess this is just another lost cause, Mr. Paine. All you people don't know about lost causes. Mr. Paine does. He said once they were the only causes worth fighting for,  and he fought for them once, for the only reason that any man ever fights for them."

Here's the clip of that scene:





What Exactly Does It Mean?

"Lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for."  If might be good rhetoric, but it really doesn't make any sense.  It implies that good causes that  have a chance of winning aren't worth fighting for.  That's clearly not the case.  It's a phrase, spoken passionately though, that might sway an unthinking audience

And it wasn't the last word on lost causes in the movie either  If you watched the video clip to the end, you heard that Jimmy Stewart didn't stop there.  He gives a rule for why you fight lost causes.

". . .   for the only reason that any man ever fights for them. Because of just one plain,  simple rule, "Love thy neighbor,"     

That makes a lot more sense, but again, this is rhetoric.  It sounds good.  "Love thy neighbor" is a sentiment many will agree with (until they think about the neighbor who leaves his barking dog outside in the cold all day) but is it really the only reason to fight lost causes?

I'm going to end this post here and in a near (I hope) future post, try to come up with a model of lost cause situations.  I've already come up with a list of different situations that onlookers might label a lost cause.  I'll try to tease out of these examples, a way to evaluate how noble any specific lost cause situation is. 

Here are a couple I've thought of so far:

1. Searching for a missing child, all leads are cold, and the odds of finding her now are low to nil.
2. Fighting an armed battle, grossly outnumbered and outgunned, against an enemy who tortures and kills their captives.
3. Refusing to divulge information about your fellow rebels to your torturer. 
4. Refusing to accept a plea bargain because you know you are innocent, even though there are witnesses who swear they saw you and you’ll get life, when you could bargain for a lighter sentence. 

Then when the model is complete, we can apply it to the Governor's insistence that he must spend state resources to fight the overturning of the same sex marriage ban in court.

One friend I chatted with about this said I was making this too complicated.  It's just about power and the election.  That may well be the case.  But I hate to jump to conclusions about other people's intentions.  And such a model surely will have usefulness in other situations. 

What Did He Know And When Did He Know It? Still The Relevant Questions

Those were the questions the Watergate committee and the media asked about Richard Nixon's knowledge of the Watergate break in.  He claimed he knew nothing until very late and then when he learned he acted quickly.

Alexander Butterfield told the committee on July 13, 1973 that Nixon taped all his White House conversations.  I was in a closet that I'd made into a darkroom when he said that and it was clear this changed everything.   But then the stalling came.  Executive privilege prevented the White House from handing the tapes to the committee. 

Yesterday, the Alaska Dispatch News and the Alaska Public Media filed suit against Governor Sean Parnell for not releasing emails and other information that would help them understand and report on what Parnell knew about the sexual harassment and general toxic environment at the Alaska National Guard and when he knew it.  The article in today's ADN  says it took the Parnell administration four months to deny the request from the Alaska Public Media and three months to deny the ADN request. 

"Under separate requests, Alaska Dispatch News reporter Lisa Demer and Alaska Public Radio Network reporter Alexendra Gutierrez sought access to guard-related emails to or from Nizich. Because chaplains within the Alaska National Guard had sent their growing concerns about the agency’s toxic climate to Nizich’s personal email account, reporters asked that guard-related correspondence from Nizich’s personal email account also be provided to the media.

In April, during an interview with APRN, Parnell said that once he learned about the communication to Nizich’s personal email account, he directed his top aide to forward any such emails to his state account, where they would then become a public record."

The article offers explanations for the denial:

"In denial letters sent Sept. 26, Ruaro explained several exemptions and laws that allowed the emails to be withheld, including deliberative process and the need to protect “the right to privacy of victims and alleged victims.”
Ruaro also stated that people accused of misconduct also have a constitutional right to privacy when disclosure of the material “could reasonably lead to embarrassment, harm, or retaliation.” Finally, he cited that confidentiality also extends to members of the clergy, in whom victims have confided." [highlight added]

You can read the whole letter denying the material from the governor's chief of staff here.


John McKay's (the attorney for the ADN and APM on this - and, to fully disclose here,  for myself  when I was threatened with legal action if I didn't take down a blog post - takes issue with the governor's reasons for withholding the requested information.  You can see the full document online here.  My numbers correspond with the numbers in McKay's filing.  I've summarized some of McKay's key points responding to the reasons the governor's office gave for denying the requests.

20.  That while state law presumes the public records are disclosable and that doubts should be resolved in favor of disclosure, the governor has taken a narrow restrictive approach, “resolving doubts in favor of secrecy, delaying responses . . .discouraging pursuit of legitimate requests, and otherwise failing to comply fully, timely, and effectively. . ."

21.  Governor is wrongfully withholding documents that would “help explain the circumstances of the NG Scandal . . . [and] would allow the public to better assess the accuracy and candor” of what the Governor says on this.

22.  Didn’t provide an index identifying documents being withheld and the reason for withholding them as required by the law. 

23.  For documents that might be subject to privilege or redaction, Governor has not released those parts that are not subject to privilege or redaction.

24. - 26.  Governor previously told press that the emails to Chief of Staff Nizich would be made publicly available.

While there is room for interpretation, I'd say points 22 and 23 don't leave much wiggle room for the governor. 

The suit asks the court to take nine actions.  Again, I've abbreviated them and you can see the full language here.)

1. That the court order the governor to turn over the documents without delay.
2. For documents not turned over immediately because of claims of privilege, that the governor turn over a log of the withheld documents and the specific privilege claimed for withholding each.
3. Unless the governor moots this request by handing everything over immediately, that the employees of the governor’s office certify to the court that:    
1. they’ve made a diligent search for the documents requested and
2. that they've turned over everything, and if not when they were asked to do so by a superior and why they had not
4. That Chief of Staff Mike Nizich certify that he
1.  has been directed by the Governor to locate and forward to his state email account emails relating to the Guard in his private email account
2. He fully complied
3. If not, why he failed to do so and whether and when he advised the governor of his failure to do so
5. Order any documents or records relating to the NG Scandal not already turned over be preserved.
6. Court issue temporary, preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief against the governor, his office, and anyone working for them, restraining them from further obstructing or delaying or denying access to the relevant documents.
7. Court enter a declaratory judgment finding the governor’s office  has failed to comply.
8. Court enter other such relief it deems just and appropriate.
9. Court award the ADN and Alaska Public Media their costs and attorney fees

I find it ironic that the governor is pleading for the privacy rights, based on the Alaska Constitution, of the accused here, people whose names in many cases have already been before the public,  though he's not shown any concern about those rights being violated for women seeking reproductive health services or for gays and lesbians seeking to get married. 

As the lawsuit says, protected confidential information can easily be redacted and the information not protected should have already been turned over. 

Nixon fought as hard as he legally could to hold on to the tapes. He even ignored suggestions that he burn them. Nixon’s lawyers argued before the Supreme Court that the tapes were protected by executive privilege. On July 24, 1974, the justices decided differently. By a vote of 8 to 0 — Justice William Rehnquist recused himself — Nixon was ordered to turn over the tapes.
Fifteen days later, the president of the United States resigned.  [The whole article is here.  The link in he quote goes to another article on Nixon's resignation.]

The Parnell case is trivial compared to the Nixon case, though for Parnell, in a competitive race for reelection, it could cost him the election if the information shows he knew more sooner than he has so far revealed.  The delays could also just indicate the lack of understanding and ineptness of his staff.  

I've been unusually harsh on this topic of the National Guard because I know that the governor could have and should have taken action much sooner.  I got emails after posting about Katkus' confirmation hearings in 2010 from National Guard folks that were long and credible about the depth of corruption in the guard.  If I got such information based on a brief comment in a longer post, the governor had equally credible reports then too.  I didn't act on it because my correspondents didn't want to give names or specific details.  And I wasn't the man ultimately responsible for the National Guard.  The governor is and was.  Many people's lives were seriously harmed because of the governor's ineffective response to this situation.  And the governor has the long report on the problems with the guard.  All the media are trying to do now, is determine the accuracy of Parnell's declarations that he did all he could with the information he had. 

"Governor says he responded to every allegation but was misled by leaders."

The title is from a headline in the ADN. [The paper and online editions have different headlines and different dates.]

“Every time I heard an allegation, every time I got an allegation or my office did, we investigated that with guard leadership,” Parnell said even as he acknowledged the same leadership turned out to be the cause of some of the guard's biggest problems."

We asked the fox how the hens were doing. 

Sort of like how he investigated the claims of the oil companies that they needed a tax break so they could increase production and create more jobs.

Good intentions are important, but our Governor was simply unable to get to the heart of matters for four years.  You need more than intentions.  You need to be able to figure out what's going on and then correct it. 

For four years the governor has heard about problems at the National Guard.  Often such complaints come from people whose credibility may be questionable to people in authority, which, of course, doesn't invalidate their claims.  It just makes it harder for them to get people to listen.

But in this case the people who complained to the governor were people with credibility.  Chaplains.  Officers in the guard.  A senior politician from the governor's party.

What is revealed in this case is that the governor is, like Don Young said, Captain Zero.  He's an empty shell.  He simply doesn't have the ability to judge people - he listened to Katkus and not to Katkus' critics.  He doesn't know how to investigate and find the facts.  He got bamboozled for four years by the likes of Katkus.  (If you were to actually meet Katkus, you'd find this even more amazing.)

The National Guard scandal is all the more outrageous because Parnell made ending domestic violence one of his top priorities - but when it was waved in front of his face for four years, he didn't see it.  Or know what to do about it.  [OK, he'll say I did everything I could but there wasn't evidence.  That answer gives Parnell a fail on this question.  A more alert and serious governor would have done something much sooner.  The head of the National Guard is an appointed position and serves at the pleasure of the governor.]

And this is the governor who told us we needed to pass SB 21  giving the oil companies a $2 billion a year tax cut because the tax was hindering oil production and costing the state jobs.  (If he had done the math, he would have known that for $2 billion a year he could have given every unemployed Alaskan a decent paying job.)  And he fought against the referendum to repeal SB 21 saying it would cost the state oil revenue and jobs.

Yet the oil companies Parnell supported said themselves production would decline and after it passed one oil company said there wouldn't be increased oil production and another laid off  a significant number of employees.  We all know that if Prop 1 had passed, they would have blamed it for the layoffs.

We don't have a governor, we have a puppet.  He only knows what to do when one of his puppeteers tells him what to do.  His "Choose Respect" campaign to end domestic violence was a poor marketing campaign.  The scary thing is that I believe Parnell thought it had substance. (There were some substantive actions, but only because a non-profit that  working with state agencies had already developed a statewide plan and the governor's task force was able to adopt some of that.)

But it seems the governor is a good representative of the voters of Alaska who continue to believe Parnell's promises and continue to elect Republican majorities in the house and senate.  And continue to buy the Republican brand for our US Representative. The majority of voters seem to be swayed by symbols and not by substance.  Perhaps the so-called Unity Party with Walker an Mallot will change things.  I think just the change itself will allow for a little different direction, but how long will it last? And if he wins, how will Walker's socially conservative values play out after the election?   Stay tuned.

I realize this is not my normal style.  But this situation is so outrageous, even I have to call it out harshly.  This is a clear fail on the part of the governor.  There are no shades of gray here. 

So Predictable

August 20, 2014  (after Prop. 1 which would have repealed the big oil company tax break lost):

"Gov. Sean Parnell says it’s now time for the oil industry to increase its investment in oil field projects that create jobs for Alaskans."

September 8, 2014

"ExxonMobil told state regulators again last week not to expect an increase in oil production on the North Slope, arguing it is a “reasonable approach” to conclude that a long-term decline is continuing."*

That this was going to happen was so obvious that 89,608 Alaskans voted "Yes" on Prop. 1 on August 18.  That's only 10,147 fewer than those who voted "No" despite the stars being lined up for the "No" campaign:

• There were no real contests on the Democratic ballot to get Yes votes out.
• There were a number of interesting contests - particularly the Senate race - on the Republican ballot

Thus many more Republicans were likely to vote

• The "No" campaign spent 30 or 40 times more money than the "Yes" campaign

So Gov, a question.  What are you planning on doing when the other oil companies do not increase their investments in oil fields?   You going to say you need more proof like you did with the National Guard?  Even if you have proof, what will you do?  Being loyal to your friends is a virtue, Gov, but only if you have better quality friends. 

*To be fair, the article also said that Tesoro challenged Exxon's prediction. 

Gov Finally Sacks Katkus After National Guard Bureau Office of Complex Investigations (OCI) Report On Sexual And Other Abuse

From the Governor's website:

 "September 4, 2014, Anchorage, Alaska – Following the conclusion of a six-month independent review and assessment of open and closed investigations related to reports of sexual assault, rape and fraud among members of the Alaska National Guard, Governor Sean Parnell released the findings today, and took the resignation of the adjutant general, Major General Thomas H. Katkus. The governor originally requested the assessment from the National Guard Bureau Office of Complex Investigations (OCI) in February."

I first came across Tom Katkus at his confirmation hearings in 2010 at the State Affairs Committee in Juneau, but kept my personal reactions to myself.  As I look back at that post, it's ironic that after they approved Katkus, the next topic was sexual abuse in Alaska.  And my personal instincts were reinforced soon when I got an email after that post from a spouse of someone at the National Guard telling me how corrupt the Guard and Katkus were.  She wouldn't give me her name or fill in details, but she talked about intimidation of people in the guard who noticed all the things going wrong, of favoritism, and cronyism and did nothing.  It seemed serious and her anonymity seemed more fearful than a way to vent. And I had lots of other things to keep me busy.

More recently (January this year) someone put up this comment on that post:

"Funny that MG Katkus is leading the charge against rape and sexual assault, considering the fact that he's been the person in charge of covering up the numerous sexual assault cases that have been reported to the Governors office over the years."

Someone also had sent me a link to the 2012 twelve page list of allegations from retired Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth T. Blaylock that starts out:

KENNETH T. BLAYLOCK
LIEUTENANT COLONEL (RET) AKARNG
529-XXXX
Illegal Activities within the Alaska National Guard
Murder, Sexual Assault, Narcotic Trafficking, and other violations are reported. It’s not that any proper investigations are performed and the results produced. But rather they are not investigated. The only actual investigations conducted are against the whistleblowers themselves.

I mention all this because if I, as a blogger was getting this sort of stuff, no doubt people responsible - like the governor - were also getting it and probably more.  Clearly there was something seriously wrong at the Guard and whenever it came up, I felt a bit of guilt for not looking into it, but I mollified myself because there were official studies being done that would have more access than I could ever get.

Parnell is quoted in a Becky Bohrer article the Army Times:

“I’ve been extremely frustrated over the years because it seemed like we’ve been chasing a vapor,” said Parnell, who has been criticized for not doing enough in response to allegations of sexual assaults within the Guard. He said when his office heard concerns, it would go to Guard leaders and be assured the matter was being handled and be given a description of how it was handled. He said he had no evidence that he was misled.

I learned an organizational lesson long ago: Employees often look very different from above than they do from below.  I can understand that Katkus could probably act the perfect employee to the governor, so that the charges against the Guard would bring cognitive dissonance to the governor.  The stories he heard about Katkus didn't match his personal experience with the man.  But good leaders should see through those facades.

Given that this governor made fighting violence against women a high priority, including leading a Choose Respect march every year, his "no evidence that he was misled" sounds like total incompetence.  Instead of spending all that time marching, he should have been having conversations with guard members who were complaining.  Even I had evidence coming to me that made it clear things were bad.  Both our US Senators had enough evidence to call for investigations. 

So what does the report say?  You can see the whole 229 page report here. [UPDATE Oct 19, 2018 - I see this link no longer works, but the Scribd link below where I also posted it still does.] [Anon left a comment asking if I could post this report somewhere other than at the governor's website.  So I've posted it at Scribd and you can get it here.]

Below is the Executive Summary which doesn't have the detailed findings that convey how bad things were, so I'll add some selected quotes to give you a sense.  But you should then go to the report and read them in context.  To find my excerpts in the report, you can copy five or six words from each passage and search the document.

Here's the synopsis and executive summary:

National Guard Bureau Office of Complex Investigations

Report of Assessment: AK1401

Synopsis

The National Guard Bureau’s Office of Complex Investigations conducted a statewide
assessment into the Alaska National Guard and made findings and recommendations in the areas of sexual assault, EEO/EO matters, coordination with local law enforcement,
Alaska National Guard member misconduct, command climate and the administration of
justice.

I. Executive Summary
On 28 February 2014, Alaska Governor Sean Parnell submitted a letter
to the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, General Frank J. Grass, requesting that the National Guard Bureau’s Office of Complex Investigations (NGB-JA/OCI) investigate “open and closed investigations related to reports of sexual assault, rape, and fraud among members of the Alaska National Guard [(AKNG)].” The request highlighted concerns over reports of sexual assault and allegations of a hostile work environment within the AKNG. The Governor’s request also sought an overall assessment of the AKNG’s command structure and its responses in cases of sexual assault that were otherwise referred to civilian law enforcement for disposition.
    A. Findings

• The AKNG’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program is well-organized, but victims do not trust the system due to an overall lack of confidence in the command;
• The AKNG leadership has failed to provide the resources, emphasis, and oversight in the implementation of the AKNG EEO/EO program; • The AKNG does not have a formal mechanism to facilitate coordination with local law enforcement regarding cases of misconduct committed by members of the AKNG;
• There were several instances of fraud committed by AKNG members and leadership at the facilities level, but that this fraudulent activity did not have an impact on the reporting of sexual assault. Examples of fraud included embezzlement of money from a NG family programs account and misuse of government equipment for personal gain. On 27 August 2014, Governor Parnell requested that the National Guard Bureau conduct a further assessment into the management of federal fiscal resources in the AKNG;
• Actual and perceived favoritism, ethical misconduct, and fear of reprisal are eroding trust and confidence in AKNG leadership; and
• The AKNG is not properly administering justice through either the investigation or adjudication of AKNG member misconduct.

    B. Recommendations

• The NGB-JA/OCI Team provided seven separate recommendations to improve the management of sexual assault matters within the state;
• The Team provided five separate recommendations to improve the State Equal Employment Opportunity program;
• The Team recommends that allegations of misconduct under investigation by law enforcement be tracked by the AKNG Office of the Staff Judge Advocate or a law enforcement liaison, such as a Provost Marshall Officer;
• The Team recommends that the National Guard Bureau conduct a separate assessment into the management of federal fiscal resources in the AKNG;
• The Team recommends that all levels of command in the AKNG reevaluate their approach to leading soldiers in a positive manner and provided seven recommendations to address the concerns raised during the Team’s visit and through the climate survey; and
• The Team identified nine areas that the AKNG and AK legislature may want to consider to improve the administration of justice within the state.

Some of the specific findings:

"The AKNG provided a matrix of all reported incidents of sexual assault  since the DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) program was initiated in 2006. There were 37 reports of sexual assault; of those, 17 were unrestricted and eight identified sexual assault perpetrators. Some of the allegations reported were investigated by the AKNG; however, most of the allegations involved civilian perpetrators and were referred to AK local law enforcement officials for investigation."

Thirty seven reports of sexual assault in eight years.  That's a little more than one every three months.  Surely that is a sign of serious problems in any organization.  And that's only the ones reported.  This report says that many people didn't report because they didn't trust the leadership and feared retaliation.  Note, Wikipedia says there were 1850 people in the Alaska National Guard in 2006.  Let's use that as an approximate figure and then consider how many of those were women . . .

"Prior to 2012

The Team learned that records regarding reports of sexual assault were not properly maintained or tracked, and in some cases were never completed. As a result, victims and leaders were not properly informed regarding the status of their cases, victims were not offered treatment services, and victim information was not adequately treated in a confidential manner as required by DoD Policy"

"Victim Confidentiality

Most of the individuals interviewed stated that they knew who their Victim Advocate was and understood the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program; nonetheless, most individuals also indicated that they would not report a sexual assault due to concerns over confidentiality. The Team noted that prior to 2012 there had been instances wherein commanders either obtained the names of victims who made restricted reports of sexual assault or distilled that same information from the “sanitized” reports that were made in contradiction to DoD policy.7 Additionally, victims reported that in some cases they were ostracized and even abused by fellow service members after making their restricted reports. Such conduct is in violation of DoD policy." [restricted reports were not supposed to be shared beyond the person taking the report.]

After 2012, a new officer, according to the report, seems to have turned this around, but the report also said that a lot of people didn't know that and still acted as though the pre-2012 situation was still in place.

 "The Team learned of several examples of inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature in its interviews with AKNG personnel, including a report of pictures of male genitalia drawn inside aircraft panels at an ANG Wing, flight instructors having sex with flight students, and senior leaders sending harassing and inappropriate text messages. Witnesses reported that AKNG internal inquiries into their complaints failed to substantiate the harassing behavior and as a result no action was taken. Indeed the information provided by the ANG Wings did not reflect that any administrative action occurred as a result of the complaints made."

"Team also learned that there were recent allegations of sexual harassment that had not been referred to EEO/EO; rather, the AKNG leadership was aware of these allegations, which were handled through internal investigation. Leaders should be directly involved in the EEO/EO program and they should collaborate with EEO/EO personnel to provide appropriate lawful recourse for both the complainant and the subject of the complaint. In several instances leaders attempted resolution without the assistance of EEO/EO personnel, this is not optimal. Service members interviewed by the Team perceived leadership efforts at internal resolution as an attempt to cover up sexual harassment allegations. This perception was reiterated in the OCI climate survey, which highlighted fear of reprisal and lack of support from the chain of command as the primary barriers to reporting discrimination."

"Disparate Treatment

A large number (50+) of Puerto Rican Army National Guard members moved from Puerto Rico to Alaska to supplement the AKNG Military Police unit at Ft. Greely, AK. Several members discussed disparate treatment towards the Spanish-speaking members of this unit. They related that their leadership told Puerto Rican soldiers that they were not allowed to speak Spanish in the “operational” area, which some consider the entire installation. Under Army Policy, commanders may not require the use of English for personal communications that are unrelated to military functions.
Command emphasis on the language issue has created a negative environment within the remote location, where members report that some military spouses are even posting derogatory comments about Spanish speaking spouses on social media sites."

 "C.  Analysis of Fraud

The Team reviewed reported incidents of fraud that had occurred over the past 10 years. Most of the incidents involved the improper use of the government travel or purchase card. One incident involved the embezzlement of money from a NG family programs account and another incident involved the misconduct of a senior officer who misused federal equipment and personnel for his own personal gain. In each instance the Team noted that there was a lack of oversight in the AKNG to prevent and detect fraud when it occurred.

"The Team noted a high level of misconduct occurring within the AKNG Recruiting and Retention Command. Several command directed investigations initiated in 2012 found that, during the time period of 2008-2009, several non- commissioned officers within this command were engaged in misuse of
government vehicles, fraud, adultery, inappropriate relationships and sexual
assault. Several of these cases are pending administrative action.
The Team’s interviews conducted with the FBI, CID and local law enforcement revealed that the Recruiting and Retention Command had been the target of multiple investigations for crimes such as weapons smuggling, rape,and drug trafficking; however, none of these investigations resulted in prosecution of the
crimes under investigation due to jurisdictional issues or lack of evidence.

Some Army and Air National Guard witnesses testified that when they approached the leadership regarding misconduct, they were specifically told to stand down."

I think this is enough to give you a sense of the findings.  This gets us only to page 19 of a 229 page document.

Surely the governor who has made Choose Respect (and ending sexual abuse and violence) the slogan of his administration knows the severe long-term impacts of sexual assaults on the victims and even their families.  If Katkus is responsible enough to fire (ok, the governor accepted his resignation - even here, Katkus got the option not to be fired), then surely he bears responsibility for the damage done not only to those assaulted, but also those upstanding members of the Guard who tried to point out such problems and were retaliated against with missed promotions and other such administrative punishments.

Will anyone be charged with any crimes?

If the governor didn't see any evidence of wrong doing in this area what else hasn't he seen in his administration?  I've learned that we are all guilty of seeing what we want to see and not seeing what we don't want to see.  But someone in a position of power should be able to see what he has to see to do his job well.  And what does this say about his ability to judge people?  And other issues?  He stood loyal to Katkus until today.  Four years.

The study will go to other agencies and presumably there will be charges.  But don't hold your breath.


According to the Bohrer article, the governor apologized.

"Parnell apologized to those who had been victimized.
“Our Alaska Guard members deserve better. The victims who have been hurt deserve better. And those who have brought complaints forward deserve better,” he said."

Is that it?  Sorry guys, but I was asleep at the wheel?  Or does he plan to help victims to regain their emotional health and repair the damage to their careers?

He's quoted in this morning's ADN:

“This culture of mistrust and failed leadership in the Guard ends now,” Parnell said.

No Governor, as the various surveys cited in the report show, there's still a lot of mistrust.  It doesn't go away because you declare it over.  It still lives in the hearts of the victims, in their nightmares, in their flashbacks, in the people still in the Guard who didn't believe them or help them.  It doesn't end now.  Changing it begins now.  And if the governor's actions to change the culture are as wishy-washy as his actions have been in response to all the complaints over the years, it will be a while before there is trust.  (I can imagine the governor reading this and sincerely saying, "I did everything I could."  And I think he believes that.  But someone with better skills at reading people (Katkus and the victims) and a bigger heart that could feel the pain of the victims, would have started repairing this long ago.)

I don't mean to suggest that the governor takes this lightly.  I believe he's sincere in his belief that domestic violence and sexual assault are terrible things.  But this report indicates that though these issues were called to his attention, his response was inadequate.   I do appreciate that the governor did call for this study  and published it. (Unlike other studies he held back for so long, like the one on Medicaid expansion.)  But the smoke has been here for years, even if the previous studies couldn't find the actual fires.   Had he just moved Katkus to another position while things were uncertain, things might have been better.  But his loyalty to his appointee was greater than his loyalty to the members of the guard who had been complaining for so long.  In the Catholic Church complaints piled up, but the leadership found ways to avoid dealing with it.  They didn't have 'proof.'

My normal constraints are obviously not working here.  I wrote most of this last night thinking I could review it more rationally in the morning, but that isn't working.  Instead I'm more upset by the incompetence in handling this.  And probably I'm upset at myself for not pursuing it here on the blog. 

 

The atmosphere was quite "McCarthyistic," - I Don't Think So

It seems we're down to "Yes" or "No"; that we're down to ACES or SB 21.

That's not at all how we should be thinking about Alaska oil taxes.  ACES wasn't perfect, and SB 21 is far from perfect.  But it's just not either/or.  There is a wide range of options for tinkering with ACES that would take care of what people say is wrong with it - that it's too taxing at the high end.  But if that were the problem really, I'm guessing it would have been tinkered with already.  The real problem, as I see it, is that the oil companies, with their former attorney/lobbyist, Governor Parnell, representing the people of Alaska at the bargaining table, had enough power to get a big tax cut. 

Roger Marks is a retired state economist, who is also a friend.  When he published his article on ACES a couple of years ago, he sent me a copy, I read it carefully, and asked him questions.  Other things were going on and it just was too complicated for me to take the time I felt I needed to write about it well.  But basically, I found that his criticism of ACES seemed to boil down to the belief that when oil prices get really high ACES reduces incentives.  I asked at the time whether we couldn't leave things as they were for a while and see what happened and then make adjustments to ACES as needed.  Meanwhile we'd be getting a higher state return than with the alternatives.  I don't want to put words in Roger's mouth, but I recall that he did allow that as a viable option.

ACES can be adjusted.  It didn't need to be replaced, and certainly not with SB 21.  A yes vote on Alaska's Proposition 1 will most definitely lead to adjustments of ACES.  A no vote will most definitely give the oil companies most of what they wanted all along - back when Gov. Murkowski had private negotiations with them and tried to force the oil companies' tax bill on the legislature - events that led to an FBI investigation and a dozen or more people pleading or being convicted.

I cover this as a little historical perspective on the comments I'd like to make now on Roger Marks' Compass piece in the ADN Tuesday, entitled "History of ACES offers perspective." (At least in the print version it had that title.  Tuesday marked the day that the Anchorage Daily News and Alaska Dispatch websites merged, and while I can find an online copy,  its title is different from the print version.)  Marks wrote:

As ACES was going through the Legislature in the fall of 2007, much was unclear about the extent of the scandal. By early November 2007, juries had returned guilty verdicts against two legislators charged with VECO-related corruption. There were many rumors that other legislators, and perhaps the oil companies, might get charged. For example, a published report (a blog post from a KTUU reporter) suggested that 26 total people would be indicted. The public was enraged.
That kind of talk created anxiety for a number of legislators. The atmosphere was quite “McCarthyistic,” the implication being that if you did not support a large tax increase, you were corrupt. Paranoia spread as the bill went from committee to committee, and the tax rates kept escalating. The tax structure that became the final ACES bill passed the legislature on November 15.

Let's get this straight.  What happened in Juneau in 2007 wasn't anything even close to the McCarthy period.  'McCarthyistic' is NOT a synonym for "legislators were concerned about their reelection"  and "paranoia" is a mental health condition you can read about here.  It's not an accurate description of what was spreading in Juneau.

It's true that people often exaggerate and use such terms to make their points.  But Marks is writing as an expert.  His bio on the piece describes his professional background as a petroleum economist.  He's not writing just as a private citizen.    But when he strays into political science and psychology he uses these terms - McCarthyistic and paranoia - like a talk show host.

Let's look at what PBS says about McCarthyism:

Capitalizing on those concerns, a young Senator named Joseph McCarthy made a public accusation that more than two hundred “card-carrying” communists had infiltrated the United States government. Though eventually his accusations were proven to be untrue, and he was censured by the Senate for unbecoming conduct, his zealous campaigning ushered in one of the most repressive times in 20th-century American politics. . .

Known as McCarthyism, the paranoid hunt for infiltrators was notoriously difficult on writers and entertainers, many of whom were labeled communist sympathizers and were unable to continue working. Some had their passports taken away, while others were jailed for refusing to give the names of other communists. The trials, which were well publicized, could often destroy a career with a single unsubstantiated accusation. Among those well-known artists accused of communist sympathies or called before the committee were Dashiell Hammett, Waldo Salt, Lillian Hellman, Lena Horne, Paul Robeson, Elia Kazan, Arthur Miller, Aaron Copland, Leonard Bernstein, Charlie Chaplin and Group Theatre members Clifford Odets, Elia Kazan, and Stella Adler. In all, three hundred and twenty artists were blacklisted, and for many of them this meant the end of exceptional and promising careers.

In Juneau at that time, the FBI had recorded conversations in the hotel room of oil company support industry executive Bill Allen during the legislative session as he told legislators how to vote.  Juries convicted two Alaska state legislators based on tapes which showed that money was given to them for votes.  Others involved cooperated with the FBI and pled guilty without a trial.

No one held innocent people in terror, wrongfully deprived them of their livelihoods based on totally made up accusations.  If legislators were afraid that the voting public might think them corrupt, it might have had something to do with the amount of money they got from the oil industry and their votes on oil taxes, not on some totally false accusations.  Or maybe it was because they were hat carrying members of the Corrupt Bastards Club.

Comparing Juneau in 2007 with McCarthyism suggests ignorance of the facts of McCarthyism (or Juneau), a serious problem with analogies, a careless use of terms, or a combination of several or all.

When people make comparisons to Nazi Germany, there tends to be a strong pushback, even if the comparison is accurate and limited to a specific aspect of Nazi Germany, such as their propaganda machine.   I don't think my reaction here is that kind of pushback.  I just think that McCarthy was a far more significant threat to many, many more people, plus the details of the McCarthy hearings have no counterparts in what happened in Juneau.  I don't see any part of McCarthyism that fits here:

• the level of fear wasn't the same
• the people affected weren't innocent members of the public
• any danger to the Alaska legislators came from the electorate
• no tribunal was set up to persecute innocent people 
• people didn't lose jobs simply because their name was on a blacklist
• there were no false accusations that were totally made up
• those who were accused could have a fair hearing in a federal courtroom

I'm just saying that, unlike the McCarthy period, if legislators were worried about their reelection, they probably had good reason to be based on their own behavior, and the legislators were totally unlike the private citizens who lost their jobs because of McCarthy's baseless accusations.

Legislators are threatened all the time by private interests if they vote 'wrong' on an issue.  The targeting of candidates by people and groups like the Koch brothers, Karl Rove, or the NRA cause a lot more election angst than any of the Alaska legislators could even remotely have felt, yet no one compares that to McCarthyism.  And they shouldn't.  In fact, when Sen. Harry Reid called the Koch brothers 'un-American,' Mother Jones editor, Daniel Schulman, responded:

You know, I think it’s a very dicey strategy by Reid. He has actually come out and called the Koch Brothers un-American. Now, that’s kind of an absurd thing to say. And it’s almost McCarthyite rhetoric.

But he very specifically linked Reid's use of the word 'un-American' here - the key word that McCarthy used and the name of his Senate committee.

Marks also writes:

ACES passed by the same three-to-one margin that PPT did a year earlier, with the legislature 80 percent the same people. The difference between PPT and ACES can be characterized as displaced VECO frenzy and vengeance.

I'm not saying here that legislators who were afraid of crossing oil company executives when they voted for PPT, a year later were not afraid of crossing voters.  I am saying that any fear of voters' wrath that caused them to vote for ACES was no more McCarthylike than was their fear of the loss of oil company support the year before.  But people take the power of the oil companies as the normal state of affairs here.

FBI surveillance was exhaustive. At the end of the day four legislators were found guilty of felonies related to the VECO scandal: 56 out of 60 were not. Most likely those four did not affect the outcome in 2006; they were not the most influential lawmakers. There was no evidence of taxpayer (oil company) culpability.

The FBI surveillance may have been exhausting but it wasn't exhaustive.  It was surveillance of one hotel room in Juneau during one legislative session and a few folks wearing wires for a short time.  No one was recording in oil company boardrooms or even oil company phones that we know of.  And, in fact, there was some evidence of "taxpayer (oil company) culpability."    There was a mention of Bill Allen making a report of how he was doing with legislative votes to an oil executive, but that didn't get followed up.

Finally, I'd note that Marks also writes:

SB 21 will bring in more revenues than PPT or the original ACES.

We keep hearing from the governor and all the others who are campaigning against Proposition 1 (the repeal of SB 21, which would have us revert to ACES), that SB 21 will generate more oil production and more revenue for the state.

On June 10  Senators Wielechowski and French challenged the governor.  They cited the state's own forecasts of lower production.  They wanted the governor to put up or shut up essentially.  Their challenge was new legislation that would require:

"If by 2018, SB 21 does not increase oil production by 1 barrel or increase revenue by $1, then ACES would be applied to oil companies retroactively."

They agreed to withdraw support for Proposition 1 if such legislation were passed.  If the governor and those supporting him were as certain that the state (and not just the oil companies) would do better under SB 21 than under ACES, they would have no trouble taking up this challenge.  And they could stop spending the millions they have dedicated to defeating Prop. 1. 


I've really focused on semantics here (the use of 'McCarthyistic') rather than substance.  That's mainly because getting into the nitty gritty of the two tax measures is very complicated.

But I'd note that both Scott Goldsmith (who recently published a report saying SB 21 was a better deal for the state than ACES) and Marks are economists whose analysis is totally focused on numbers, many provided by the oil companies, and based on assumptions about oil production and prices they can't be certain of.

In my conclusions, I'm also factoring in the history of the oil industry around the world, the redistricting that broke the bi-partisan coalition, the oil corruption trials of 2007 and 2008, and the knowledge that we (the people of Alaska, the state of Alaska, and the economists) simply do not know the actual numbers necessary to make the predictions.  And we don't know to what extent the oil companies held off investments before SB 21 passed and to what extent they're doing things on the oil fields now to improve numbers to help defeat Prop. 1.  What we do know is that they are investing a lot of money to convince the voters of Alaska to vote no.  And they've made no guarantees whatsoever about production levels or the tax revenues the state might expect to receive.  No reasonable person would risk their own money based on the lopsided availability of information and guarantees that Gov. Parnell and the legislature accepted from the oil companies.  And the people of Alaska have to wonder how well the governor, who used to come to Juneau as an oil company attorney and lobbyist, understood and represented the people of Alaska in negotiations with his former employers.  So, yes, I'm adding politics, sociology, psychology, history, and the study of power to the mix in addition to economics when I conclude that Prop. 1 should pass. 

U of Alaska Joins Ranks of Top Universities - US Investigates How They Handle Sexual Assault

Harvard, Princeton, UC Berkeley, Columbia, and Michigan were among 55 colleges and universities listed by the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights on May 1, 2014, as under investigation for possible violations for how they handle sexual violence and harassment complaints.

The University of Alaska system was not on that list.  But not to worry.  Alaskans are as bad as the rest of the country, maybe even worse, in how we handle sexual assault and violence and Wednesday, May 28, the University of Alaska system and four other institutions were added to the list.  From the Huffington Post:

Since releasing the [original] list, the department has launched Title IX investigations at the University of Alaska system, the University of Delaware, Elmira College in New York, the University of Akron in Ohio and Cisco Junior College in Texas. This brings the total number of schools with federal probes to 60.  [emphasis added]
The department did not elaborate on whether the five new inquiries are proactive investigations or come in response to specific complaints.

Alaska is frequently not taken seriously, so I'm pleased that the Department of Education does recognize that in this area our University does deserve their attention, even if we got listed almost a month later than the others.

NOTE:  For folks who read my sarcasm as making a joke out of this, I'd point out that humor is one of the ways folks deal with serious problems.   In no way do I mean to make light of this situation.  I'm sorry that the US Department of Education has enough cause to include Alaska on the list.  But, given that we have the highest rates of rape in the country,  those fighting sexual assault in Alaska should be glad the Department will look into this.  Even our governor, who generally is opposed to federal intervention in Alaska.  But our governor has pledged

"that Alaska would take every step necessary to stop the epidemic of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child sexual abuse in Alaska. "

I hope that means supporting a federal investigation that adds resources to help fight domestic violence and sexual assault in Alaska. 

Maybe the Feds will review the dismissal of the complaint at UAF this year. The original issue of the student's name being published seems moot given she wanted it published, but how the University handled the case and the impact on the campus climate and students' feelings of safety should be reviewed.

If anyone wants information about those fighting intimate partner violence and sexual assault and/or need help, go to the website of ANDVSA (Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault)

Bloomberg Says: Putin Wouldn't Dare Take Alaska

Bloomberg also reports that the Mayor of Yakutsk, Russia, has 

"petitioned President Vladimir Putin, the heads of both chambers of the Russian Parliament, and the Russian Foreign Minister requesting the return of Spruce Island to the church.”

He claims documents found in Juneau by a Russian who fled the Revolution in 1917 show the island was given to the Russian Orthodox Church when Russia sold Alaska to the US.
Bloomberg disputes this claim.

But NPR reported (on April 1, but claiming it was not an April Fool's Joke):

A recent petition written in clunky English on the official White House Website seeks Alaska seeks Alaska's secession and return to Russia.
So far, it has generated more than 37,000 signatures — or more than a third of the 100,000 needed to get the Obama administration to formally respond.

While the Alaska Independence Party has long called for Alaska's independence from the US, there's nothing on their website about being annexed by Russia, and even they aren't so detached from reality to exchange the US for Russia.  

A Moscow Times article, which gives a long history and quotes a Kenai College history professor, says they didn't get a response from our governor on this issue.

Alaska's official policy regarding Russian claims on the state remains unclear — the offices of the current Alaska Governor Sean Parnell and former Governor Palin did not respond to requests for comment in time for publication.

 I'm pretty sure the governor's position is very clear.  I think annexation to Russia is one thing both Republicans and Democrats would unite against.  And I suspect that the US military presence in Alaska is a wee bit stronger than the Ukrainian force in the Crimea. 

Alaska Gov Becomes Pro-Choice, Declares Year of Education[Privatization]

In his State of the State Address Wednesday night, Alaska's Gov. Parnell declared the Year of Education and spent the largest part of his speech talking about education.  He was going to make a deal.  He'd raise the money going to education in return for giving parents the choice to take the public money allocated for their children's education and spend it on private schools, including religions schools.

He's opposed to women making intimate choices about their own bodies when they become pregnant.

He's opposed to gays and lesbians making choices about whom they marry.

He's opposed to local communities making choices about the kinds of development that takes place in their communities.  (Local Coastal Zone Management has been gutted, and HB 77, that the Governor is pushing hard, would eliminate lots of local say in development projects.)

What is the real agenda here?  I can't get inside of the Governor's head, but if you take the old political advice from Richard Nixon's attorney general John Mitchell, "''Watch what we do, not what we say,'' I'd have to conclude that the Governor's agenda:

• Mirrors a lot of Tea Party agenda - strongly pro-evangelical and anti-federal government
• Mirrors a lot of corporate agenda 
•  remove federal and local obstacles to development (to hell with environmental protection or local say)
• Transfers as much government money to the private sector as possible (the $2 billion a year tax cut for the oil companies, public school money to private schools, etc.

Of course, this starts a slippery slope.  If parents can transfer public money from public schools to private schools because they don't like the public school program, some people are going to want to take their share of the federal budget that supports war and transfer it to support programs that encourage peace and cooperation.  Others are going to want to take their part of the budget that supports things like the Knik Arm Bridge and spend it on things like better maintenance of existing roads.  

By using a Republican majority in the legislature (enabled in the Senate by playing with just enough districts by the redistricting board to break the bi-partisan coalition) to force a conservative, pro-corporate agenda on Alaskans rather than find ways to work with the opposition (that does still represent a significant portion of the Alaska public), the Governor is rejecting civilization for force and balkanization.  

He would give us an education system where kids go to schools that indoctrinate them into their parents' ideology instead of public schools where people meet with other students and with teachers who don't necessarily share the same world view.  In a democracy, that's a good thing.  In fact it's the only possible way.  

He would give us a state in which corporate profits (most of which leave the state) would trump the will of the people who live in Alaska and consider it their home.  This would take us back to the days before Statehood, when Alaska's resources and landscape were trashed for corporations which had no long term stake in Alaska or its people.  

Fortunately power isn't forever.  When you abuse it, when you don't hold it as a responsibility to improve the lives of all,  when you listen only to your ideological colleagues and your corporate sponsors, you get isolated and think everyone thinks like you.   The natural world finds equilibrium.  When things go too far in one direction, they eventually snap back.  Humans are still part of the natural world and those rules apply to humans too.   When things go too far, nature  pulls things back into balance.  Even the powerful Soviet empire overextended its power until it snapped.  The Middle East has seen unthinkable recent shifts in power.  Revolution doesn't always work out the way the revolutionaries want.  It doesn't cure the underlying ideological or economic divisions.  But it does stop the momentum and offers a chance for a realignment.  It would be much easier if those in power respected the interests of those out of power, if they didn't use their power to force their agenda on others.  Precisely what they complain about Obama and ACA.  Though I would argue that Obama is more in alignment with the population.  Without the constant Fox lies and meanness, things would have rolled out much more smoothly.    The Republicans in Juneau don't even realize how extreme they are, how far from the average Alaskan and from the spirit of the Constitution.

I'm afraid that the Republicans have picked up where they left off when the Corrupt Bastards Club was exposed by the FBI.  There was a short break in the oil companies' total rule of Juneau.  But it seems it was only a small bump in the road and now that they have a former Conoco-Phillips lobbyist in the governor's seat, they have a smoother ride.  

But I suspect things are being stretched too far in their direction and people who normally don't pay attention are being negatively impacted.  There are 20,000 people the governor has prevented from getting medical insurance by not expanding Medicaid.  There are many folks who are finding their local communities have no say on corporate development projects in their communities.  

Let me say also, that capitalism isn't 'the enemy', but capitalism with no checks on its failures can do serious harm.  The free market's most popular proponent, Milton Friedman, identified flaws in capitalism, which he said justified three needed government functions:  "government as rule-maker and umpire, technical monopoly and neighborhood effects, and paternalism."    The problem I have with those who would whittle down government to nothing and 'let the market take care of things' is the problem that these folks have with government - power.  Power is a human issue and corporations are run by humans.  As they become more and more powerful, they make rules and decisions that take away our liberty.  Without a counterbalance, they become the new government.  A government, though, where people have no say in who's in charge and what the rules are.  What we need is much better accountability of government and more balance between the public and private sectors.  Declaring that government is bad and the market is the cure of all ills is simple minded.  As simple minded as saying that corporations are all evil and government should have all the power.  

I'd also say that our current education system has lots of flaws.  First, it's way too oriented toward academics from early on.  It sets up kids as failures if they are not ready to perform at an arbitrary level from the first grade on.  There aren't adequate options for kids with non-academic strengths (except sports).  Its mass production assembly line tends to reject kids who don't arrive at school without the specs the curriculum requires.  They don't get thrown out like a bad part would, but they fall further and further behind and are taught they are failures even if no one says it out loud.   Our system demands kids adjust to the system, not the system adjust to the needs of the kids.  

So, I'm all for serious education reform.  But not simply transferring public money to unproven private organizations that have no responsibility to take on all the children, including those that don't fit the ideal mold (social problems, physical problems, etc.)  I also see inclusive public schooling as the incubator where people learn to get along with all their fellow citizens, a necessary part of democracy.  And public schools also don't necessarily do that good job of this either. But at least the ideals of tolerance of other people and other ideas is taught.   Perhaps the biggest conflict is whether schools should teach kids how to think or to teach kids what to think.  I don't think the public schools do a great job yet in teaching how to think (though some do quite well), but I have grave doubts about it happening in most religiously oriented private schools.   Do you really want public money paying tuition at Jerry Prevo's Anchorage Baptist Temple?  And does Prevo want public money to pay for Muslim school tuition?

There's lots more to say about the State of the State.  Most of it was generalities about how things have gotten better the last year, but there was no evidence I heard that would connect those benefits to the things the governor did.  And it seemed to me significant things were misrepresented.  If everything has gotten as rosy as the governor suggests, then why is the Anchorage School District being forced to cut teachers next year?  I need to go through it more carefully and see if I can figure it out.  

Gov's Rejection of ACA Funds Like The Religious Couple Refusing Medical Care For Their Ill Child

 NPR (and others) reported in April 2013:

A faith-healing Philadelphia couple on probation after they refused to seek medical care for a son who later died has now lost a second child.

Instead of taking $2.9 billion in federal aid to expand medicaid (with a cost of about $250 million to the state over seven years) and taking about 20,000 Alaskans off the uninsured list, our governor instead relies on the "Invisible Hand" of the free market to take care of these people.

To me that's very similar to not taking your sick kid to a doctor because you believe in God's will.

How many Alaskans will suffer and die because of his refusal to take the ACA funding?

This is not to say that the free market doesn't make a very significant contribution to US prosperity, but unregulated, it also makes a huge contribution to the massive transfer of wealth to what's been popularly called the 1% from the rest. 

I've already posted about the study that the Governor himself commissioned that said expanding medicaid would cost the state  $240 million from 2014-2020
and gain the state $2.9 billion from the Feds.    And about 20,000 fewer Alaskans would be uninsured.

Instead the Governor's ideological beliefs in the miracles of the free market, apparently, have led him to not accept the Federal ACA funding to expand Medicaid in Alaska.

I have no doubt that many people will become unnecessarily ill, miss work, even lose their jobs, and many will die prematurely because of the governor's decision.  Just like this child in Pennsylvania died because of his parent's decision to let God, not modern medicine, save their child. 

I'm reminded of this because of  a new study by Chuck Burnham, Legislative Analyst from the Alaska Legislative Research Services  requested by Sen. Senator Bill Wielechowski.  It adds to the previous studies already showing the overwhelming benefits to the state of expanding Medicaid.   Here's the summary:

Summary  

Among the provisions of  the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111 ‐ 148), or ACA, when it was enacted is a requirement that states expand Medicaid programs to cover individuals with incomes of up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level. 1 Pursuant to the June 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius , Medicaid expansion under the ACA became optional for the states. As you know, on November 15, 2013, Governor Parnell announced his intention to reject Medicaid expansion. Although this decision will have far ‐ reaching and, to some degree, unknown impacts, we confine this report to the specific questions you raised.

Mortality

Although we located no Alaska ‐ specific research on the possible impact on mortality of rejecting Medicaid expansion, a significant body of research shows that health insurance improves access to medical care and outcomes related to a wide range of serious illnesses and disease. Recently published research specifically on Medicaid expansion in other states suggests that rates of mortality decrease among those who are enrolled in the program as compared to the uninsured. Due to differences among populations and Medicaid eligibility thresholds, we believe applying specific numerical finding to Alaska’s uninsured population based on these results would be improper and problematic; however, it is reasonable to conclude that some of the specific benefits found elsewhere would generally accrue to newly enrolled Medicaid participants in Alaska.

Impacts on Healthcare Facilities

The ACA requires reductions in certain payments and reimbursement rates to hospitals. These reductions are more than offset, however, by the reductions in uncompensated care and increased revenues that are projected to occur through expansion of Medicaid. Nationwide, the net effect is estimated at $2.59 in revenues for every $1 in reductions. In Alaska, hospitals expect additional revenues of roughly $60 million per year and a reduction in uncompensated care of over 85 1 Text of the ACA can be accessed at http://www.gpo.gov/f dsys/granule/PLAW ‐ 111publ148/PLAW ‐ 111publ148/content ‐ detail.html . Portions of the federal healthcare overhaul are also contained in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111 ‐ 152), http://www.gpo.go v/fdsys/pkg/PLAW ‐ 111publ152/pdf/PLAW ‐ 111publ152.pdf .  L EGISLATIVE R ESEARCH S ERVICES , LRS 14.117 J ANUARY 8, 2014 — P AGE 2 S ELECTED I MPACTS OF R EJECTING M EDICAID E XPANSION percent. However, because Alaska declined to expand Medicaid, hospitals will absorb the reductions implemented by the ACA without the offsetting benefits.

Effects on Health Insurance Premiums

Research suggests that in 2009 uncompensated care added roughly $257 to premiums per privately insured individual Alaskan, or about eight percent of total private insurance premiums. We are unable to isolate the impact of rejecting Medicaid expansion on insurance premiums; however, implementation of the ACA’s health insurance exchanges coupled with Medicaid expansion in Alaska has been projected to result in savings that could reduce the premium increases associated with cost shifting from $301 in 2014 without the ACA / Medicaid expansion to $45 with the healthcare act fully implemented.

Job Creation

One study estimates that additional Medicaid spending under the ACA would result in the creation of over 1,500 jobs in 2014 with annual increases through 2020 when 4,000 new positions are expected. In that year, these jobs could provide approximately $220 million in wages.

Federal Funding

Three studies on Medicaid expansion projected resultant additional federal funding in “mid ‐ case” enrollment scenarios at between roughly $1.1 billion and $2.9 billion in aggregate for the years 2014 to 2020. Increases in state spending in the same projections ranges from $79 million to $240 million. All three reports estimated federal to state spending ratios under expansion would be over $12 to $1

Gov Parnell Rejects Medicaid Expansion Although Lewin Report on Alaska Expansion Says State Would Gain Bigtime

"Under our baseline participation assumptions, expanding Medicaid would cost the state $200.6 million more over the 2014 to 2020 period, compared to not expanding Medicaid, for a total increased cost of $240.5 million.  However, the state would receive $2.9 billion in additional federal funds and fewer individuals would remain uninsured.  Additionally, this new cost would comprise only 1.4 percent of total Medicaid costs from 2014 to 2020 (Figure E-4).
 To minimize state costs under expansion, the state could also elect to implement expansion under a number of alternative design scenarios."

Summarizing Cost To Alaska if Medicaid Expanded:

• Cost to the state:  $240 million from 2014-2020
• Federal $ to state:  $2.9 billion
• Impact on population:  fewer individuals uninsured*

*How many fewer individuals, you ask.

Here's what it says on page 13:

"We estimate that there will be about 144,983  uninsured in Alaska in 2014 in the absence of the ACA. Taking into account all other provisions of the ACA, our estimates show that if the state expands Medicaid, the number of uninsured would be reduced to 60,435 — an 84,548 total decrease, or a 58.3 percent change ( Figure 7 ). However, if the state decides not to expand Medicaid, then the number of uninsured would decrease by a lesser amount — a 64,563 total decrease, or 44.5 percent change. This means that under the no expansion option, about 19,900 individuals will remain uninsured that would otherwise have coverage under Medicaid expansion.

Of the uninsured, it is those under 138 percent of FPL [Federal Poverty Level] who would primarily be affected under the decision to expand Medicaid . Those remaining uninsured will continue to strain the finances of other public health programs and safety net providers for their care, while likely forgoing or reducing necessary care and risking a drain o n personal finances." (page 13)

Here's what I read in that:

Without Medicaid Expansion:  19,900 more uninsured Alaskans than with expansion.  Though even with expansion there would still be 60,435 uninsured Alaskans. 

Here's what the Alaska Journal of Commerce reported

"Parnell said the additional federal dollars were “tempting” but that the expansion is not in the best interest of the state, for now, because the overall cost of the federal health care program will prove unsustainable and huge costs would fall back on Alaska at some point.
“The expansion of Obamacare will see skyrocketing costs and there is no guarantee this can be sustained. This is not ‘free money’. It’s being funded by debt and printing money,” on the federal level, Parnell said."

If things got as bad as Parnell says, there would be a problem for all the other states as well and adjustments would be made.  There's no way all the states would take the kind of hit that Parnell's folks suggest.  And I don't think he tells us where this data comes from.

The Journal went on to say the decision was against the advice of many in the business community.

"The governor’s decision has prompted an avalanche of criticism, including from business groups. In a statement, the Alaska Chamber (formerly Alaska State Chamber of Commerce) expressed disappointment.
“As a policy priority for chamber members, the expansion of Medicaid is an important part of our goal to reduce and contain the cost of doing business in Alaska,” said Rachael Petro, president of the chamber."

The State's Department of Health and Social Services' announcement on the governor's decision outlines the Parnell Administration's plan to take care of the uninsured:

"Recently, the Governor has been meeting with health care providers, large and small business organizations, and other stakeholders from across Alaska discussing recommendations for Alaskans who fall under 100 percent of the FPL and are the main users of Alaska’s safety net services.

It is imperative that we know more about the people who make up this category — who they are, their health care needs, and whether the current services available to them are being utilized or if different services need to be created. The state remains committed to funding the safety net of health care services and to improving the delivery of those services in the most efficient and cost - effective way.

The Department of Health and Social Services is in the process of developing an improved communications plan in the Division of Public Assistance directly targeted at those Alaskans who are the most vulnerable and who are in need of accessing the programs and services offered by the state and federal governments . In the months ahead, DHSS will execute the communications plan, and will strive to better identify and inform income - eligible Alaskans about the services available to them at little or no cost." (emphasis added)

So, the state isn't going to pay $200 million and get $2.9 from the Feds to take care of the problem.  Yet they remain committed to funding the safety net.  How can this, if they actually do it, not cost more than $200 million?  It can't.  And since the Governor has given $2 billion a year to the oil companies . . . what can one say?

But, rest assured, they will "execute a communication plan" to tell the poor how to get services that don't exist. "available to them at little or no cost."  I guess that means going to the emergency room and everyone else pays for their higher bills because they are forced to put off care until it becomes more serious and more expensive to treat. 

When I attended the confirmation hearing for then Attorney General Dan Sullivan, he outlined his plan for dealing with the Feds:  work with other attorneys general to fight the feds and to sue them if necessary.  The Parnell Administration has been following that strategy.  One can't help but scratch one's head at how ideology can blind one to the obvious.

The Lewin study which was finished back in January 2013 [and updated in April], was finally released a few days ago. (It's not dated on the DHSS site so it's not clear when. It's listed between items dated 11/8 and 11/15)  As I suspected, the results are a lot like their study for New Hampshire.  Here's the whole report:

Lewin Final Report on Medicaid Expansion Alaska by Steve

If you'd like to compare the Alaska study to the Lewin Group's New Hampshire study on the same topic, you can find that study here.

At least they used different pictures on the cover.  And in New Hampshire they did an evaluation while in Alaska they did an analysis. 

[Feedburner update:  got to my email subscription in 2 hours, but it hasn't reached blogrolls yet 9 hours later.  Last few posts have gotten up in minutes. Grrr]