Wait, Ear, You Missed The Best Part . . .

The Alaska Ear is the Sunday political gossip column in the Anchorage Daily News.  It covers the more personal aspects of local politicians and other local celebrities.  Personally, I think the behind the scenes relationships - who went to school with whom, who regularly fish together, who are business partners, etc. - helps us understand the surface news.  The point shouldn't be to embarrass folks as much as to let people know things like  Politician X and Lobbyist Y were college roommates.  That sort of stuff makes it easier to understand why some bills move through the legislature and others don't.

Anyway, the Ear  today had a short piece on former Assembly member Dan Coffey's walking out miffed after he made a presentation at the Huffman-O'Malley Community Council meeting.  Coffey's had lucrative contracts* over the past year  to suggest revisions to the Mayor on the last draft of the Title 21 revisions.  This is the code for implementing the Anchorage 2020 plan that was the product of 8 or so years of massive public meetings on the future of Anchorage.  The new Code was approved by the Assembly - including Coffey - and sent to the Planning Department for minor technical changes for consistency and such things.

But then Mayor Sullivan got elected and he's given Coffey a couple of sole-source contracts to look into making the code, apparently, more builder friendly.  A coalition of groups that had been involved with the public process that created the Code has gotten organized.  (I got invited, as a blogger, to a couple of their meetings.) They argue that Title 21 has already been through lots of compromises with the building interests and now Coffey has spent a year talking with people at BOMA** (Building Owners and Managers Association) about how they'd like the Code to be changed after it was basically approved.   Not in open meetings where others could hear and challengel inaccuracies. Like you negotiate  to buy a house and after you're done, the realtor goes back to the seller and makes more changes behind your back.

The Coalition - loosely grouped around the call to "Free Title 21" - has been asking to see Coffey's new draft, but has been regularly told it wasn't going to be available until October when it is heard at Planning and Zoning.  They're upset they'll only have two weeks to go through hundreds of pages trying to figure out where Coffey made changes.

So, Ear writes:

During the Q&A session that followed, according to people who were there, local resident and former Planning and Zoning Commissioner John Weddleton*** told the group that Coffey's presentation was "one extreme view" with "many inaccuracies." Earwigs report a clearly irritated Coffey replied that if people wanted to know what was in the plan, they could get a copy and read it themselves, then stalked out. [2nd emphasis added.]

Hmmm. Dan, who was often the smartest man in the room on Assembly night, could always dish it out but can't always take it.

Wait Ear, you missed the best part.  The real issue is that so far, the public has not been able to get or see a copy of the report.  Coffey and Sullivan have refused to share it. Does this mean it's now available for public view?  Or has Ear taken liberties with the facts herself?


 
*  What I understand is the second contract (the work wasn't completed in the first contract period) for Feb - June 2011 was for $30,000.

**The Mayor gave his State of the City Address at a BOMA meeting this year.

***Weddleton has been part of the Free Title 21 efforts.

Historical Antecedents to Mayor Sullivan’s “Safe Mayor” Ordinance

Anchorage's Mayor Sullivan proposed a "Safe Sidewalk" ordinance, but I think it's more aptly titled a "Safe Mayor" ordinance.  It appears to be aimed at stopping one man from protesting the Mayor's anti-homeless crusade. [Looks like it didn't pass for now.]

 First he cleared out the homeless camps in the greenbelts.  More recently he’s asked the Assembly to pass a law banning sitting or lying on the sidewalk downtown, very clearly in response to a homeless man who has been doing that in protest of the Mayor.  He called it, I believe, “Safe Sidewalks” ordinance.  I'm calling it the Safe Mayor ordinance.

Kingsolver tells us of another time when the poor - veterans of WW I who hadn’t gotten their war bonus - sat in protest in Washington DC.  Sullivan, when asked if he would meet with the protester,  said something like, “No.  If this guy wants to talk to me, he can clean up and dress decent and make an appointment like everyone else.”

Knowing history helps put today into context.  While technology has changed greatly, individual human behavior hasn’t.  I’m reading Barbara Kingsolver’s The Lacuna while we’re here in Cordova.   Much of it takes place in the 1930s, in Mexico and the US.  She weaves in the current history of the day.  The incident below brings to mind Mayor Sullivan’s recent crusdade against the poor in Anchorage.  But there’s more that resonates with today.  Depression.  Congress turning down bills to help the poor.  It’s all happened before.

My posts are more complicated than some people think they should be.  I make them so, because life is complicated.  Things need to be put into context.  And what I write has much less context than they need, but more than one usually gets in mainstream media.  So bear with me here as I put this in context.  And note, by some coincidence, part of the events take place on July 28, 1932 and the date of this post is July 28, 2011.  Given the number of google hits with, “If I were born in 1908, how old would I be today?” I know that not everyone who gets to this blog can figure out that (1932) was 80 years ago.  That’s just a lucky bonus.

The main character of The Lacuna is Harrison Shephard, the son of an American bureaucrat and a Mexican mother, who returned to Mexico with Harrison when he was very young.  He’s now 15 and Mom’s sent him back to his dad to go to school in Washington DC.  It’s 1932.

Kingsolver throws in lots of little details, but they all seem to be there for a reason.  They set us up for little comments later in the story.  Here’s one that’s relevant to the quotes later.

[p. 86]“President Hoover is the greatest man ever lived,”  [Father] said, overly loud.  People looked.  “They’ve just had a telephone put in on his desk, for calling his chief of staff.  He can get MacArthur quick as snapping his fingers.  You think your president of Mexico has a telephone on his desk?”

  Mexico will be held as a grudge, then.  Probably for reasons to do with Mother.  Ortíz Rubio [President of Mexico] does have a telephone;  the newspapers say he can’t make a move without ringing up Calles first, at this house on the Street of Forty Thieves in Cuernavaca.  But Father didn’t want to hear about that.  People ask without wanting to know. . . [Yes, this kid is wise beyond his years.]

[pp. 96-7] May 5, [1932]

“A woman in a headscarf held up a naked baby toward our trolley.  The baby waved its arms.  A hobo jungle is unlike other jungles, where monkeys howl through the leafy air.  “What do they all want?”

“What does anybhody want?  Something for nothing acourse.” . . .

“But why so many of them?  And all the flags?”

“They’re war vetarans.  Or so they say, because vets are entitled to a soldier’s bonus .  they want their bonus.”  

Ragged men stood at military attention every few meters, like fence posts all along the edge of the camp facing the street.  Veteran soldiers, you could tell it from the placment of feet and shoulders.  But their eyes searched the passing trolley with a terrifying hunger.  “They’ve been here all week?  What do the families live on?”

“Shoe leather soup, I’d say.”
“Those men fought in France, with mustard gas and everything?”
Father Nodded. . .
So, can’t they get their money now, if they fought in the war?”
“I’d have  been there too in the Argonne,:  he said suddenly turning pinkish, “if I could have been.  Did your mother tell you I wouldn’t fight in the war?”
A subject to steer around.  “What’s the soldier’s bonus suppsed to be?”
Surprisingly, Father knew the answer:  $500 a man.  He is a bean counter for the government.  Five hundred bucks for risking a life in the war, so they could begin a new one here.  Congress turned them down, decided to pay out the bonus later when these men are old.  So they’ve come here from everywhere, wishing to take the matter up with the president.

“Does Mr. Hoover mean to meet with them?”

“Not on our life.  If they want to talk to him, they better use the telephone.”

McArthur’s troops are out with tanks, but Patton’s cavalry men on horseback get through the blocked streets easier.

[p. 106]
July 28, 1932“Between the stone wall and the crush of shoulders, it was hard to breath.  Over the sea of heads and hats you could catch sight of cavalrymen leaning down from the waist, on their horses, flailing their saber blades against whatever was below them.


  Against people.  That hit with a shock.  They were beating at the Bonus Army men and women with razor-sharp blades of sabers.”

[p. 107]July 29
It’s all in the newspapers today. . .
Gallinger Hospital filled to overflowing with the casualities. Any Bonus Marchers who made it to the Eleventh Street bridge joined the ones at the reiverbank encampment.  Mr. Hoover sent orders for troops to stop at the bridge, but MacArthur “couldn’t be bothered with new orders” so he mounted machine guns on the bridge and led a column of infantry across the Potomac into the encampment.  They set flaming torches to the canvas and pasteboard homes.  Exactly as Cortés said it:  Much grieved to burn up the people, but since it was still more grievous to them, he determined to do it.  [Remember, Harrison grew up in Mexico and he’d been reading about Cortés’ conquering the Aztecs.]

The late extra:  After sunset yesterday the flames in the Anacostia encampment rose fifty feet in the air and spread to the surrounding woods.  Six companies of firemen were required to defend adjacent property.  The president observed from the White House windows an unusual glow in the eastern sky, and conceded MacAruther was right to proceed with the routing.  In his opinion the Bonus Army consists of Communists and persons with criminal records.

Oh, yes,  One more Hoover telephone comment.  A joke this time:

President Hoover asked the treasury secretary for a nickel to telephone a friend.
Secretary Mellon said, "Here's a dime.  Call both of them."

We’re off to Childs Glacier for a couple of nights and, I assume, out of contact with the world.  I'll post one more ahead for tomorrow.

Attorney to Mayor: You Have Power To Veto Amendments

At the Assembly meeting Tuesday night, Mayor Sullivan vetoed an amendment to a proposed ordinance that had just passed.  I wrote about it with amazement and questioned, particularly, how that fit with separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches.  The attorney at the meeting representing the mayor said there was an interpretation finding the mayor had this power.  The assembly's attorney thought he did not, and also mentioned separation problems and the need for a written statement explaining the veto.  The Municipal Clerk had also mentioned the written memo requirement in the Charter. 

Yesterday I called the mayor's office and was forwarded to Legal.  This morning Legal called back and asked for more information about what I was looking for.  Soon they called back and said they couldn't find anything from Municipal Attorney Wheeler to Mayor Sullivan on the veto.

But, they had a 2006 memo from  earlier Municipal Attorney Boness to Mayor Mark Begich on veto power.  It's a 28 page memo.  I've embedded the full document further down in this post.  But as you can see from the synopsis at the beginning of the memo, Attorney Boness clearly believed that the mayor has the power to do exactly what Mayor Sullivan did on Tuesday night.

Memo Synopsis

"QUESTION: You have requested I provide you with a general discussion of the veto authority of the mayor, and to specifically address whether you may veto a motion approved by the Assembly which amends a proposed ordinance.    If you have the authority to veto a motion, you have asked me to indicate when the veto must be presented to the Assembly.

BRIEF ANSWER:    Subject to the following Background and Discussion, my Brief Answer is the mayor has broad general veto power. The mayor may veto an amendment to a proposed ordinance. The timing of the veto is dependent upon the goal to be achieved by the amendment. Assuming your goal is to prevent an amendment from becoming part of the ordinance under consideration but not to prevent the ordinance itself from being further considered by the Assembly, the veto should be made immediately after the Assembly votes to approve the amendment and before the Assembly considers the proposed ordinance."

The memo cites earlier memos interpreting the Charter Commission's intent when it gave the Municipality the 'strong mayor' form of government that the Greater Anchorage Area Borough had.  (The Borough merged with the City of Anchorage to become the Municipality of Anchorage in 1975.)

The Municipal Charter, Section 5.02 c says:

The mayor has the veto power. The mayor also has line item veto power. The mayor may, by veto, strike or reduce items in a budget or appropriation measure. The veto must be exercised and submitted to the assembly with a written explanation within seven days of passage of the ordinance affected. The assembly, by two-thirds majority vote of the total membership, may override a veto any time within 21 days after its exercise.

Anchorage Mayor Veto Power Opinion - Boness 06-011



I've tried to find other examples of executives being able to veto an amendment before the main motion was even passed.  The closest I came to was this 2008 discussion of Illinois' "amendatory veto" from Eric Zorn in the Chicago Tribune:

You have questions about Gov. Rod Blagojevich's big surprise last week. And I have answers.
Q: Is the proposal to make public transportation free for senior citizens a separate bill suddenly submitted to the legislature?
A: No. Without warning, Blagojevich simply tacked it onto the transit-bailout bill that lawmakers sent to his desk Thursday. Then he sent that bill back to the General Assembly saying, in effect, I'm vetoing your plan unless you also approve my idea.
Q: What makes him think he can do that?
A: A passage in Article IV of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 allows a governor to make "specific recommendations for change" to any piece of legislation, then send it back to be OK'd. The informal name for this is an amendatory veto.
Q: Can the legislators reject such changes and pass a bill in its previous form?
A: They can. But they need a  three-fifths vote in both houses to do so. To accept the changes, however, they need only a majority vote.
Q: Do all U.S. governors hold such a mighty club?

A: No. Illinois is one of seven states where the governor has amendatory veto powers, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Q: Whose idea was that?
A: "It was mine, I'm almost embarrassed to say," said former  state Comptroller Dawn Clark Netsch, now a Northwestern University law professor. She was a delegate to the 1969-70 Constitutional Convention and wrote the proposal that advanced the amendatory veto.
Q: What was she thinking?
A: That it was an efficient way for the governor and part-time legislators to tweak bills as needed and speed them along. "A governor can use the power with discretion and in appropriate circumstances and not abuse it," Netsch said, and then she laughed merrily.
Q: What's so funny?
A: History has been unkind to this optimistic notion, as Netsch came to realize. Illinois governors have been making mischief with amendatory vetoes since 1971, when Richard  Ogilvie totally rewrote three bills and sent them back to the legislature.
Q: Did he get away with it?
A: No. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that "the substitution of complete new bills ... is not authorized by the constitution." In the most recent related case, in 1980, the state high court added the view that amendatory vetoes can't "change the fundamental purpose of the legislation, nor make substantial or expansive changes in the legislation."

If readers know of other jurisdictions where the executive can veto legislation in the middle of the legislative process rather than after legislation is passed, please comment below or send me an email.

Regarding Tuesday night, the mayor did have an opinion saying he had the power to veto amendments.  The opinion wasn't from his own attorney, but from now Sen. Begich's attorney.  An opinion is an opinion.  It's not law until it is challenged in court and upheld. 

I find the logic and documentation used to link this power through the charter to the powers of the Greater Anchorage Area Borough's powers persuasive.  Though I would like to hear some attorneys' comments, especially how it relates to the separation of powers between the legislature and the executive. 

I called  now Sen. Begich's office to ask whether then Mayor Begich had ever used this form of veto.  While they couldn't recall it and were pretty sure he hadn't, they said they didn't have access to the records to check.  Municipal Clerk Barbara Gruenstein checked the records and said that Mayor Begich had only vetoed one ordinance.  He never used the power to veto an amendment which his attorney said in this memo he had. 

By the way, the Clerk said the Mayor did write out an explanation of his veto at the meeting. 

Mayor Doesn't Need Citizens Advising Him - Whacking Boards and Commissions

[Warning:  I'm afraid some snark has slipped into this.  My wife isn't here to check this over before tonight's meeting.]

The Dan Sullivan administration has a proposal before the Assembly tonight to put sunset clauses on many boards and commissions and to abolish a few.  These aren't "let's review these every now and then to be sure they're still needed" sunset clauses.  Some would end this October.  Some next October.  Some in 2013. 

Sunset clauses are a good thing.  Agencies as well as boards and commissions should be reviewed periodically to be sure they still are needed.  But the mayor's limits means people appointed to a board could sometimes have longer terms than the board.   This seems less like oversight than an attempt to kill off as many boards as possible.  A whole list of boards are scheduled to be whacked UNLESS otherwise renewed.   This looks like an attempt at wholesale board and commission slaughter. 

It would be nice to see the study the mayor's office did and the criteria they used to determine which boards to keep and which to whack.  And to know the people they consulted for history and context.  Surely, they have such a study before making a wholesale attack on citizen participation.  His father did a pretty extensive study through the Anchorage Urban Observatory back in the late 1970s to determine how well the different boards and commissions functioned. 




Why have these bodies?

Boards and Commissions have two main statutory functions:

1.   Give advice to officials about particular programs.
2.   Make decisions about about specific issues, such as zoning variances or ethical violations.

During the Knowles administration, after another study, the ordinance was changed to make the titles reflect the function.  Boards made decisions and Commissions gave advice.  This no longer seems to have been followed consistently. 


There are a number of benefits such boards and commissions serve.

1.  Many perspectives weigh in.  They allow an easy and inexpensive way to have a variety of voices heard on issues.  Members add valuable perspectives that Muni employees might never consider otherwise, or not until they've implemented a program that causes serious complaints.

2.  Board Members educated on policy.  It's a way to get everyday citizens to be much more aware of what is happening in Muni departments, communicate that to their constituents, and bring back valuable feedback.

3.  Problems avoided in the planning stage rather than implementation stage.

4.  Other beneficial side-effects

• The more information people have on an issue, the more they are able to understand the complexities and tradeoffs necessary in most programs.  
• Having people of diverse backgrounds - politically, economically, socially, ethnically - sitting together on a regular basis to hear about a program their interested in, means that they have time
•  to get to know and respect each other,
• understand the interests affected by the programs, and 
• when issues arise, they are much better equipped to find solutions that meet the needs of more than one interest group.  
• They can also reassure their constituency that the 'other guys' aren't out to screw them over.  Or, if they are, they can alert them early.  

Good public officials, who believe in serving the whole community, encourage a wide variety of citizen input, because they recognize that the community is made up of lots of different types of people. 

The Mayor doesn't simply represent one political ideology.  The mayor represents everyone.  Boards and commissions are a good way to get that wide spectrum of Anchorage interests participating in mutually supportive environments to iron out wrinkles in the early stages, rather than in combative, expensive, divisive win/lose battles. 

People who come into office determined to change things to suit their ideology or other guiding principles tend to have little patience for public participation.  It's messy and takes longer to make decisions.  And they may not get their way.  But if you can't get people to buy in, the battles will continue and things will get uglier. 


The original proposal called for sunset clauses:

A.  All boards and commissions established under this title, except for those mandated by the Charter or state law, or where specifically set forth in the board or commission enabling ordinance below, shall terminate by operation of law every three years from the date set forth therein unless affirmatively continued by the Assembly by ordinance.
 

B.  All new boards and commissions shall sunset within three (3) years of creation and shall be subject to the provisions of this section.

C.    Prior to continuation or reestablishment of any board or
commission, the Assembly shall hold a public hearing.

But the latest proposal - apparently from Assembly members Ossiander and Piper - whacks C.  The Assembly apparently wouldn't have to hold a hearing before the board vanishes into the sunset.  I'm guessing that's what this means, not sure.

Another sign that this is an attempt to whack the boards?  They have very specific, one time dates for termination.  They aren't to be reviewed, say, every five or ten years.  No, there's a specific death date.  And then what?  After that date, will a new date be added?  Will the ordinance be changed for each board every two or three years until they finally get rid of the commission? 

The Library Advisory Board's death penalty is set for  October 14, 2012.
The Health and Human Services Advisory board's is also October 14, 2012.
(Both of these were originally scheduled to go on the block in 2011)


The Mt. View Community Recreation Center Advisory Commission - ZAP - October 14, 2011.  After that, we don't need community folks helping out. 


Transit Advisory Board?  October 2012.  Since all the Mayor's staff ride the bus to work, they don't need others to tell them how to do things. 

Senior Citizens Advisory Commission?  Also October 2012.  Does the mayor know that us old folks vote?

Fortunately, the Sister Cities Commission is exempt from the Sunset clause.  Clearly this is more important that local public transportation and senior citizens.


Arts Advisory Commission?  October 2012 (moved up in the last draft from 2013) 


The Public Facilities Advisory Commission is simply whacked in the new ordinance.  No sunset here.  It's possible that some commissions don't have a continuing need.  I don't really know about this one.


You get the idea. 

Assembly member Flynn has some amendments to offer.    And to require the Assembly be noticed at least 90 days before a board or commission is sunsetted.  He wants to eliminate the sunset clause for some of the commissions.  Specifically he wants to make the following permanent:

1. Urban Design Commission
2. Library Advisory Board
3. Parks and Rec Service Area Commission
4. Public Transit Commission
5. Heritage Land Bank

All the links come from the Assembly website.  The meeting is tonight at the Anchorage Assembly.

Making Policy Behind Closed Doors - Port and Planning

KSKA had a report on the Mayor's State of the City speech and developments with Title 21 at the Building Operators and Managers Association luncheon last week and today's ADN has a story on the Port Authority.  The common factor - as I see it - is that both represent policy development by the Mayor behind closed doors.

The Port 

Lisa Demer at the Anchorage Daily News writes, 

Mayor Dan Sullivan, trying to find a solution to the troubled Port of Anchorage expansion project, brought shippers, government officials, and other interested parties to a closed-door port summit Tuesday at City Hall.
"This is a project that's too big to fail, too important to fail," Sullivan said.
City officials said ahead of time that the meeting was closed to the public so that parties could speak freely. The mayor said restricting access would also allow proprietary business information to be discussed.   (emphasis added)

Title 21

This one's a little more complicated.  The Municipality of Anchorage went through a long, eight year process to develop a long term plan for city development including changes to Title 21 - the Muni's land use planning code.  A local citizens group - Anchorage Community Council has a timeline of the process (from their point of view, of course):

• The Title 21 Rewrite Project was started in 2002 to implement the city’s adopted comprehensive plans.
• There have been five drafts, each of which has been reviewed by the public. Thousands of staff hours and volunteer hours have gone into reviewing
  and amending the various drafts.  The extensive public process has been open to anyone who desired to participate.
• There have been multiple public hearings at the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Assembly. 
• With each draft, input from the public, including the development community, has led to changes and improvements.
•  By the summer of 2010, all but one of the fourteen chapters had been provisionally adopted by the Assembly. (Not counting the separate Chugiak-Eagle River chapter.)
• “Provisionally Adopted” means that the Assembly Title 21 Committee had thoroughly reviewed, discussed, and frequently amended at least two different drafts of the code, and the final draft was found to be generally acceptable by the Assembly. 
• Dan Coffey was a member of the Assembly’s Title 21 committee and he voted FOR every single provisionally adopted chapter.

But then,

• On July 25, 2010, the Mayor entered into a sole-source contract with Mr. Coffey (who was no longer on the Assembly) to review the provisionally adopted chapters with an assignment to select the top ten most controversial issues in the rewrite and work with interest groups and municipal staff to resolve the identified issues.  In a political letter in late 2010 urging support for certain Assembly candidates, Mr. Coffey wrote that the mayor asked him to “re-work” Title 21.
• In the Fall of 2010, Mr. Coffey held private meetings (planning staff was not allowed to attend and they were closed to the public) with various interest groups.  Instead of identifying and working on the top ten issues, Mr. Coffey submitted to the Planning Department redlined drafts of chapters 1 and 2 of the rewrite. [emphasis added]
• At a meeting with Anchorage Citizens Coalition representatives in November of 2010, Mr. Coffey showed redlined drafts of chapters 1 and 2 of the rewrite.  He made it clear he is rewriting the code following his own personal opinions and biases.  He expressed disdain for planners and discounted studies that did not fit his opinions.
• In November 2010, the Assembly Title 21 Committee stopped meeting after Mr. Coffey convinced the chair to discontinue the meetings until he finished his work.

When are closed door meetings justified?

There is always a tension between transparency and confidentiality/privacy.  The federal Freedom of Information statute identifies specific exemptions.  The basic exemptions listed are there to protect information, which if made public, could compromise

• National Security
• Personal Privacy
• Trade Secrets
• Criminal Investigations and Litigation and 
• Physical Safety

The list has more specific items, but they tend to fall in these categories.  You can see the detailed list here.


A less legitimate reason for closed door meetings is to get things done without tipping off people who might object.  

The mayor listed two reasons for the port discussions being closed: 

1. parties could speak freely.  
2. allow proprietary business information to be discussed.

Yes, it's easier to say what you're really thinking in private where others can't hear you.  But people with opposing views don't get the chance to hear what you're saying and rebut it if necessary. 

There are situations where one might talk about underlying issues and personalities that people wouldn't say in public, but ultimately, I personally feel the danger of too much being hidden is greater than of too much being public.  As much as we've heard, for instance, about the danger of the wikileaks, so far the main fallout we've heard about is embarrassment and attitude realignment based on the new public understandings - such as the Arab support against Iran's nuclear projects. 

Proprietary business information is a legitimate reason for going into a closed session.  Companies do not want their competitors knowing their costs and plans.  But who is in on these discussions? 

Just one of the companies involved?  Then are enough voices at the table?  If more than one, how do they deal with one of them disclosing proprietary information?  It is, after all, the competitors, not the general public they are concerned about here. 

In any case, if there is proprietary information being disclosed, they can do what the Alaska Redistricting Board did when they talked about litigation - go into temporary executive session.  There's no reason to close the whole discussion to public observation. 

Unless they don't want the public to know what's going on.  It's much easier if no one is privy to what you're doing, because they don't ask pesky questions and point out inconsistencies or inaccuracies.  But it doesn't make for good long-term public policy. 


What the Anchorage Citizens' Coalition is saying is that after the whole process was essentially completed, and all parties had a chance to say their piece, and a great deal of negotiating and compromising had been done,  BOMA (Building Operators and Managers Association) gets to  step into the process and work privately with Coffey to make suggested changes that they would like to see. 

Not in open meetings like everyone else during long and exhaustive public process, but in private meetings. out of the spotlight, where people can't hear what is said and challenge inaccuracies. 

Yes, it will still go to the Assembly for final approval, but will the original, provisionally approved document be the starting point and will the Assembly vote on each of the newly proposed changes? 

Or will they be offered Coffey's changed document as the starting point?  And how much time will Assembly members have to scrutinize and discuss the changes?  And how much time will the interested members of the public who participated in the original 8 year process have to identify issues and explain them to the public and the Assembly? 

And now that the Assembly balance has changed, does any of this matter?  Has Sullivan simply waited until he got a majority of the Assembly to summarily throw out an eight year public process and substitute what the industry wants instead? 

It's hard to know whether my fears are justified because we don't know, in either the Port situation or the Title 21 situation what is being done. 

But, I'm adding the State Public Meeting statute so people can consider it themselves.  Why do we have such a policy and is it really being followed?

AS 44.62.310. Government Meetings Public.

(a) All meetings of a governmental body of a public entity of the state are open to the public except as otherwise provided by this section or another provision of law. Attendance and participation at meetings by members of the public or by members of a governmental body may be by teleconferencing. Agency materials that are to be considered at the meeting shall be made available at teleconference locations if practicable. Except when voice votes are authorized, the vote shall be conducted in such a manner that the public may know the vote of each person entitled to vote. The vote at a meeting held by teleconference shall be taken by roll call. This section does not apply to any votes required to be taken to organize a governmental body described in this subsection.

(b) If permitted subjects are to be discussed at a meeting in executive session, the meeting must first be convened as a public meeting and the question of holding an executive session to discuss matters that are listed in (c) of this section shall be determined by a majority vote of the governmental body. The motion to convene in executive session must clearly and with specificity describe the subject of the proposed executive session without defeating the purpose of addressing the subject in private. Subjects may not be considered at the executive session except those mentioned in the motion calling for the executive session unless auxiliary to the main question. Action may not be taken at an executive session, except to give direction to an attorney or labor negotiator regarding the handling of a specific legal matter or pending labor negotiations.

(c) The following subjects may be considered in an executive session:

(1) matters, the immediate knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse effect upon the finances of the public entity;

(2) subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of any person, provided the person may request a public discussion;

(3) matters which by law, municipal charter, or ordinance are required to be confidential;

(4) matters involving consideration of government records that by law are not subject to public disclosure.

(d) This section does not apply to

(1) a governmental body performing a judicial or quasi-judicial function when holding a meeting solely to make a decision in an adjudicatory proceeding;

(2) juries;

(3) parole or pardon boards;

(4) meetings of a hospital medical staff;

(5) meetings of the governmental body or any committee of a hospital when holding a meeting solely to act upon matters of professional qualifications, privileges or discipline;

(6) staff meetings or other gatherings of the employees of a public entity, including meetings of an employee group established by policy of the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska or held while acting in an advisory capacity to the Board of Regents; or

(7) meetings held for the purpose of participating in or attending a gathering of a national, state, or regional organization of which the public entity, governmental body, or member of the governmental body is a member, but only if no action is taken and no business of the governmental body is conducted at the meetings.

(e) Reasonable public notice shall be given for all meetings required to be open under this section. The notice must include the date, time, and place of the meeting and if, the meeting is by teleconference, the location of any teleconferencing facilities that will be used. Subject to posting notice of a meeting on the Alaska Online Public Notice System as required by AS 44.62.175 (a), the notice may be given using print or broadcast media. The notice shall be posted at the principal office of the public entity or, if the public entity has no principal office, at a place designated by the governmental body. The governmental body shall provide notice in a consistent fashion for all its meetings.

(f) Action taken contrary to this section is voidable. A lawsuit to void an action taken in violation of this section must be filed in superior court within 180 days after the date of the action. A member of a governmental body may not be named in an action to enforce this section in the member's personal capacity. A governmental body that violates or is alleged to have violated this section may cure the violation or alleged violation by holding another meeting in compliance with notice and other requirements of this section and conducting a substantial and public reconsideration of the matters considered at the original meeting. If the court finds that an action is void, the governmental body may discuss and act on the matter at another meeting held in compliance with this section. A court may hold that an action taken at a meeting held in violation of this section is void only if the court finds that, considering all of the circumstances, the public interest in compliance with this section outweighs the harm that would be caused to the public interest and to the public entity by voiding the action. In making this determination, the court shall consider at least the following:

(1) the expense that may be incurred by the public entity, other governmental bodies, and individuals if the action is voided;

(2) the disruption that may be caused to the affairs of the public entity, other governmental bodies, and individuals if the action is voided;

(3) the degree to which the public entity, other governmental bodies, and individuals may be exposed to additional litigation if the action is voided;

(4) the extent to which the governing body, in meetings held in compliance with this section, has previously considered the subject;

(5) the amount of time that has passed since the action was taken;

(6) the degree to which the public entity, other governmental bodies, or individuals have come to rely on the action;

(7) whether and to what extent the governmental body has, before or after the lawsuit was filed to void the action, engaged in or attempted to engage in the public reconsideration of matters originally considered in violation of this section;

(8) the degree to which violations of this section were wilful, flagrant, or obvious;

(9) the degree to which the governing body failed to adhere to the policy under AS 44.62.312 (a).

(g) Subsection (f) of this section does not apply to a governmental body that has only authority to advise or make recommendations to a public entity and has no authority to establish policies or make decisions for the public entity.

(h) In this section,

(1) "governmental body" means an assembly, council, board, commission, committee, or other similar body of a public entity with the authority to establish policies or make decisions for the public entity or with the authority to advise or make recommendations to the public entity; "governmental body" includes the members of a subcommittee or other subordinate unit of a governmental body if the subordinate unit consists of two or more members;

(2) "meeting" means a gathering of members of a governmental body when

(A) more than three members or a majority of the members, whichever is less, are present, a matter upon which the governmental body is empowered to act is considered by the members collectively, and the governmental body has the authority to establish policies or make decisions for a public entity; or

(B) the gathering is prearranged for the purpose of considering a matter upon which the governmental body is empowered to act and the governmental body has only authority to advise or make recommendations for a public entity but has no authority to establish policies or make decisions for the public entity;

(3) "public entity" means an entity of the state or of a political subdivision of the state including an agency, a board or commission, the University of Alaska, a public authority or corporation, a municipality, a school district, and other governmental units of the state or a political subdivision of the state; it does not include the court system or the legislative branch of state government.

FCC Report: Local News Decline, Blogs Democratize, But Don't Yet Fill Gap

An FCC Report, THE INFORMATION NEEDS OF COMMUNITIES:The changing media landscape in a broadband age, published a couple of days ago reports a serious decline in local news brought about by the changing news technology world.

Below I've excerpted some of their comments on blogging and bloggers.  I'll try to do more later.

But first, their key findings are outlined in their executive summary:


On close inspection, some aspects of the modern media landscape may seem surprising:

• An abundance o media outlets does not translate into an abundance of reporting
• In many communities, there are now more outlets, but less local accountability reporting.
• While digital technology has empowered people in many ways, the concurrent decline in local reporting has, in other cases, shifted power away from citizens to government and other powerful institutions, which can more often set the news agenda.
• Far from being nearly-extinct dinosaurs, the traditional media players—TV stations and newspapers—have emerged as the largest providers of local news online.
• The nonprofit media sector has become far more varied, and important, than ever beore.It now includes state public affairs networks, wikis, local news websites, organizations producing investigative reporting, and journalism schools as well as low-power FM stations,traditional public radio and TV, educational shows on satellite TV, and public access channels. Most of the players neither receive, nor seek, government funds.
• Rather than seeing themselves only as competitors, commercial and nonprofit media are now finding it increasingly useful to collaborate [emphasis added]

Recommendations:

• Our specific recommendations ollow six broad principles:
• Information required by FCC policy to be disclosed to the public should, over time, be made available online.
• Greater government transparency will enable both citizens and reporters to more effectively monitor powerful institutions and benefit from public services.
• Existing government advertising spending should be targeted more toward local media.;
• Nonprofit media need to develop more sustainable business models, especially through private donations.
• Universal broadband and an open Internet are essential prerequisites or ensuring that the new media landscape serves communities well.
• Policymakers should take historically underserved communities into account when crafting strategies and rules.

Now, here are some things they say in the first 127 pages about blogging and bloggers:

Journalism as volunteerism - a thousand points of news

Perhaps no area has been more dramatically transformed than “hyperlocal”—coverage on the neighborhood or block by block level. Even in the fattest-and-happiest days of traditional media, they could not regularly provide news on such a granular level. Professional media have been joined by a wide range of local blogs, email lists, web-sites and the proliferation of local groups on national websites like Facebook or Yahoo!

For the most part, hyperlocally-oriented websites and blogs do not operate as profitable businesses, but they do not need to. This is journalism as volunteerism - a thousand points of news. The number and variety of websites, s, and tweets contributing to the news and information landscape is truly stunning. Yet this abundance can obscure a parallel trend: the shortage of full-time reporting.

One study in Baltimore:  95% of stories based on reporting done by traditional media

For instance, the Pew case study of Baltimore revealed a profusion of media outlets. Between new media(blogs and websites) and traditional media (TV, radio, newspapers), researchers counted 53 different outlets—considerably more than existed 10 years ago. But when Pew’s researchers analyzed the content they were providing,particularly regarding the city budget and other public affairs issues, they discovered that 95 percent of the stories—including those in the new media—were based on reporting done by traditional media (mostly the Baltimore Sun).  And those sources were doing less than they had done in the past. Several other studies have had similar findings.

Decline in gathering news, increase in distribution

This is not a criticism of citizen media or web-based news aggregators and commentators. Even when they are working primarily with the reporting of others, they often add tremendous value--distributing the news through alternate channels or offering new interpretations of its meaning. But we are seeing a decline in the media with a particular strength—gathering the information—and seeing it replaced by a media that often exhibits a different set of strengths (for instance, distributing and interpreting it).

. . . some of the changes hitting newsrooms may have improved coverage.

On the other hand, some of the changes hitting newsrooms may have improved coverage. Although the  Washington Post  has fewer education reporters, long-time journalist Jay Matthews says that by blogging he has gottencloser to real-world classroom issues: “I think that on balance—and this is a very contrarian view—our educationcoverage is better in the new era than in the old, because we have more contact with readers. Blogs allow us to be incontact with readers—it creates a debate and a back and forth.” He mentions a local story he covered about teacherswho no longer return graded exams to students. Parents were upset because they could not help their children learnfrom their mistakes. Matthews said the blog version of his story received about 50 comments from readers all overthe country. “Clearly this is something teachers are doing everywhere,” he says.

As in other areas, the cutbacks in education reporting have spurred the establishment of a number of non-profits that hire seasoned journalists to cover stories that newspapers miss. Dale Mezzacappa reported on educationfor the
Philadelphia Inquirer for 20 years before going to work for the Philadelphia Public School Notebook, where she is a contributing editor. Launched as a quarterly in 1994 to cover “underserved” communities in Philadelphia, the
Notebook is now available on the web. It cannot begin to replace large daily newspapers, Mezzacappa says, but it canll in some of the gaps.

Alan Gottlieb, a former reporter for the Denver Post, launched Education News Colorado inJanuary 2008.

The website, financed by local foundations, started by focusing on school-related legislation in thestate capitol, “because nobody does that anymore,” Gottlieb says.

In just a few years, the cost of publishing went from being relatively expensive to almost free

Meanwhile, the advent of free, simple-to-use blogging software was making it possible for every American to be a publisher, reporter, and pundit. By May 2011, one of the most popular blogging platforms, WordPress, was hosting 20 million blogs.

Though only a few bloggers have audiences large enough to place them among the top 100 websites, their contribution to news and commentary online has been revolutionary. The“long tail” came into view: instead of information being provided primarily by a few large players, the ecosystem now could sup-port millions of smaller players each serving a small but targeted audience.

The democratization of content creation caught on quickly. Wikipedia and other “wikis” enabled readers to collaborate in the creation of content; YouTube allowed a full range of users—from creative geniuses to proud parents to freaks—to “broadcast” their own videos; and Facebook gained national dominance as an all-purpose platform for self-expression and communication. Millions of people became not only consumers of information but creators, curators, and distributors. Remarkably, WordPress, Twitter, Wikipedia, YouTube, and Facebook offered these publishing tools to users for free.  It is hard to overstate the significance of these changes.  In just a few years, the cost of publishing went from being relatively expensive to almost free—at least in terms of the publishing technology.

. . .a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas.”   Hardly.

The digital world continues to change by the minute.Smartphone applications, tablet apps, e-Readers, and other new services now make it easy to access news and information on-the-go, using the Internet as a pipeline but bypassing the need for a web browser to display it. As consumers increasingly gravitate to applications and services that make use of the Internet through more closed systems, such as smartphones, some even question the viability of business plans built on the current search-based,website-centric Internet.

The crop of news and information players who gained prominence on the web 2.0 landscape—bloggers,citizen journalists, and Internet entrepreneurs—was initially mocked by traditional media leaders as being inferior, worthless, and even dangerous. Famously, Jonathan Klein, then-president of CNN, declared, “Bloggers have no checks and balances. [It’s] a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas.”

Hardly. It is important to appreciate the extraordinary positive effects the new media—including those contributing while in pajamas—has had, not only in the spread of freedom around the world, but specifically in the provision of news, reporting, and civically important information.

More Diversity in Commentary and Analysis
The commentary business is far more open to new players. In the past, there were a handful of well-worn paths topundit-hood, usually requiring work as a big-time newspaper reporter or a top level government ofcial. The Inter-net allows for more newcomers. Markos Moulitsas, a former army sergeant, was a web developer when he createdthe Daily Kos, which has become the leading liberal blog. Glenn Reynolds, one of the top libertarian bloggers, is ab 2010, one of the top libertarian bloggers, is a professor at University of Tennessee. Matt Drudge was a telemarketer before he created the pioneering conservative aggregation site, the Drudge Report, and Andrew Breitbart, a leading conservative media entrepreneur, got his start in the online news world while working for Drudge.

The best web analysts have used the technology to improve the quality of their offerings. Andrew Sullivan was among the first to use the interactivity of the Internet to hone his argument in public, putting out an initial view-point and then adapting it, as new ideas or information challenged him. The best bloggers write with the knowledge that shoddy reporting or thinking will be caught in a matter of minutes.Some of these commentators perform the same function as the best news magazine and newspaper reporters: connecting dots (recognizing the links between seemingly isolated events) and ending inconsistencies in publicly available information. A handful of conservative bloggers, for instance, figured out that a key document in Dan Rather’s controversial 60 Minutes report on George W. Bush’s military service must have been fake, in part by noticing that the typeface on an ostensibly 30-year-old letter was suspiciously similar to a modern Microsoft Word font.

Cognitive Surplus

Web scholar Clay Shirky estimates that the citizens of the world have one trillion hours of free time annual-ly—what he refers to as a “cognitive surplus”—that could be devoted to shared projects and problem solving.

Technology has enabled some of this time to be spent on frivolous enterprises (“lolcats,” perhaps?), but some has been applied to civically important communal digital projects, as well. Shirky cites this example: Ory Okolloh, a blogger in Kenya, was tracking violence in the aftermath of her country’s December 2007 elections when the government imposed a news blackout. She appealed to her readers for updates on what was happening in their neighborhoods butwas quickly overwhelmed by the ood of information she received. Within 72 hours, two volunteer software engineershad designed a platform called “Ushahidi” to help her sort and map the information coming in from mobile phones and the web, so readers could see where violence was occurring and where there were peace efforts. This software has since been used “in Mexico to track electoral fraud, it’s been deployed in Washington, D.C., to track snow cleanup and most famously in Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake,” Shirky says.

In other words, the technological revolution has not merely provided a flood of cool new gizmos. It has also democratized access to the world’s vast storehouse of knowledge and news.

I'll try to get more done, but I've got other things to do today.  Hope you're all having a great weekend.

Adam Trombley's Hero is Dick Cheney, Maybe

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

Except. . .

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

House Finance Public Hearing on Governor's Oil Tax Bill HB 110 - Notes from Anchorage LIO

The meeting began at 5pm and people testified from, maybe, 5:15 until 8. My fingers are exhausted, my eyes drooping. I thought I'd try to pull out themes, but that will have to wait. I'll try the spell check and then put this up for people who'd like to know what was said. You'll see the same themes over and over again.

The pro HB 110 arguments were basically variations of this:
ACES has killed new oil development in Alaska. Without HB 110 you can be assured that the Trans Alaska Pipeline will shut down shortly and the oil money that pays for Alaska will run out and the future will be grim. Vote for HB 110 to ensure Alaska's future. Many, if not most, identified themselves as somehow connected with the oil industry.

The anti HB 110 arguments were variations of:
HB 110 is a giveaway to the richest corporations in the world. And they won't guarantee anything. You need a macro view of the world oil economy. Alaska taxes are low compared to Norway and other places plus we have a politically stable environment compared to the Middle East and Africa. This is just a shakedown by the oil companies like they do every where in the world. Keep the $2 billion a year and put it to use: building infrastructure, taking care of homeless, or financing our own oil and gas development.

My wife counted 43 for HB 110 and 37 against. (It seemed from the early questions that Rep. Stoltz was counting.)

Below are my notes from the meeting. There are lots of gaps and if you need to be 100% accurate, wait for the transcript from the Legislature. This will just give you the gist of what was said. The spelling of the names is particularly dicey since I only heard them quickly.

Public testimony repeats (continues?) Friday March 25 at 3pm.

Reps SToltz, Edgemon, Duggan, Fairclough (the whole committee was there at one point)
Sen. Giessel in audience

Anchorage:
Jerry McCutcheon: Must consider that the incentives are being given for things the oil companies are already required to do. The Tax wouldn't pass the Harvard business test. Sen. Jackson wouldn't support the gasline 30 years ago because of the impact it would have on the gas. Exxon deliberately lied to the committee and Alaska. Wound us up like toys back then. Alaskans loss almost came out in 2007 hearings AOGCC testified because the gasline was not conducted in the 1980s, had produced more oil because gasline not produced. Also testified Alaska would have been broke today if both pipelines had been constructed. We follow one ruse after another. Exxon and the other North Slope producer ... now more oil ... Exxon et al were trying to deprive Alaska and the US of billions of barrels of oil.

Inivted to send any written testimony.

Michael Jesperson: I support it and think it will put more money .

Matthew Manioni? - Been involved for 20 years. We are killing oil field jobs with ACES regime and regulations. All new dollars being spent on maintenance and repair, not new fields. I agree with experts that without more production, we'll lose the known oil reserve. Time to save Alaska from itself. For years I've been a supporter of responsible gas development. The oil companies want to work with us, but because we've been short sighted, .... Healthy oil and gas industry keeps producing a healthy Alaska.

David Gottstein: I've provided written comments Dynamic Capital mange nt capital. Aces provided . . . want to provide incentives to the oil companies. Aces provides a flexible formulaic way to tax. We want oil companies to make more money at higher prices. Devil in details. . . Also don't want to sell resources too cheaply. . . If purveyor rises prices ten percent and loses 5% of customers ahead, but if loses 15% he's behind. Hard to tell right prices from just the oil companies since they have an interest. Now Aces is too aggressive at higher levels. We don't want to do that, but we don't want to sell our resources too cheaply. Our answer thru aces is elegant. Change it from .4% progressive level rise, it could be .4 to .39. .38 etc.
Basically he's saying keep ACES but make careful adjustments within ACES.

Stick with ACES platform and study how to adjust the powerful tools you have...

Jeanine St. John: Been involved in oil and support industry for 31 years, followed every tax change over the years and consider myself pretty well versed on all these policies and I want to be clear, I fully change ACES and the Gov's HB 110.

Paul Kendall: [Got interrupted] Important that public understand - it's time - Alaska is ineffectual. You can't change that we will be taken out of the loop of affecting this. If you are ineffectual, but you have opportunity to breach both worlds and be in special place in 8 years. I'm used to looking people in the eyes when I talk. The world's seven largest auto industries to - Dougherty at ADN refused to publish it - 38 countries supplying oil to USA, they are being used to shape new world order. They surpass your ability to participate and influence. I have 20 projects before me, I don't see how you can run Alaska from Juneau. Impossible to help with 1-3 minute opportunities to talk.

Barbara Winkly: Thank you for considering public input. Speak as long time AK resident in opposition to the bill. I urge legislature to set aside any surplus funds to to fund for infrastructure maintenance. We don't need to spend money in Las Vegas to attract tourists. If we don't save our wildlife, tourists won't come anyway. Don't let Alaska become the superficial goat while oil companies make billions in profit.
Oil tax debate: need to ask if in our best interest or hoodwinked by oil companies and our governor. Other oil countries have higher taxes. Although Parnell says jobs down, but other sources say were' better than ever. Is he being loyal to his prior employer.

Bob Buch: I hope you received info Nov 2010 ADN article. I'm opposed to bill. If the answer is tax reduction, then why didn't oil companies develop when elf was in place. Why give away with no guarantee. Exploration will be status quo. They won't put in any more. Both BP and CP have made $7 billion in profits since 2007. Nothing in Constitution says we should give benefit of our resources to private corporations. Basic service would diminish if funds reduced. Now Alaska is best positioned. Giving money away with no return is not prudent.

Mike Duggan: Glad your fighting spirit not diminished.
Les Gara: Thanks Bob.

Stoltz:
Ben Moore: REsident of ER. I don't have prepared statements. I just want to be here to show my support. I see ACES as taking the shortterm money with long term hurt.


Mr. Boehmer??: Born in Ketchikan 1935, lived in anchorage for 35 years. Vote yes for HB 110.

S: Go to Fairbanks

David Delong: I do not support HB 11o. Unnecessary and excessive giveaway to oil industry. Little correlation between taxation and production. We have taxes but no political risk. Oil industry for last 30 years. Have always tried to lowball. In early 80s we were told the pipeline would be dry by mid 90s. In Gulf going thru wells for second time. Biggest impediment is the pipeline and Alyeska. We need tariff reform. Appearance of impropriety when former employee of CP is now gov and seeking tax release. Oil is finite resource and we should insure we gt max value for it.



Mark Sharp: Thank you. Who requested explicitness? Ms. Fairclough, my specialty is snarking, but I assure you I can be specific. If ever there was a proposal that deserved skepticism of public. Giveaway to states wealthiest corporations. Correlations between paybacks and reinvestment. Will take the money as is their history. World ... not political kickbacks rule investment. Parnell's APOC campaign disclosure. Amount going his way from oil companies is staggering. Citizens have right to honest negotiations and it appears the governor is sitting on the wrong side of the table. Trust Exxon Mobile? I don't think so. This isn't reform, it's a give away. Sick of watching oil money.... while economy ravaged the Gov's top priority is to raid the budget....... can't keep up with him.....

Do something, build something, another year spent in Juneau kicking the can down the road... shot to hell. Is it any wonder how little faith Alaskans have in elected officials. This bill needs to die in committee.

Lisa Herbert: Head of chamber of commerce - promote healthy economic environment, but I am concerned there will be no business to advocate for if we don't change the tax on the oil industry. Deeply concerned about economy of Alaska. With continued decline of production, same problems as last winter when pipeline shurt down. Can we dodge the next bullet. 110 gives greatest opportunity to turn things around. We can turn things around and save the state.

Tammie Wilson: Thanks for testifying.

Paul ?Metz?" In support of HB 110. Endorse comments by ED of Chamber of Commerce as board member.

?? Case: Business. Pretty scared. Significant amount of our business is related to oil business. How can we compete with Canada and North Dakota. Something is not right or the bill would never have been created. If we can get the oil companies back we can secure a good future for our children.

Jeffrey Bacon: APEA - as lifelong Alaskan proud to represent AFEA, 8000 members throughout the state. Disheartens me that our gov took valuable time this session to hurt our economy. Taking money from our state that could be invested in infrastructure and energy help - money which would help every business. Instead of vibrant community, he's taking our money and giving it to oil company shareholders.

David Wellborn: (left)

Jean Trainer: In Alaska 35 years, single parent. look at this $10billion as a giveaway. I think about all the money I saved so my daughter could go to college. If she'd come after hs and said, let me have that $40K you save and well see. Thats what the gov's bill is doing - here' take a tax break and we'll see what happens. It's evidenced by political turmoil in middle east, AK is more attractive to big players. My way of thinking is, don't create a budget shortfall by handing $ to oil executives. I'm opposed.

Buzz Otis??- Here since 1975. We're at a crossroads. Either we encourage development or keep current tax rate and discourage. Lower tax rate will cause new look at our stte. I've been a gambler on Alaska economy. My contracting business still going strong today. I see a struggling Alaska economy. Don't risk them by ringing the last dime out of aces. Pipeline at 1/3 capacity. Take the risk out of doing business in Alaska. In Rep Wilson district.

Richard Feinberg: Thank you. Will follow with documentation. Briefly: Decline in N Slope production is a historical fact, but significance of decline in this political dialog have been grossly exaggerated and current NSlope and TAPS situation widely misperceived Viable quantities of crude remain economically viable to be produced - tangible reality that benefits from existing infrastructure. Reasonable to expect, including TA{S risk, tangible quantities will be produced for an extended period. Numerous empirical indicators that ACES regime is not a problem. I have followed hearings closely. I have yet to hear substantive evidence that tax reduction will spur new development. New discoveries would be wonderful, but uncertain. The reasonable max of state revenue as produced by production tax fiscal regime is wise. Documentation will follow. I hope you will supplant rhetoric with reasoning supported by verifiable and relevant facts.

Tammie Wilson: Are you in favor or against the bill?

Feinberg: Did I not make that clear in every word? I'm very opposed.

Gerald Rafson?? - I've been involved in transportation and planning issues for 30 plus years in AK. Voice my opposition to bill. Giveaway to oil industry money that could be used for interior and bush infrastructure. What we really need than tax reform is tariff reform on the pipeline. Oil companies are greatest impediment with tariff on pipeline. They prevent competition. Legislature should ease that stranglehold on the infrastructure - much more benefit than this bill.

Richard Heieron - Chair of Chamber of Commerce 700+ businesses in Fairbanks. HB 110 top priority for Chamber. Not an expert in the field, just a small business man and obvious to me something needs to change. In past three years 3 major tax changes. It complicates business. News Miner says since 157 billion from oil, a few billion from seafood and timber. In January, piepline was shut down due to leak. within two days of a six months stoppage. All this leads me to Aesop's fable, when people speak in opposition, like dog crossing bridge with bone and sees reflection and opens mouth to get the other bone.

Lorna Shaw: Can't compete with Richard's fable. Strongly in support of 110. Only thing given away is our future. We have a natural resource economy and we need to be sure they are developed. We have to be competitive, attractive for companies to make those investment. We can't just apss around the same few dollars, as chair elect of the chamber, a miner, and parent, urge everyone to pass 110.

Stoltz: How many people in Juneau;

Mary ?Graham - 27 year resident of Alaska, recently retired and watching alot of gavel to gavel . Like the oil companies coming to us asking for allowance and maybe I'll do my chores later. Not in favor of State giving away more billions. I think money can be spent in other areas. We knew these days were coming. That's why we have the permanent fund. We knew we wouldn't be able to subsist on royalties forever. Not as dire as portrayed now. We could use money to invest in renewable sustainable resources.

Stotz: Dad, Democrat,

Barbara Huff-Tuckness - Teamsters, I do want to go on record as suporting the ???. We represent about 6000 members within the state except cruise ship and fishing. And 1000s of retired Teamsters that live in the state. Maybe 100 members still working on slope, surprisingly on Exxon. It goes without say that jobs are important to us. Thanks for opportunity to speak on this. We don't believe this is a partisan bill or union v. non-union work. Impact will affect every worker we represent or don't represent and unemployed. We commend you for your exhaustive time listening to everyone.
Clear that our development is down. Your being asked to change to ACES. We think this should be a strategic plan. We don't have the magic fix, we can relate to jobs our members have lost. NorthSlope production at historic low and you all realize the revenue it brings in. We are concerned with jobs. Need strong economic base, need to be competitive, and we need jobs. What comes out of this committee will help grow our economy and staggered economy. Quoting Begich, reverse the decline of oil. We encourage your due diligence.

Guttenberg: Would I be correct to say you support jobs?

MATSU LIO:

Loreli Carter: Greater Palmer Chamber of Commerce, we passed a resolution supporting HB 110. Tax revenue for oil and gas industry is major source of funds. TAPS at 50% below capacity.

SToltz: Miss Carter ineligible for Baord of Regents

James Crowell: I support 110. Let's become competitive again Oil company only gets one dollar from every barrel. We need to lower the tax rate. We only have one exploratory rig on the north slope. Once the pipeline is pulled out, everyone will leave. Let's become a state once more open for business.

Homer LIO:

Donna Ray Faulkner: STrongly against 110, according to Gov Office, we're seeing increase in exploration. We know the oil companies want to increase their profits. The richest companies in the history of the world want a tax break. But why is the governor supporting this? They won't leave the oil in the ground. It will only get more valuable sitting in the ground. Alaska deserves its fair share of oil value. Why gov wants to drop tax rate well below any other place is beyond me. Defeat this bill and be sure we get fair share of resource profits. Appalled Gov has proposed this rollback and wants to increase oil company profits at expense of Alaskans.

Don McNamara: Represents surfers of Alaska. 110 is poor idea. Crated by a CP lobbyist, doesn't he know who hes working for now. Look at Venezuela. If oil companies don't want to drill, we should do it. There's a huge profit there. Tax rate for ACES now 60%, in Norway 70%, and no one is shooting them in Alaska.

Amy Dombosky?? off net site: Then back to Anchroage.

Anchorage IO:

Brian Clemens: In support of HB 110. Time running short. Best option on table. Please pass 110.

Mike McGuiness: Small oil field related firm. Fully support 110. EVery one stole my material. One underlying issue is not so much the money -0 always about money - but how about the 100,000 jobs at risk if we chase the oil companies out of here. Give the oil companies within reason of what they want. Those of you opposed tellt he 110,000 employed, your selfish.

Mike Baggert: 38 years in Anchorage and oil fields. This down now is almost terminal if it continues. A lot of people won't be here, my firm included. I do support 110

Kevin Derling: South Anchorage, strongly in support of 110. 30+ resident of Alaska, company supports oil industry, military. six month downturn, had to release employees. Asked me to support 110. There are no guarantees in life except death and taxes. Can't guarantee a return. They can guarantee they will stop investing with this tax rate.

Deantha? Crockett; I do support 110. Grew up with parents in the oil industry. I hope tht keeps up for my kids BF works for Alyeska for 15 years. We have plans to live here forever. Friend now works in Bakersfield because lost his oil job. I want to see it pass and reverse the trend.

Katie Kaposy?: In support of 110: Came in 1996 military dad. Didn't expect to marry AF and taken away, but back now Looking to grow roots here. Real fear of making tht decision now. Just don't know if this is a place to buy a house. I've seen a tenth of all the documents you've seen. Overwhelmingly clear. What we have is broken. Needs to be fixed. Something needs to happen now. Don't do nothing. Hope you'll pass it. If you have to make changes, do it to relieve taxes for oil companies.

Karl Portman. Lifelong Alaska, raised in Fairbanks and UA graduate in 1977, worked on pipeline and plan to retire in Alaska. I remember Alaska before TAPS seen Alaska booms and bust. Worried about future. With pipeline now 2/3 empty and premature shut down in ten years or less. Economic Disaster. Depression beyond what hwe have ever experience. ISER study 50% of economy directly tied to oil industry. Nothing else including natural gas can replace this. Funding education, public emplyee pensions. Must improve investment climate. With high oil taxes, just not competitive. We must change that and bring companies back to the state. Trading some oil tax revenue for long term production. Strongly urge passage of 110. Thanks for opportunity to express opinion.

Jed Whittaker: I've been listening. Smartest thing said by Gottstein says, don't throw the baby out with bathwater, but if take a percentage of here or there, best thing. I want to make committee aware of global phenomenon. 2000, 6 billin people. This year there will be 7 billion people. ONe billion more who will need more energy and everything. Increased demand for commodities. Bull market. Foolish to give tax break to most profitable world companies to drill oil when they're already making huge profits. Worst testimony have gloom and doom scenario. Not the case. AK Journal of Commerce March 13. Spanish oil company has committed $768 million for exploration on NSlope. Quote CEO of Repsol: "This deal is perfect fit to balance portfolio with lower risk in stable environment." They don't have a history of buying alsaka legislators on the cheap. Bill Allen is in prison. This 2Billion giveaway is not cognizant of megatrends on the planet. Commodities will increase. Repsol didn't ask for a tax break. Our Gov. just wants to give away 2 billion. Maybe they haven't developed the historical corrupt practices of bribing Alaska legislators.

Scott ?? Also a surfer; STrongly support 110. A lot lost on public at large. Focus on profit oil companies taking out, but when it comes to making investment decision, you'll go where you gt the highest return. That's our problem today. Iagree with last person that oil prices will go up. With ACES, the higher the oil prices go, the less competitive we become to deal with ACES progressivity. We need to become mroe competitive in the world market, than other world areas that are roughly the same risk as here. Relatively low risk compared to middle east and Africa. But production prices high and you add some of the highest taxes in N America, transportation costs etc. makes us uncompetitive. Important to pass 110.

Pete STokes: Live in Rep Holmes district. Grew up in Kenai. Seen from beginning how oil has impacted our state, done wonders for it. Licensed Petroleum Engineer, started in Alaska, been all over Oklahoma Texas Indonesia. All my children are working professionals here. I urge you to pass 110 to allow Alaska competitive, but no guarantees that reduced taxes will guarantee investments, it is more likely. If remains high like they are and production will decline in higher rate. Rather than take a larger piece of this shrinking pie, we should grow the pie. Once there is no oil, no option to fund what we're doing. Except going into permanent fund and income taxes. High paying jobs because of oil industry will be gone. Lot of good jobs going to North Dakota. Not worried about myself. Ive had a good life and retire and become a snowbird and just come back in the summers. I don't want to do that. Want to stay here. Worried about my kids and their kids.

Jason Brune: Resource Development Council ED: RDC is statewide business association oil and gas, mining, tourism, fishing, Native Regional Corporations . Our mission to support strong, diversified economy. Testifying in strong support of HB 110. Testimony from Admiral Barrett [President of Alyeska]. Without change pipeline can shut down in ten years. Fair share we receive is the royalty. That was agreed to by those companies that spent 100s of millions to take the risk. Ever increasing taxes was not in the contract they signed. We are seeing fruits of our labor. Look at Nikaitchuq and Oliktok? - we need two or three of these a year. If oil shuts down, we'll see all the other industries shrink. I'd like to challenge the notion that the large capitol budgets have saved the economy. If TAPs shuts down, there will be no capital budgets.
As co-chair of Parnell's transition team - number one priority should be to deal with Alaska's taxation policy to encourage more investment.

Dugan: Jason, want to say most of the credit for the hearing in Anchorage goes to Bill Stoltz and his staff.

Kerry ???: My company is direct result of the oil industry. We have benefited from exploration and what the North Slope has become. Without the investment dollars to keep Prudhoe Bay viable. We have 14Billion state budget that will not be sustained that without oil money. If not paid for taxes, you'll have to reduce the budget. The people and infrastructure are withering on the vine. I see it on a daily basis what it takes to run TAPS at 1/3 capacity. That recent shutdown, a few more days longer it would have frozen and been shut down till spring. We can't continue on this path to get investment dollars here. We are setting ourselves for failure. I talked to Respol. They are looking at 110. Much of their investment is dependent on 110. Their decisions based on what happens. We need to do something right now. Since this has been in place, we've done nothing but decline. We had 17 before this began. They all shut down due to regulations by the feds or state. If you want to see - we're heading back to 1987 crash. I won't be here for that. I'll just go somewhere else. We employ 30 people and will have to lay off people. With $100 oil and laying off people is ridiculous.

SToltz: Kodiak

Mike Millikan: served on Assembly with Austerman and Stevens. Been in Alaska since ?? worked on the slope. I'm opposed to 110. I appreciate jobs. All of you are aware of what is happening with gas pipeline and fracking. All this money will go to lower 48 fracking. I want to point to Hawker's graph - over 65% of all world wide production comes from a state owned facility. Venezuelans come from state owned facility - they pay 10cents a gallon. Hickel was able to pressure ARCO to continue drilling at Prudhoe because state would take over if they quit. We have to have the possibility of State owned fields so we can have real negotiations.

Cordova:
???: Extensive on both sides. A lot of stuff thrown out and heat. Concern to all of us what we do and how we pay for it. I've worked in oil industry and fishing, lifelong resident. Pick up mixed signals. 22 years ago today was significant day - Exxon Valdez spill. Keep things in perspective. I'm reluctant to see this pushed and suddenly we're in doom and gloom and sky is falling. Having researched oil industry - largest entities on the planets today. Same banks and super rich hold their stocks as our finances rot. Our military supports them around the world. That's our taxes paying for them. We're stuck with oil as it is. Oil companies have been making and breaking oil countries around the world. These are the guys who wrote the maps after WWII. They hold all the cards and they know it. ACES only passed because of the light of corruption until their next pawn, Parnell arrived,
Yeah, I know its a rant. A far cry from Norway, where they have done much better than we have. I on't trust the oil companies. Force us into a corner and we're fighting each other instead of them.

Skip?? - One before us is impact of ACES may or may not have on majors and producers on slope. My opinion that ACES progressivity element is a disincentive and work needs to take place to improve the tax structure and you will modify ACES and I'm in support of 110. I have a son finishing at University and looking to go to work on North Slope.

Mark MacArthur?? - economist, own part of business in textile market, we understand business. In line for tesla motor car. I oppose it. Not good to give money to most profitbale companies on the planet. Will force our state to run a deficit budget. Rather than house bill 110. Why not champion Alaska's own oil company. We need to take more control of our resources, that's our oil they are using to make huge profits. I want to see real competition. Oil Spill in Gulf opened my eyes. Oil companies don't do anything ont heir own - contract it all out. Think how many wells we could drill with $20 billion. Great Bear and Repsol - Our gov and big oil companies want us to think we are closing down. It's a lie.

Ron ??- been here for 35 years. In opposition. Sympathetic to those fearing losing their jobs. I would support the bill if there was any evidence that passing the bill would do the things they say. There is no evidence. 18 - 20 years no relationship between taxation and production. Repsol publicly said they were going to do it because of our stable political environment. Other study says taxation either supports or is neutral. Wagoner has a bill to give them tax credits if they increase productions after not before. We have lots of other projects. There is no benefit cost ratio to support this.

Tom Lakosh - I come to bury Caesar not to praise him. Testimony establishes that it would be unconstitutional to pass 110. You must dispense resources in the public interest. There is no correlation between decreasing taxes and increase productions. Dan Sullivan told you majors told him they would not guarantee production if taxes reduced. Ridiculous and contrary to ethics of a democratic people to try to compete with cannibalistic third world despots who will swing bribery deals with oil companies. That's who you are competing with. Throughout the testimony. The one statement made by a representiative that came to the quick was Mr. Duggan's question. Did the oil majors threaten to let oil pipeline go dry if we didn't give a tax break? They already made that decicion. We've had a horrendous mismanagement of our system. They built a pipeline that turns into an 800 mile sausage. Always have problem of pipeline mismangement and corrosion. When we went through ACES we went through every company. Relied on Norway model. They created their own corporation then bought 68% of ???. Lack of capital while sitting on $39 billion of permanent fund. You have not done your due dilligence. You cannot constitutionally pass 110. Invest the money on refineries and ship product.

Merrick Peirce - Serve on board of Alaska Pipeline Port Authority?? and on Palin-Parnell transition team. Some big picture nubmers. barrels of oil today. about 65% of the value of our PF. We get to keep about $5 or $6 for us and $17 for the industry. You are being asked to give away additional billions. Constitutionally. Almost anything is alternative is better than 110. We could give everyone several hundred a year. Why not take that $2nillion a year. Like Alaska residents told you. Protects us from the extortion of the oil companies. Cleans the air, and affordable energy for military basis. Federal deficits so significant that all the bases vulnerable to closure. Finally we'd get more into the pipeline. I can't keep up with how fast he's talking. We could develop a fund to compete with the Norwegian fund which is near $500 Billion. Or we could act like sharecroppers on our own land. Why would we trust putting our money into hands of multinational corporations.

Fairbanks:

???: 41 year resident. Prof. Emeritus in Environmental and Petroleum engineering. I'm opposed to 110, but I could be convinced to support it with facts. We need jobs. But do you know how many jobs we could create with $2billion. Why $2 billion, why not $1 Billion, $O billion? Is this a one time thing? Absurd to say there are no guarantees in business. Govt. is business and these are our funds. You won't get support without guarantees. Let's amend it and establish an account and let the oil companies apply for funds to explore. Why do they need money to eplore? they know where the money is. The need to produce, not explore. If they apply for money, they need to justify their use. I'm against the proposal as it stands. Or why it has to pass because it's urtent? We've known for 30 years there would be a decline.

Cynthia Tabasco?? - mother grandmother banker and Chamber member - serious concerns about our future. Need to make Alaska competitive. What we're doing isn't working. I want my children to stay here. North Dakota has an abundance of jobs.

Butch Stein : Live in Ester since 1972. Wasn't going to testify because a lot of good testimony has been given, but you're keep track of yeas and neas, so I want to be recorded as a yea. I urge you to pass the bill out of committee.

Randy Griffin': I favor HB 110. We used to have elf, the jacked up ppt, to correct deficiencies of elf. Increase about $1billion. Then new governor, populist, they changed it with ACES partly because of Bill Allen, had nothing to do with oil industry, just a guy who hurt his head in a motorcycle accident. We've lost while North Dakota gained 20,000 jobs. I see pigs going to the trough to slop up. I'm one and in favor of maximizing what we get. Let's be smart pigs. Let's not just maximize short term slop, go for long term slop. Some people say oil companies are just using Alaska as a land bank. I worked for ARCO, just blue collar guy. My experience was they were constantly thinking how to expand and explore. Some low flow, because there is high risk. Some say we don't want to give this tax break because we don't have any guarantee. No one can guarantee. They go back to stockholders - you and I because state is invested in oil companies. I'm in favor of 110 and keep Alaska vioable.

Ken Hall: Lived in Fairbanks all my life, went to school here UAF, three kids. Part of commitment, I'm in Fairbanks Chapter of Support Alliance, and volunteer to make Alaska a better place. I've always worked in private enterprise. We do everything we can to keep things competitive and improve our position with customers. If we don't our competition does. I'm in support of 110. No one wants to give away $2billion. It will make Alaska competitive for the future. Legislature's responsibility to make it competitive. My industry had good month in March. Sold a lot of stuff to Prudhoe. Support bill.

Don Gray: Lived here 40 years, several friends some pro some con. I'm opposed. I remember pre-pipeline days, TAPS, taught history, was in private sector as financial adviser. Where the rubber meets road as far as capitalism is concerned. Hammond, I say with great respect for oil companies, Conoco only one that reports Alaska profits separately. Hammond said we have to remember who owns the oil companies here. Oil companies look out for best interest of their shareholders. Extracted maximum benefit wherever they were - in Kazakhstan or Venezuela, if had to leave, cost of doing business. Cost of
doing business in Alaska is reasonable. Some of these proposals here, read Roger Marx's and Governors, incremental cuts, using brackets, cut not a huge amount, and pretty soon it adds up to real money. A lot of these are tax policy questions beyond my expertise. You have far better experts. David Gottstein said maybe you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. ACES has lots of good features already. This would cost Alaskans lots of money with no guarantee. Oil companies go where the oil is, maximize the profits for their shareholders. I encourage you to not pass it now. Hold it for next year if you have to. Thanks

Matsu LIO

STu Graham" I'm in favor. First step we can take to increase thru put though the pipeline. That's the future of the state, not in gas pipeline. Depends on increasing TAPs throughput. We've show we could do it int he past. There is no guarantee, but we do have opportunity to open window so exploration and development companies can move forward, based on their great risk. My opposition to some of the wording. People talking bout giving away - what we owe is oil in the ground and lease that and tax. We're allowing companies to keep what they have earned. And provide tax revenue, now an excess, a political football. Discussion saying to move it into the permanent fund. they we can't use it for anything It's not our money. It's money that shareholders and oil employees rely on this. Remind that progressivity in ACES is twice what previous governor proposed. Not like were giving anything away, just trimming taxes to reasonable level. Future of Alaska is based on TAPS throughput. We have workforce in Alaska we've trained to produce ont he North Slope. Now those jobs moving to other states. We can move 110 forward.



Geoffrey Humphrey in Anchorage: Speaking in opposition. Not focused on important metrics - profits. Not right way to focus our attention to maximize benefit we see to maximize

Roger Jenkins - Good evening to committee. I am a resident of Spenard, live in Rep Doogan's district. Just read your interview int he Petroleum News. Comes as no surprise to people who know me that I'm for this bill. My earth science background says geologically we have to - geophysical targets in ANWR and off shore in Chukchi and PET4. BEaufort Sea closed violating air quality. ANWR is away from us. Each of you should find on eBay, Don Young's 74 mile pipeline to ANWR. 12 years ago both houses passed bill to open ANWR and president then said it would take ten years. Young laid it all out. Only 74 miles from drilling to terminal of pipeline. We can build a 74 mile pipeline.

SToltz: Roger was member of 14th legislature, hope I will see you at Mulcahy.
Doogan: I'd never dream of trying to tell the truth about you.

Donald Bellamy: new resident of Alaska. engineer, supporting mining and petroleum. I'm envious of people who say they are lifelong Alaskan and I want to make my life hear. Fear we will have to leave. Friend is going to Houston. Someone said 110,000 jobs and their families who will leave. I support anything that will create jobs. Not easy oil Tough to get that developed. When oil is 100 /barrel, and in other places the boom is on. What is it about Alaska that the boom is not on here? What can we do to create growth. If 110 does that I'm 100 % for it.

Chuck Becker:

Buch: Can you hear us? ARe you going to take questions? Young lady has just returned.

Deborah Berlini??: Testifying in support of 110. 35 year Alaskan a couple of kids, single and unemployed. I went to Juneau to support 110. In mid 1980s I was foreclosing on homes due to plummeting oil. I was 20 years old foreclosing 20 homes a week. One para legal, I have foreclosed on 5200 homes in five years. After I returned I researched the year Alaska crashed. I didn't realize how bad things were in 1986. The headlines which stood out: Income plunges. AHFC largest property owners. Budget cuts cut 9000 jobs. Warns of depression. Alaska dug itself out of the crash when prices went up and oil in the pipeline. I want my kids to have the same opportunities. Crying as she says to remember my children.

Chuck Becker: Distinguished members of the committee....I am supportive of 110 retired of commercial service of US this is my personal opinion. ACES is disincentive. ONe exploratory well in 2010 and only one permitted in 2011. Average monthly employment in oil jobs fell by 1000 jobs. .... Many years ago I sold pharmaceutical, I'd tell my physicians ... ACES exceeded optimal affect. Alberta too increased taxes until industry went elsewhere.

Lynette Moreno Hens: I was born in Sitka just before statehood. I'm opposed. The money given away for AGIA was Alaskan money. She wanted to please Canada and also gave away salmon. As ak native I oppose. I've driven cab in Anch for 32 years. I don't represent industry. I drive around and see homeless kids - high school, jr high, and elemntary. I look in their eyes and see they have no hope. Other kids told not pick on them. I know homelss hardships. Ex husband vietname vet, is on the streets. My three grandchildren taken by OCS. This is some of the real problems Alaska residents face. I'm starting a petition to have state sell Alaska oil at cost. Me and Javen Osie are starting this. We know Alaska has an agreement with the oil companies. NOw I see the outcome. I never saw that in this state that we'd have people so greedy who want more and more and more and that's why I'm doing this. Testimony from Kodiak Island - Mark - I know people think this is a charity. How many people give back their permanent fund money? not many. People here tired of paying the middle men - the oil reinery jacking up cost of distribution of Alaska gas. ..... fingers hurt. .. she's reading her petition to the legislature. Gasoline, since we own it, shouldn't cost more than $1.50 a gallon. They expect $5/gallon.

Yolanda Delacruz - I oppose 110. This administration who support exploration want to give away $2billion. Sarah Palin already gave away $500 million to Trans Canada. Time for legislators to work for all Alaskans. Time to stop this manipulation and control. Thank you very much.