Joe Miller With Polish - Meet Dan Sullivan

Image from AG Confirmation Hearing

Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Dan Sullivan's resignation was announced yesterday and pundits already are weighing his chances in the 2014 US Senate race. 


In February 2010 after listening to the confirmation hearings for Dan Sullivan to be Attorney General (he'd already served in that position for 8 months) I wrote, in my normal understated way, at the end of my post:

"I wouldnʻt be surprised to see Mr. Sullivan running for Governor or Senator sometime."

I knew at the time that this was a man who would definitely be a player in Alaska politics.

Here was a marine, Harvard and Georgetown graduate, attorney, Presidential Fellow working with Condoleezza Rice, married into a solid Alaskan political family from Fairbanks with strong anti-government ideology.

His strategy, he told the Judiciary Committee, was to work with other Attorneys General to collectively sue the federal government on a list of topics from endangered species to tribal sovereignty.  My impression was that this is a guy who plans for everything and readjusts quickly to stay the course when the unexpected happens. 

This guy is Joe Miller with polish.  Joe Miller for the man in a suit and tie and the women around them in their dresses and heels.  Joe's ideology packaged for the moderate and polite.  At the time I thought he'd be a shoe-in for whatever he ran for in Alaska.  It's not that his views are more moderate, just his presentation and style. 

Judiciary committee chair Jay Ramras fawned over Sullivan so shamelessly at the hearing in 2010, that I felt obligated to talk about how to even report it:

"Itʻs hard to be purely a reporter (in the literal sense) and not to add shading on the confirmation hearing for Dan Sullivan. In fact, simply presenting the cold facts would hardly convey the very warm reception Sullivan received. Committee Chair Jay Ramras did everything but blow kisses at the nominee and his in-laws (former Fairbanks Rep. Hugh ʻBudʻ Fate and former UA Regent Mary Jane Fate) who were in attendance."

The only attempt to do the serious oversight work of a confirmation hearing came from Rep. Heron of Bethel who questioned Sullivan on his stand on Native Sovereignty.  Sullivan said his concern was for the rights of non-Natives and Natives who were not members.  He went on to tout a cooperative approach with Natives in getting transportation infrastructure. That sounds more like using the power of the Native organizations to get what Sullivan and the Parnell administration wanted than any interest in Native rights.

This questioning was telling given the State of Alaska's recent appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court on behalf of a man that a tribal court declared an unfit parent.  Despite the Governor's much vaunted "Choose Respect" program to stop domestic violence, it appears that tribal courts are more dangerous to the Parnell administration than men who beat their girlfriends "so badly he broke three of her ribs and collapsed one of her lungs."

You'd think perhaps Sullivan's mother-in-law, a Koyukon Athabascan, ought to have some influence on him.  I realize that this case is under a new attorney general, but it has the fingerprints of Sullivan's strategy for court challenges to pursue his strong and active anti-government regulation stance.  

You can hear some of that discussion between Herron and Sullivan  in this four minute video I made at the hearing.



You can also hear him recite his background to the committee in the video below:

When Is A Conspiracy Not A Conspiracy?

It's easy for people to take a few facts and jump to conclusions.   On election day, a man came into our polling place and exited the voting booth and asked why there wasn't an Assembly race on the ballot.  We hadn't notice that and at first were concerned.  But then we realized not every Assembly seat is up for reelection this year.

But he said that his wife, who has the same address, voted early at Loussac and she'd voted for an Assembly candidate.  We couldn't explain what happened at Loussac, but we checked and found out that he lives in Patrick Flynn's district and Flynn wasn't up for reelection.

But in checking things, I found a link on the Municipal Elections webpage that got me to all the different Sample Ballots (there were about 48 different ballots to take care of all the Local Road Service Area elections) and a list of each polling place which said which ballot was to be used at each polling place.

And as I looked at the sample ballots I saw the candidates for the Assembly races and School Board races.  As you can see, the School Board races are all city wide seats, so they all show up on every ballot.  Some of the Assembly races had only one candidate. (For the sake of space I left out JOHNSON, Jennifer)

ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 5 - SEAT H  HONEMAN, Paul Write-in SCHOOL BOARD - SEAT A SMITH, Don DAVIS, Bettye Write-in SCHOOL BOARD - SEATB NEES, David W. CROFT, Eric CORNWELL-GEORGE, Stephanie Write-in

ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 3 - SEAT D HALL, Ernie Write-in SCHOOL BOARD - SEAT A SMITH, Don DAVIS, Bettye Write-in SCHOOL BOARD - SEATB NEES, David W. CROFT, Eric CORNWELL-GEORGE, Stephanie Write-in

ASSEMBLY- DISTRICT 2 - SEAT A  MULCAHY, Pete DEMBOSKI, Amy LUPO, SCHOOL BOARD - SEAT A SMITH, Don DAVIS, Bettye Write-in SCHOOL BOARD - SEATB NEES, David W. CROFT, Eric CORNWELL-GEORGE, Stephanie Write-in

ASSEMBLY - DISTRICT 4 -SEAT F CLARY,Andy TRAINI,Dick Write-in SCHOOL BOARD - SEAT A SMITH, Don DAVIS, Bettye Write-in SCHOOL BOARD - SEATB NEES, David W. CROFT, Eric CORNWELL-GEORGE, Stephanie  Write-in

HTML Tables

As I looked at the contested races, the candidate order on the ballot  seemed to favor Mayor Sullivan's candidates.

Don Smith was first in his race with Bettye Davis.
Nees was first in his race against Croft.
Mulcahy was first in his race.  (All seemed to be Conservatives and I wasn't sure who was endorsed by the Mayor, but Mulcahy had been appointed to the Planning and Zoning Commission by the Mayor so that seemed a safe bet.)
Clary was first in his race with Traini.

Whoa! I thought.  I knew that the first position on the ballot gets an advantage at the polls, because a certain number of people, if they aren't familiar with the candidates in the race, will just vote for the first one.  The best way to deal with that is to rotate the order on different ballots.  Then each candidate is first on an equal number of ballots.
Not only were the ballots not rotated, but the Mayor's preferred candidate seemed to be on top in each race.

This had conspiracy written all over it.   But first, some of the research on positional advantage on ballots.


From Northwestern University's Kellogg School: 

"Specialists in the mechanics of voting have long recognized that the order in which candidates’ names appear on a ballot influences voters’ decisions. Typically, candidates listed at the top of a ballot earn a greater share of the vote than they would receive in any other position, regardless of their policies and personalities. Now research on voting patterns in local state elections coauthored by a Kellogg School researcher has taken the issue a stage further. It concludes that the first listing on the ballot also increases a candidate’s chances of actually winning office—by almost five percentage points."

Stanford Professor Jon A. Krosnick describes the positional effect and how they've demonstrated it:

"How do we know this? Well, consider this: In California’s 80 Assembly districts, candidate name order is randomly assigned. In 1996, Bill Clinton’s vote tally was 4 percentage points higher in the Assembly districts where he was listed first than in the ones where he was listed last — a difference that persisted even after we took into account pre-existing Democratic registration levels in the districts.
In 2000, George W. Bush’s vote tally was 9 percentage points higher in the districts where he was listed first than in the districts where he was listed last — again, persisting with registration taken into account."

He adds this note which suggests the magnitude of the impact:

"In Florida, for instance, candidates from the governor’s party get top billing, which is why in 2000 and 2004 George W. Bush was listed first on every ballot. (His brother, Jeb, was governor.) "

Other states, he adds, order their ballots in different ways.  Some require rotated positions, some require the previous winning party to be listed first, Minnesota requires the party with the least votes in the previous election to be on top.  Some do alphabetical by party, some alphabetical by candidate's last name. Some random. 


I looked up the state law:

"(6) The names of the candidates for each office shall be set out in the same order on ballots printed for use in each house district. The director shall randomly determine the order of the names of the candidates for state representative for each house district. The director shall rotate the order of placement of the names of candidates for governor, lieutenant governor, United States senator, United States representative, and state senator on the ballot for each house district."

But this gets complicated.  There was a Supreme Court decision in 1998 where a candidate sued the Division of  Elections because he was disadvantaged by having a lower place on the ballot. [If the link doesn't work, start here at the Supreme Court site, link Alaska Case Law Service, then click "By Party Name" and write in "Sonneman"] The case said that the State had switched from rotation to random order with a 1998 amendment.  From the Court's decision:

The amendment was recommended by the Lieutenant Governor's Election Policy Transition Team. Its report stated that the amendment would save “between $150,000 and $250,000 per election cycle.” However, the actual cost of ballot rotation in the 1994 primary and general elections was $64,024. The amendment was also intended to eliminate the confusion of voters who relied on single-order sample ballots and were confused when they found a different rotation of candidates' names on their actual ballots. The team also concluded that “[r]esearch indicates that the order of candidates' names on American ballots does not significantly influence voters.”

Sonneman lost his case.  The Court decided that since the order was random, everyone had an equal chance for the coveted first spot.  I couldn't tell if it had been changed back since and that was why it said rotational in the statute I found.  I was going to see if I could call up Sonneman to see if he knew, but I got his obituary.  I don't have the app that lets me call the departed. 

So I called the Municipal Clerk's office to find out how it was done in Anchorage.  She was ready for that call.

Later, I videoed Deputy Clerk for Elections Amanda Moser explaining how the order is determined so you can listen to hear and/or read below.




Names are placed on the ballot in random order.  They have a written procedure and, in fact, the Clerk, Barb Jones, and her staff, and the Municipal Ombudsman were there as witnesses.  Here's  the procedure:

Procedure for Letter Drawing
Anchorage Municipal Code 28.40.010  Form
C.    The names of all candidates for the same office shall be on one ballot with spaces for write-ins equal to the number of offices to be filled. For each municipal election, the clerk shall determine the random alphabetical order in which the candidates' last names are placed on the ballot, regardless of the office sought, by conducting a chance selection of each letter of the alphabet. The sequence in which letters of the alphabet are drawn shall be the sequence of letters utilized in establishing the order in which the candidates' last names appear on the ballot.

1. Ensure that all 26 letters are present
2. One person will draw a letter from provided container.
3. A second person will read aloud the letter drawn.
4. A third person will record the letter drawn.
5. The fourth person is an observer.
4. Continue until all the letters are drawn.
5. After all letters are drawn the Clerk and other observers will sign sheet provided.
6. The Deputy Clerk will post on the Municipal Website.

And here's a copy of the list they made when they did the drawing.  Note, the date was January 24, 2013.  That's before people filed to run for office.

So, for each race, once they had candidate names, they went through this list.  Any Q's?  No?  M's?  etc.  In one case they had two candidates running for the same School Board seat whose names began with C - Croft and Cornwell-George.  Which should come first?  O comes before R in the alphabet, but they had to use this chart instead of the alphabet.  If you check the list, R is number 20 and O is number 24.  So Croft came first.

And when I looked further into this, I found out that in Eagle River, Demoboski, not Mulcahy was the Mayor's favorite.  And on the ballots with Ernie Hall's race, there were actually two Assembly races because Harriot Drummond had resigned to take her seat in the State House.  In that race, when I checked, Tim Steele's name was before the Mayor's candidate Cheryl Frasca.


So, you ask, if nothing was wrong, why write this post?  A reasonable question.  Here are some reasons:
1.  Don't jump to conclusions. It's always good to be reminded that one should do one's homework and get all the facts before jumping to conclusions, especially negative conclusions.  It reminds us that we see what we are looking for instead of what's actually there.  This is a good example of that and finding out there was no conspiracy, even though, at first glance, my evidence pointed in that direction.  

2.  We should write about good things as well as bad.  When the media only report things that go wrong, we get an unbalanced sense of how the world is.  The Clerk's office had thought through how they were going to do this, wrote up a procedure, and did the order randomly before they even knew who the candidates were.  And when a blogger called them up to check on what they did, they were prepared for me.  Their foresight on this should be recognized.

3.  I had all this information.  I didn't want it to go to waste.  A lame reason, but I'm trying to be honest here.


Final Thoughts

If the bump in votes due to position on the ballot is as big as the research says, then that's a pretty good argument for rotating the names.  But I think the research also needs to tell us if there is a population threshold when it rotating the ballots makes sense.  In my polling place we used less than 20% of the ballots.  Even if the names had been rotated, would we have used enough ballots to get to a different name order?  Should different parts of town get a different order for the School Board races - since they show up on all the ballots?

And I still have to find out what the current state law is - random or rotational? 

Ugly Anchorage or a City To Match Our Mountains? The Decision is NOW

OK, I admit, we're not likely to have a city to match our mountains. (Though there are places in the world where the city scape is spectacularly beautiful and in harmony with their environments.) 


Tonight the Anchorage Assembly 'starts' public hearings on changes to Title 21 - the Municipal Code that governs design criteria for developing Anchorage into the future.  I say 'starts' because this has been going on over ten years and was all set to be adopted when Sullivan became mayor and hijacked the process.  (Yes, I'm moving out of my normal even handed perspective into a more editorial one.  Sometimes there aren't two sides.  Sometimes one side is right and the other is not.  While I don't think this is a case of right and wrong, it is a case of much righter and much wronger.)

I see several interest groups here:

1.  Planners - those who recognize that every large successful business makes plans about what they are going to do in the future so that they can stay competitive.  These folks believe that governments, involving and representing the vast majority of citizens, should come up with plans for simple things that make, in this case, our city safer, easier to walk and bike in (this includes kids, the poor, the elderly), and just a lot nicer to look at.

Anchorage has gone through a very comprehensive process over a ten year period to come up with such a plan.

2.  The Builders - those who make their living in various areas of construction - from architects to pavers.  While this group is relatively small in percentage of the Anchorage population, they have, individually, a much bigger interest in this and have wielded a lot of political power to stop the community process from being implemented and with the help of Mayor Sullivan made radical changes to the plan so that they can continue to build with as little oversight by the City planning department.  They can continue to build with just their immediate costs in mind and with little interest to the impacts their buildings have on the availability of decent, durable housing, and the visual impact of their buildings of the neighbors.  Some of these people already do forward thinking projects, but most don't and don't want anyone to restrict them in any way.

3.  The average citizen who doesn't think much about long term impacts, doesn't think she has any power to make a difference, is terribly busy anyway, and/or doesn't even know what Title 21 is.

4.  The "in their own world' delusional types.  These are folks for whom out-of-context facts and half-truths are ammunition to support their own dysfunctional fancies.  In this case they are remnants of the Anchorage Tea Party movement who have declared Anchorage's Title 21 to be a conspiracy to take over the world by the same people who are pushing the UN's Agenda 21.   Glenn Beck is one of those pushing this bogey-man to get these folks to continue to vote against their own self interests.  Sorry, I know it's more subtle than this, but not a lot. Really, there were lots of these people at the Planning and Zoning meetings on Title 21.  Lots. 

While other parts of the US not only recognize same-sex marriage, our friends at the Anchorage Baptist Temple have managed to keep the words gay and lesbian out of our anti-discrimination law.

And we're just as far behind the rest of the US in planning and zoning standards that help prevent the worst of developer practices.  Good developers support planning because then they can do well designed projects that make sense for their immediate client in the short term, and also for their client and the rest of Anchorage in the long term.  Without the guidelines, they get undercut by unscrupulous builders and get forced into shortcuts that ultimately hurt their clients and the rest of us.

The builders argue there is a shortage of land in Anchorage to develop so they shouldn't be restricted.  I'd argue the shortage means that what is left is at a premium and the price of the land will mean their clients can afford to do things that have long term value for their clients and the rest of us.

Is the Title 21 that came out of the community planning process perfect?  Certainly not.  If you want perfection, try soap bubbles.  But it's a lot more reflective of what the greater public that particiapted in its creation wanted, than the developer mangled rewrite that Dan Coffey got two lucrative contracts from Mayor Sullivan to do.  Even Sullivan didn't take all off Coffey's recommendations. 


Here's some background from those who have worked for years to improve the design quality of Anchorage including tips for what you can do: 

Tuesday, January 15, Loussac Library Assembly Chambers, 7pm.

[My sense is that this won't be finished tonight.  But you should be at the Assembly Chambers to let the Assembly members know how the public feels. And to get riled up by the nonsense some people are spewing.  And to fill my space since I'm out of town. In the previous meetings the Tea Party folks were there in number and volume opposed to any government planning because this was all an Agenda 21 conspiracy.  If you absolutely can't go, watch online.  But one of the best ways to influence the Assembly is to be there in person for your interests.  Bring the kids so they can learn how democracy works.  Let them see what happens if their voice is or isn't represented.]

You don't have to understand the newest code.  The Assembly certainly doesn't.  They only received copies of it last weekend, and it's over 700 pages long. 

Just come and talk about what you're an expert on:  Why you choose to live here, and what problems you've lived with that you want fixed before another ten years go by.  

Folks who scorn improving the city's quality of life will be there talking about their property rights and fighting sidewalks and landscaping because it's 'too expensive.'  Your voice is very much needed.

Tell the Assembly you want them to approve the 'Provisionally Adopted Title 21' that went through 8 YEARS of public review and compromises.

Anchorage Citizens Coalition will prepare technical comments after we've gone through the newest Title 21 with the help of our great volunteers.  If you can help on any particular issue, please contact us.

We have two kinds of threats from the Assembly:  

1.  The Assembly hasn't yet learned that if we want small, walkable neighborhood shopping districts they need to help by concentrating commercial/retail development, not scattering it all over town into industrial and residential districts.  We need 'Mixed Use District Zones,' that will produce compact shopping areas next to neighborhoods, and other strategies that they threw out last year.

2.  The Tea Party, the Building Owners and Managers Assoc. and the new Planning & Zoning Commission didn't get all they wanted from the Assembly's Title 21 Committee, and we can expect them to come back for more on issues such as 

• allowing taller commercial buildings inside neighborhoods (B1A and B2B zones,) 
• squeezing homes onto lots that are currently considered 'too small,'
• reducing the open space children need for outdoor play,
• dumpster screening,
• sunlight into neighborhoods, and more. 

Here's what we expect to be at stake as the Assembly votes on Title 21:

• sidewalks on both sides of the street and to connect schools, parks and neighborhoods (keep pedestrian standards.)
• keeping tall buildings from shadowing our yards and south facing windows, (keep midtown and other B-3 business zoning, business height transition standards for neighborhoods)  (Note: no standards have yet been developed that protect homes from shadowing other homes.)
• incentives to build small, active, walkable neighborhood shopping districts out on the main streets, (bring back mixed use zoning districts, do not scatter mixed uses into industrial and residential zones.)
• keeping ticky tacky cookie cutter houses out of our neighborhoods, and making sure new homes have more landscaping and less asphalt. (Strengthen standards for single family and multifamily design, landscaping, garage front domination.)
• protecting our wildlife corridors and fish habitats (Restore 50 foot stream setbacks, limits on fences & buildings next to streams.)
• making sure children have decent, attractive play space near their homes.  (Maintain 'useable' open space standards.)
• making sure it's safer to walk in midtown as it continues to grow.  (Restore height restrictions in midtown that allow for increased height only after building adds landscaping, sunlight protection, public space, plazas, etc.)

Besides going to the meeting you can:

Call your Assembly representative.  http://www.muni.org/Departments/Assembly/Pages/MemberProfiles.aspx

Work with your Community Council to adopt a resolution promoting the Provisionally Adopted Title 21 and supporting Anchorage 2020.  http://www.communitycouncils.org/  Other councils' resolutions are available for your review by contacting AnchorageCitizensCoalition@gmail.com

More info is at accalaska.org and at the Facebook site Free Title 21

The muni has posted all relevant Title 21 documents at: http://www.muni.org/Departments/OCPD/Planning/Projects/t21/Pages/Title21Rewrite.aspx

Yesterday's Election Shenanigans

I was tired last night and not in a particularly good mood. So even though there was conflicting information I didn't pursue it.  But Mel at Bent Alaska covers it in detail and the story is going to be disturbing. From Bent:

"Yesterday, we reported that an administrator of Jim Minnery’s Protect Your Rights – Vote NO on 5 Facebook page posted the following notice: Attention Young People or First Time Voters – YOU CAN REGISTER AND VOTE AT THE SAME LOCATION TODAY !! It is super easy. Take a few minutes TODAY and stop by a polling station, register to vote (all you need is your AK driver’s license) and cast a NO Vote on Prop. 5. We really need you to vote. Tell at least 3 of your friends how easy it is."

As soon as I heard that there was a rush of people to the polls and they ran out of ballots,  I began to suspect that this was an intentional attempt disrupt the elections.

Mel's post makes it clear that the "Protect Your Rights" folks knew full well that the information was false.  They'd sent an earlier email out to their list telling people exactly when the registration deadline was. Is it possible the person who did the FB page and the email acted alone and didn't know about the deadline?  Not likely.  



The generally conservative - but with straightforward local political reporting - blog Alaska Pride (no, not gay pride) had this headline March 28:

Dittman Poll Shows 50 Percent Support Anchorage Proposition 5 Vs. 41 Percent Opposed; One Anchorage Got An Earlier Start, More Money, And Remained Civil

 Let's go back to 2009 when the Anchorage Municipal Assembly had hearings on an ordinance that would have done the same thing this ballot initiative tried to do.

Mayor Mark Begich had resigned to take his US Senate seat and liberal Assembly Chair Matt Claman assumed his job as Acting Mayor until the Municipal election in April, when he was defeated by current Mayor Dan Sullivan.  The new mayor doesn't take office until July 1.  There were enough votes to pass the ordinance on the Assembly, but Minnery and his Anchorage Baptist Church friends flooded the Assembly with people to speak against the ordinance - including busing people from outside of Anchorage.  Assembly chair Debbie Ossiander ruled that everyone could talk, even people from outside of Anchorage.  This strategy worked to delay passage of the ordinance for weeks, long enough that Mayor Sullivan took office and then vetoed it.

The liberals were outsmarted in terms of strategy.  And while busing in people from outside the city and getting the Assembly chair to let them speak pushes the limits of fair play, there is a long tradition of using the rules to thwart your opponents.  It tends to be ok if your side does it, but not if the other side does it. 

But telling people to go to the polling place to register, knowing they had to register 30 days earlier, in an attempt to disrupt the election crosses the line for me because it resulted in legitimate voters not being able to vote.  Clearly it's in the dirty tricks category.  But the First Amendment allows people to lie in most circumstances.

Assuming then they were intentionally getting unregistered people to the polls, what was their goal? 

If the anti-Prop 5 folks read the polling data that said Prop 5 was ahead 50% to 41%,  perhaps they decided to cause enough irregularities at the polls to challenge the election if they lost.  I don't know.  Now that they've won,  what will the Prop 5 folks do?  It would seem that even with a challenge, they are too far behind to get enough votes to win.  I'd emphasize the word seem.  I'm sure there are other possible scenarios. 

It's clear, to me anyway, that Minnery's group's Facebook post and emails were intended to get unregistered voters to the polling places to ask to register and then vote, which Minnery knew they were not entitled to do.  He couldn't help but know that this would disrupt the election process by diverting the attention of the voting officials from helping qualified voters.  And that it would increase the number of challenged vote ballots needed way beyond the normal level.  What his reasons for doing this were and what all the consequences were, we don't know.  Was he hoping to establish a grounds for challenging the election if they lost, which the Dittman poll suggested?

Of course, it also raises the question of how the Dittman poll could be so far off.  Last week it was 50% to 41% in favor.  And this week it is 58% to 41% against.  That is a HUGE margin of error.  Was Dittman really that far off?  Or is the vote count off?

I'd note that the ADN reported Tuesday that "More than 3,800 people had already voted at Loussac Library, City Hall or Chugiak Senior Center through Sunday . . . [and a]nother 2,675 people had requested absentee ballots. . ."   The absentee ballots have not been counted yet, nor, I believe, have the early votes.    But if 2,000 of the absentees actually send in their ballots, the total outstanding would only be about 5800 or 9.5%. 

Again, I encourage you to look at Bent Alaska's post on this.

Mayor Sullivan Brings Coffee To And Chats With Sidewalk Sitter John Martin

[UPDATE 3/30/12 - Hear protesters describe the Thursday night bust.]

Sometimes you are at the right place at the right time.  As I got off the bus downtown I saw that John Martin had not been ousted by the police during the night, despite the notice posted at his 'camp' in front of City Hall.  [I just posted about this in the last post.] As I said good morning to John, he told me to wait a second and there'd be some good video.

Shortly Mayor Dan Sullivan came out of the Kaladi Brothers across the street with two cups of coffee.  He gave one to John and they chatted a few minutes about homeless policy.  John had told me beforehand that he was lobbying for a homeless camp at 3rd and Gambell.

In the video, it's hard to hear John, though the mayor is a audible.  It's hard with the traffic noise.  Although I've opposed the mayor's policies on occasion, this was not done for the cameras.  I just happened to show up after he told John he'd get him a cup of coffee.

[UPDATE Aug 3, 2018:  Some of my old videos stored at Viddler no longer work.  Sorry.][UPDATE Jan 31, 2019:  The Viddler videos seem to be working again.]




Meanwhile, the Redistricting Board meeting was postponed an hour so I had time to work on this.  But I've gotta get back there.

Planning and Zoning Does Round 1 of Title 21

I've promised myself to try to limit most of my posts to 1200 words for a while so I can do other things.  So I'll try to summarize what happened.

After a multi-year public hearing process, the Assembly had voted to provisionally approve Title 21 and it was waiting for some cleanup language by the staff when Dan Sullivan became mayor and hired former Assembly member Dan Coffey to go over it all again and recommend changes.  He's made recommendations to the Mayor and the Mayor has refined that into a set of proposed amendments.  Now the Planning and Zoning Commission is weighing in on these before they go to the Assembly.

Testimony included land owners and/or their representatives citing

• specific sections of new Title 21 that would negatively affect the value of their property
• general complaints that the new Title 21 is essentially social engineering that takes economic decisions from private landowners and gives it to the government
• complaints that Title 21 is the introduction of the United Nations Agenda 21 which, according to handouts, advances global sustainability and "is being covertly pushed into local communities throughout the United States."

Basically, the people who testified framed Title 21 as social engineering that would take away the rights of individuals to make decisions about their property.  Some specific issues raised:

• Change in I2 zoning to take out business and retail use and make this only industrial.  People said it would lower property values of existing structures and it covers  places like C and O'Malley that should have retail.
• A CIRI representative with property at C and O'Malley  seemed not too fazed by the new Title 21, but wanted to be sure that they would be able to have an overlay district to make appropriate exceptions for a corner like that where they are planning retail development. 
•  Target's representative felt it would take so long to get the overlay district approval that they would lose significant time in building and attracting other retailers into their south Anchorage project.  
• The current chapter 12 on non-conformities does not afford owners of existing property  latitude to do maintenance and repairs as the existing code does.  When they do repairs, they are required to spend more on upgrading to the new requirements than presently required.  This will cause people to skip maintenance and lead to deterioration of property.
• The staff's economic impact study is inadequate.  Staff argues that reducing the number of required parking spaces will offset the costs of added requirements.  But a couple of people said that with the landscaping requirements and extra costs because of more complicated requirements the costs will really go up.  

Commissioner Mulcahy asked everyone if they had any financial calculations to back up their allegations.  The Carr-Gottstein rep suggested the changes in zoning class would cost them $65 million in property value.

No one spoke in favor of Title 21.  There were quite a few ideological complaints about social engineering and loss of individual property rights.

One man, speaking for his 21 year old daughter who had bought her first house said, "I appreciate the academics who have spoken.  I speak as a citizen."  [I didn't hear anyone who identified themselves as even remotely involved with academics, and if they had, they too would still be citizens, it seems to me.]

Another, who identified himself as a contractor from Eagle River said, "Don’t know much about Title 21.  Heard a few things in the last few hours.  Couple of questions.  Assembly,  first make note of where Title 21 came from - Agenda 21 from the UN.  We are not in the UN we are the US.  We have a constitution. . ."

A few people referred to changes that would tell home owners how many windows they could have in their house.  [None of the commissioners asked them to identify which section said that.]

America's ideological divide was evident in the room Monday night.  The anti-government folks were out in strength fighting off what they see as the social engineering crowd whose goal is to take away people's individual liberties.

Redistricting Court Challenge: Voting Rights Expert Handley

This is really hard to write about.  I didn't post more from Friday though I started to.  For now let me just say that Executive Director Taylor Bickford, under cross examination began to falter Friday.  I think that he was probably thinking too much.  My sense is that he's basically a good guy who was trying to do a good job under difficult conditions.  But the plaintiff's attorney, Mike Walleri wanted to remind the court that Bickford was a partisan Republican.  But Bickford wouldn't admit to anything that he thought might be used against him. It was like he was pausing and thinking, "What are the implications of this questions and my answer?" and then he would try to create a teflon answer.

He wasn't partisan, he just worked for Republicans.  It was just a job.  It had to be one party or the other, and just happened to be Republican.  Even when he worked as  the 2010 Republican Victory Director for State Republican Chair Randy Ruderich.  He wouldn't even acknowledge that he knew Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan was a Republican.  "I don't know that."

Given that most anyone in Anchorage who is at all politically aware knows that Sullivan is a Republican, when the Republican Victory Director claims not to know that, it raises questions about how honestly he's answering other questions.  You could hear that his normal calm, that was evident when he was being questioned by the Board's attorney, was gone.

But I had lots of other things to do this weekend so I didn't feel I was ready to write about the substantive results of the testimony.

This morning, I was surprised - and plaintiff attorney Walleri objected - when witness Lisa Handley wasn't going to be the first witness as scheduled.  Walleri learned last night that the Defense wanted to put Eric Sandberg on first.  He promised the judge that it would only take 30 minutes (it took 40) and then Eric wouldn't have to wait around for Handley's much longer testimony.  Eric was the GIS expert for the Board and his testimony was calm and forthcoming.

Then Dr.  Handley came on.  I really haven't had time to go over my notes, but here are a few things that come to mind.

One issue already raised, was that the terminology used when she advised the board - majority districts, equal opportunity districts and influence districts - had changed after the board completed the their plan.  And there were also questions, because of this, whether the third party plans could have had the right number of districts because they were working on wrong assumptions about what the benchmark was because of the nomenclature.  Were they required to have 4 effective (majority) districts and 2 Equal Opportunity and 1 influence, as Handley had said earlier, or were they required to have 5 Effective districts?

Much of the discussion was on the terms and what they meant and why they changed and when she found out and how she found out.  She also was using a term I didn't recall from the meetings last spring - Protected districts.  Was I missing something?

Toward the end of the morning, Walleri asked about this term and said it hadn't been in her report or deposition.  It seems it comes out of the Texas redistricting case that she's working on and goes to court next week in DC.

There was also a long hypothetical about a district where the minority was unable to elect the candidate of their choice in the primary, but could in the general.  Would this be an effective district?  Handley gave lots of caveats and I don't recall ever said yes or no.  But when the hypothetical became the proclamation district 38, and Goldstream and Ester were named as white Democratic districts with the highest primary turnout in the state and some of the Native districts with low primary turnout, I think she said this would still be effective, because they would get the candidate of their choice in the general, but I'm not sure.   I was waiting for Walleri to ask, "If they got a suburban Fairbanks candidate elected in the primary instead of a Native area candidate (this is an 'effective native district")  would it still be effective, even if a non-native was elected.

So what has been established is that Handley had used terminology lingering from the 2000 redistricting that allowed for a continuum of highly to less effective districts and now DOJ has said (it's not clear whether the person who told Handley this can be seen as speaking for the DOJ on this) a district is either effective or not.  Though Handley said that within the "Yes - Effective" side, there was room for a continuum.

All this matters because it gets to whether the argument of the defense - that there were no third party plans that met the benchmark of 5 effective house districts and 3 senate districts, thus the Board couldn't be expected to both meet the VRA benchmark standard AND meet the Alaska Constitutional requirements for compactness and contiguity, etc. as well  - because if the third parties weren't trying to meet the 5 house benchmark number because they were told 5-2-1 (effective-equal opportunity-influence), then it's not a fair comparison.  Sorry I should revise that, except it's almost 1:30 and the court is coming back into session.  This is just to give people some idea of what's happening.

I would also mention that Handley is also having trouble remembering some things.  It seems to me if you are being paid to be an expert witness, you really ought to have your calendar with you so you can check the dates of when you did things.  But what do I know?

This is going up without much correction because I don't have time.  So you are getting currency but sacrificing detailed accuracy and style checking. 

What Does "Taking Responsibility" Mean these days? Sheffield Resigns for $60K/year

ADN on line has this headline:

Sheffield resigns as port director
CONTRACT: Ex-governor will earn $60,000 a year as city's liaison on the project.
By ROSEMARY SHINOHARA
Anchorage Daily News Published: December 29th, 2011 11:06 PM
Last Modified: December 29th, 2011 11:26 PM

It took long enough to get him out of the Port.  The story tells us:

The cost of the port expansion project, as envisioned by Sheffield, has jumped from $360 million in 2005 to about $1 billion. [Anchorage Mayor] Sullivan has proposed a less ambitious project. The city late this year asked the Legislature for $350 million to continue port construction work.

The port was supposed to be finished in 2011, but the ADN reported last July, that the completion date is now 2021.  That's not a minor adjustment.  Why the delay?  Because Sheffield had championed a controversial, untested piling design which failed.

Some engineers are questioning whether the new dock can even be built as designed. Much of the work done in 2010 involved dismantling construction from just a year earlier. Numerous sheets of steel that were planted in Cook Inlet as part of the dock expansion have been ripped up and now lie stacked in twisted and warped piles at the port.

You can see some of these on a video of a Port tour in a 2009 post.

But according to Sheffield and his supporters, it wasn't his fault.

"The project has faced challenges but we have worked hard over the last two years to get the management and construction back on the correct course," Sheffield said in a written statement . . .

. . . Sheffield supporters say the port construction problems were largely beyond his control, and that a federal agency and a contractor are responsible for quality assurance, not the port director. Former Assemblyman Dan Coffey, whom Sullivan has hired to lobby the Legislature for additional port funds, says he thinks Sheffield "is the face of a mess not of his making."

Yeah, it wasn't me.  Just because I was the port director, you shouldn't blame me.  The Feds should have done it.  Ask the feds who was pushing the controversial pilings. 

Let's see.  This is the former governor who was brought up for impeachment inquiry by the legislature in 1985.  The LA Times reported:

Alaska's impeachment inquiry stems from what might be considered routine patronage politics in some places: the steering of a $9.1-million lease for state offices to a Fairbanks building in which one of Sheffield's supporters and fund-raisers held an interest. . .

. . .The office lease matter took a serious turn on July 1, when the special grand jury investigating it, citing page after page of Sheffield's failed memory in his testimony, declared that the governor is "unfit to fulfill the inherent duties of public office."

'Lack of Candor'
The jurors added that "Sheffield's testimony reflects a lack of candor and a disrespect for the laws of this state."

In the end, he was not impeached.

But here's some more history from a 2007 post I did on Carnival Cruise Lines:

1987 - Sheffield sold Sheffield Enterprises to Holland America [which belongs to Carnival Cruises.] His number two man at Sheffield Enterprises, Al Parish, eventually became a vice president of Holland America.
And from the Alaska Railroad website we get the following:
April 1995
Former Governor Bill Sheffield is appointed to the Board of Directors and elected chairman.

During his tenure, the Anchorage International Airport got a new train depot, that the Railroad says cost $28 million (I think that was just the federal money, others have hinted it was much more) that is now named after Sheffield.  The only passengers who ride on trains from that depot are people who travel to or from the airport to downtown train station (a ten minute taxi ride) which is part of their Alaska cruise ticket.  And the cruises only come up during the summer months.  But us Anchorage folks can rent it out for a party if we want. 

The Alaska Railroad's 1998 Annual Report says about the Depot:

Anchorage International Airport
What It Is: A $28 million project to develop a state-of-the-art rail
station at the Anchorage International Airport. The station will be
the centerpiece of all passenger services development at the
Railroad, connecting Seward, Whittier and Girdwood, making
commuter services to Wasilla and Palmer a more viable option. (p.10)

In the Chairman's message it even gives a time estimate:

And by 2005, we hope to be carrying commuters from the Matanuska-Susitna Valley and Girdwood into Anchorage with safe, cost-effective, environmentally friendly rail transit.(p. 1)

It's the end of 2011 and no one has gone anywhere but downtown from that depot.  But maybe, like the port, the commuter service had to be delayed 10 years.  But don't hold your breath until 2015.

Accountability
Heads of agencies and governments and corporations frequently tell us that they have the responsibility to make important decisions, but when things go bad, they rarely seem to be held accountable.  How are those bankers doing who made all those bad loans?  Do you think W. is going to apologize any time soon for getting us into Iraq?   The only Alaskan politicians who have been held accountable were convicted by the feds after an FBI investigation.  And the ones who spent the most time in prison were convicted of crimes involving $10,000 or less. 

Mayor Sullivan's been cutting the Municipal budget on the grounds of being fiscally responsible, but this is the end of his third year as mayor.  He's left Sheffield at the port all this time. 

Some folks thought the political corruption cases might change things, and they did for a bit.  They helped get Sarah Palin elected governor, for example.  But just looking at Sheffield's record as Governor, railroad president, and head of the port raise very troubling questions about accountability in this state.  The gift of the railroad depot to the cruise lines all by itself should have been investigated.  It has cronyism written all over it. 


Who's accountable for it never being used for commuter service?  Who still thinks there was ever that intention?

The current ADN story says that no one knew about the resignation and it was announced at a Wednesday night fundraiser for Mayor Sullivan at Sheffield's home.  Sweet deal.  I'll resign and I'll give you a fundraiser, but I want a $60K retainer after I resign.  Or even worse, maybe he didn't have to ask.  

Anchorage Passes John Martin Sidewalk Law

John Martin and Police Chief Mark Mew Chat at Break

It's rare that a government passes a law to deal with just one person.  One person.  Where's the imagination to come up with Solomon-like solutions?  It's also the easy way out - like a parent telling his kid, "Because I'm your father and I said so."  Except Dan Sullivan is not John Martin's father.

[An aside - I talked to Dan Sullivan for the first time ever today.  He was at the meeting, there was a break and I thought I'd get a picture of the Mayor.  He saw and waved.  It was out of focus so you won't see it.  But went over and introduced myself and I told him I had talked to Sam Abrams - the expert on Finnish education he'd invited up to his Education Conference last week - and that I was delighted to hear from Sam that the Mayor backed free school lunches for all students.  It was a very cordial and pleasant short conversation.  He told me Sam went out to Bethel today.  I do think that people have a lot more in common than they think and if we could break down our images of each other we could get past a lot of unnecessary bickering.  But that's another post.]

Here's a video of Martin I made during a break.  He explains why he was there.




I had to leave the Assembly meeting about 6:30 for another meeting, but I got an email at 10:30 saying the sidewalk ordinance had passed.  Bummer.  It had failed in July after the
 Anchorage Daily News  carried a story about a homeless man who'd taken up residence on the sidewalk in front of city hall. 

The idea of a new law came up, said city attorney Dennis Wheeler, because the administration wanted to remove John Martin. Martin hung out with his blanket on the City Hall sidewalk for days and nights in late June. He is now set up on the sidewalk kitty-corner from City Hall at Sixth Avenue and G Street

Martin said Tuesday that he is protesting the mayor's treatment of homeless people -- particularly, the city's decision to take and destroy some homeless people's possessions during the course of clearing out illegal camps on public property around town.

The law didn't pass in July, but it did, apparently, Tuesday.

From a Nov. 7 ADN:

The law, if passed, would make it illegal to sit or recline on a sidewalk downtown from 6 a.m. until late evening, with exceptions for things like medical emergencies or parades and demonstrations that have permits.

It would also prohibit panhandling downtown.

The revised ordinance extends the no-sitting provision later into the night on Fridays and Saturdays than the initial version -- until 2:30 a.m.-- to keep sidewalks clear for people downtown late on weekends, Sullivan said. On other nights, it would be OK to sit or recline on the sidewalks at midnight.

The idea for the law arose out of a homeless man's sit-down protest on sidewalks near City Hall. The protestor, John Martin, has been sitting or standing on a blanket either right in front of City Hall or across the street, off and on for months. He has said he's protesting the city's treatment of homeless people.

The administration wanted to remove him, but found there is no city law that forbids lying or sitting on a sidewalk, city officials have said.

It's unclear how or if new sidewalk rules would affect the more recent protest, Occupy Anchorage, in which people are demonstrating in Town Square Park across from City Hall. They've had a tent set up, a chair or two and a portable heater, along with signs.

I've sat down on the sidewalk before.  This seems like an overly broad bill.  Can't I bring a folding chair and sit discretely and watch the world go by?  I guess not any more in Anchorage.  

I really wanted a friendly but serious conversation with the Mayor about why he couldn't have come up with a more compassionate and imaginative way to resolve this.  Instead of thinking like a mediator or negotiator, he seems to have needed to show that he was boss.  He made it into a win-lose confrontation.  But who actually won.  John Martin has gotten a lot of attention and he got the mayor to spend a lot of time on an ordinance to prevent him from sitting on the sidewalk.  It didn't seem the right time, and I had to go anyway.  But it would have been nice. 

In my world, a true leader knows he's the mayor for all the people of Anchorage, not just the people who agree with him.  Putting the city hall lobby television on Fox News is like a poke in the eye to more than half the population of Anchorage.  It says to me, Hey, I'm mayor and I can do what I want.  Just as bad would be if he didn't have a clue how offensive having the city play Fox News in OUR city hall lobby.   This isn't high school where our clique tries to beat out your clique.  This is the adult world where we realize that we all are humans with human problems.  Some of us got better starts in life than others.   Some of us believe strongly in obeying all the rules, some of us believe everyone else has to obey all the rules, and others challenge those rules we don't think are fair.

But both sides have to recognize that they need each other so that neither side goes too far out toward one extreme or the other.  We need to find that kernel of humanity that we can respect in everyone, so that we can work things out instead of carrying on never-ending feuds between 'us' and 'them.'

OK, it's late and I'm starting to ramble and get preachy.  Dan, I challenge you to find a more imaginative solution to your next confrontation.   John Martin, I wish you well, and in my mind, this will always be the John Martin Sidewalk Law.

[UPDATE - I've got some follow up posts with video on this:
March 27, 2012:    John Martin Back Camped Out In Front of City Hall
March 27, 2012:    Mayor Sullivan Brings Coffee and Chats With Sidewalk Sitter John Martin  (with video)
March  30, 2012:   Police Bust Sidewalk Campers - $1000 Fine (with video)]

Occupy Anchorage and Title 21 People Lure Me To Assembly Meeting

Occupy group at Assembly Meeting

I'm still trying to finish a post from the last Assembly meeting I attended last June (on the mayor's veto, coming soon, I promise) but both the Title 21 citizens' group and Occupy Anchorage folks were both set to testify at the Assembly meeting at 4:30 today.  And though I knew I was going to be late, I came anyway.  Didn't matter.  It's 5:20 now and the Assembly just got started and they're doing housekeeping stuff.  So I had a chance to talk to some people before the meeting.  I'm waiting for one of the videos to get uploaded now.  The Loussac Library where the Assembly chambers are has wifi, but it's slow.

Jo-Ann Chung,Pamela Scott,   Assembly Member Elvi Gray-Jackson

5:27  They are honoring former Assistant Muni Prosecutor Pamela Scott and now Jo-Ann Chung who have gotten judicial appointments.  Both approved.


5:36  Now they are recognizing and celebrating Alaska native Heritage Day November 25, 2011.

I have a 6:30 meeting nearby.  Am I going to get to see anything I came to see at 4:30?

Now it's a liquor license issue on Muldoon. Now a whole slew of them.  The image has a few of the many they are approving. There's one for a Tesoro Station on Government Hill that had problems with selling to inebriates that seems like it's going to be held til later.

The video's ready now, so I'll post it. 

You can watch this live on cable or online.
Though who knows when the Occupy folks and the Title 21 folks.

Assembly member Trombley is now questioning someone about the Sullivan Arena and asking why they had a monthly loss of $750,000. The respondent says it's for the year and there is money coming in through visitor taxes and other items. Now Trombley is asking about the new figure of $39,000.

I could go on and on. Now Assembly member Starr is questioning about how someone had asked his girlfriend to marry him using the scoreboard at a hockey game, but so many lights were burned out she couldn't read her name.

I'll post this now.

UPDATE: 6:10pm - someone is now talking his 3 minutes to tell the Assembly about the dangers of power toothbrushes. His time was up but Assembly Member Gray-Jackson asked him to continue up to 3 more minutes. Dental profession has recognized harm called toothbrush abrasion. Spinning, rotating, osculating power toothbrushes.

I've been here since 5:45pm and I'm really starting to wonder how the Assembly plans its time. I understand the importance of honorary motions etc. But it seems there are some really serious meaty issues before the Assembly and they ought to address them.

This guy wants the Assembly to take action to prohibit sales of power toothbrushes so that kids don't live their lives with the pain of toothbrush abrasion.

6:15 pm Assembly is now going to take its dinner break. And I'm going to leave and miss all this for my other meeting. But I do have another video I'll put up later.

Why The Anchorage Mayor's Amendment Veto Justification is Wrong

In July at the only Assembly meeting I’ve been to in a while, Mayor Dan Sullivan stood up after the Assembly voted on an amendment to an ordinance they were considering and said, “I veto that amendment.”    This post explains in excruciating detail why, after checking things out since then, I’m convinced he doesn’t have that power.   You can check my original post describing what happened that night and a follow up post with the memo the Mayor used to justify his veto.

Two basic premise of American government are in play here:
Checks and Balances
Separation of Power

Believing that Mayor Sullivan’s veto of the amendment violates both those principles, I got a copy of the memo the mayor used to justify his action and did some research. 

The Memo

The attorney's memo to the Mayor (ironically, it's not Sullivan's attorney, but his predecessor Mark Begich's attorney, Fred Boness, who wrote the memo) traces things back to a memo from Mayor George Sullivan (Dan's father) in 1975 when the City of Anchorage and  the Greater Anchorage Area Borough (GAAB) merged.  The question then Municipal Attorney Garner addressed was whether the new Municipal mayor was a strong or weak mayor.  Attorney Garner justified his claim for a strong mayor several ways including asking Charter Commission members but also citing the state statute 29 which says a mayor can veto "ordinances, resolutions, motions, and other actions." 

Then, in 200?  Municipal Attorney Boness used that to claim the Mayor had the right to veto amendments to ordinances, but only right after they were passed and before the ordinance was passed because the mayor did not have line item veto for passed ordinances except in the area of budgets and appropriations.  

I wrote my response originally in early July, but it's been held up as I tried to find a copy of the Charter of the Greater Anchorage Area Borough (GAAB).  Ultimately, I've concluded there was no charter.  None of the places I checked - UAA Archives and Alaskana collection, the State Archives in Juneau, Loussac Library's Alaska room, the Anchorage Boundary Commission, Community and Regional Affairs, Jack Roderick (former GAAB Mayor), the Anchorage Municipal Clerk's office, and a few other people and place - had any record of a GAAB Charter.  Finally, the Clerk's office could produce the ordinances of the GAAB which included a section on the Mayor's veto power which was much more limited than the State Statute originally cited. 

So, in this post I will explain why I think the attorney’s opinion that the Mayor of the Municipality has the right to veto amendments to ordinances before the ordinances are passed is wrong.  I think it fails for three different reasons which I briefly summarize here and will explain in more detail below.

Overview of the three lines of argument
1.  Using the Boness document which cites the power of the GAAB mayor as coming from Alaska Statute 29,
    a.      There’s a problem with the jump from “other actions’ to power to veto amendments
    b.     It ignores the separation of powers issues by having the mayor interfere with legislative activities before they have completed their work.

2.  The Boness memo uses the wrong sources to identify the veto power of the GAAB mayor.  The GAAB Code specifies the veto power of the GAAB mayor, which is specific and limited and does not include vetoing amendments.

3.    But both of those sources would seem to be moot because the Municipal Charter was amended in 1990 and that amendment affected the section of the Municipal Charter which outlines the Mayor’s veto power very specifically.


Details of the arguments

1.  The Boness Memo

An  earlier post included the memo from former Municipal Attorney Fred Boness to former Mayor Mark Begich.  This memo was offered by the current mayor, Dan Sullivan, as proof that he could veto an amendment to an ordinance before the ordinance itself was passed. 
As part of the documentation, Boness included a 1975 opinion from Municipal Attorney Richard Garnett III to then Mayor George Sullivan (father of current Mayor Dan Sullivan.)

Garnett says he wrote the memo because:
"A question has arisen as to the scope of the Mayor's veto power.    Some members of the Assembly have asserted that the Charter reduces the Anchorage mayor's veto power below that exercised by the mayor of the former Greater Anchorage Area Borough. For a number of reasons I believe that the Charter did not have that effect."
The Greater Anchorage Area Borough and the City of Anchorage were merged in 1975.  They became the Municipality of Anchorage.  This memo was written in 1975 to the new Municipal Mayor - George Sullivan - who had been mayor of the City, which had a weak form of mayor.

The question being addressed then was whether the Charter Commission intended to reduce the veto powers of the Mayor.  That's a far different question from the one addressed in Boness' memo to Begich - whether the mayor can veto an amendment to an ordinance.  Boness' response says the Mayor can veto an amendment, and if he only wants to veto the amendment and not the whole ordinance, he needs to do it right after it is passed, but before the ordinance is passed. (You can read his exact words in the earlier post which includes the whole opinion.)

A.  Extending the language to include vetoing amendments is an unwarranted leap that isn’t justified by logic or by common  sense

This seems like a huge leap from what Garnett wrote (in part):
The Commissioners knew that the mayor of the Greater Anchorage Area  Borough exercised a veto power  over  "any ordinances, resolutions, motions, or other actions of the Assembly" AS 29 -23.170 (a). The form of executive was the most hotly debated issue before the Commission, the "strong mayor" or "weak mayor".    All of the Commissioners, and the public, knew that the choice was essentially between the mayor as he operated in the borough and the mayor as he operated in the city. The debate frequently was couched in terms of "Jack Roderick" or the "George Sullivan" form of mayor.    It is inconceivable that the Commission would have chosen the strong mayor form, but drastically reduced the veto, the key feature of the strong mayor form, without so much as a word of intent or debate on the subject.

Three things to notice in this passage:
"exercised a veto power over 'any ordinances, resolutions, motions, or other actions of the Assembly'"  (from Alaska Statute 29 on Municipal Governments )

Strong Mayor v. Weak Mayor ("Jack Roderick" or the "George Sullivan" form of mayor
"inconceivable Commission would have chosen the strong form, but drastically reduced the veto, the key feature of the strong mayor form. . ."
1.  Extent of Veto Power - [Note, I will challenge using Title 29 to establish the Mayor’s power in the next two lines of argument, but here I will accept it for the sake of argument and outline why Boness’ argument is still questionable.]  Garnett says that the Borough mayor's veto power is over "any ordinance, resolutions, motions, or other actions of the Assembly."  This language comes from the Alaska Statues, not specifically from the Borough  Charter or ordinances.   I can see how Boness could have construed 'other actions' to include anything else the Assembly did.  Does 'other actions' mean 'all other possible actions' or does it mean 'some other actions?' It's ambiguous and could mean either.  To be sure, one has to look for other evidence.  But as I read the Boness memo, this is the only real basis for making his case.  Everything else may be relevant to Garnett's claims that the mayor's power wasn't reduced, but not to Boness' claim that it included vetoing amendments.

Garnett wasn't arguing for power to veto an amendment, only that the mayor was 'a strong mayor' and had the same veto powers of the GAAB Mayor.  

Garnett's memo goes on to argue that there was no weakening of the veto power.  From that to power to veto amendments is a giant leap.  Let’s look at the words:
1.  Ordinance - this is a completed action
2.  Resolution - this is a completed action
3.  Motions and other actions - this is more ambiguous.  One possibility was that they wanted to cover other sorts of motions, beyond ordinances and resolutions, or to avoid having the legislative body use a different name for an ordianance, perhaps a bill, an act, or an appropriation, or a proclamation. 
To say the Mayor can veto ‘any action’ by the Assembly flies in the face of common sense.  Can the Mayor veto the Assembly’s choice of Assembly Chair?  What about their choices for Assembly officials - ombudsman, attorney, etc.? 
But let’s take it further.  If the mayor can veto any action the Assembly takes, then he could veto every motion any Assembly person made and prevent the Assembly from getting anything done.  So, while I acknowledge that “other actions’ could be seen to open the door to anything, common sense shows us that could not be the case.  It would mean the Mayor could prevent the Assembly from doing anything. 
B.   It ignores the separation of powers clause that is the basis for democracy in the United States.  The President of the US cannot interfere in the legislative debate of Congress.  Governors do not interfere with the legislative debate of their legislatures.  Mayors tend to have a closer relationship to their legislative bodies - city councils or assemblies.  Some mayors are members of the council.  But Anchorage’s mayor is not.  While it is traditional for the mayor to be at Assembly meetings and to ask and answer questions, I can’t find anyone who remembers an Anchorage Mayor vetoing an amendment to an ordinance that hasn’t been passed. 
The role of the Assembly is to create legislation.  The Mayor can veto that legislation, but only after it has been passed by the Assembly.  To interpret the language as broadly as Boness did in the memo, would obliterate the separation of powers and give the Mayor the power to prevent the Assembly from doing anything.

2.   The Boness Memo Uses the Wrong Source of Power  - A

The Boness memo follows the Garnett memo of using the Alaska Title 29 as the baseline for the Mayor’s veto power.  But the GAAB Mayor’s veto power was spelled out in the GAAB Code. 

The Mayor can veto ordinances and resolutions  [Get the exact]

The GAAB mayor was a strong mayor compared to the old City’s mayor, but his veto power was spelled out in the code and it did not include the power to veto amendments to ordinances that hand’t yet been passed. 



Because it was spelled out in the ordinances, there was really no need for Garner to go to Title 29 of the Alaska Statutes.  The GAAB Ordinance was the

3.  The Boness Memo Uses the Wrong Source of Power  - B

In 1990, the voters of Anchorage approved charter amendments which included new language concerning the mayor’s veto power.  The  intent of the original charter commission at that point became moot.  The new language spells out the veto power of the mayor.  It’s clear, precise, and doesn’t include the power to veto amendments.