GCI To Abandon Internet. Will ACS Follow? But Alaska.net Has Value GCI.net Doesn't Have

The Anchorage Daily News reported the other day that GCI (one of the local phone and internet companies) will end its email service by mid 2024.  

I understand that email giants like Google Mail have much glitzier email options than a local telephone company is likely to match.  But I am concerned that we will be down to just a couple of totally dominant email companies before long. 

[If you don't want to hear about ACS sluggishness and fiber optic, skip to the bottom.] 

Since I don't have a GCI account I wasn't worried.  But I do have ACS - formally the Municipality owned telephone company that went on its own and later got bought out by ATN International.  While technical help is still reasonably good when I call, trying to get information about anything else is almost impossible.  

I had much better response from the FCC in Washington DC when I complained about a rate increase that was going to be used, ACS said, "to upgrade internet speed."  Since I'm in a mid-town pocket that still gets 1 MBPS, I tried to find out if my neighborhood was planned for optical fiber.  No one could tell me.  I got answers like:

ACS: They don't show the maps.

Me:  Why not?

ACS: Because they don't want angry customers when it doesn't happen as scheduled.  

Me:  Is my neighborhood even scheduled at all?

ACS:  I can't tell you that. (I don't know.)

The FCC sent them communications saying they needed to respond in 30 days.  When they didn't, FCC said that was unusual.  Same thing after 60 days.  After 90 days someone said they'd bump up my request to someone who could do more.  Still no response.

When I called the FCC again, they said they'd gotten a response.  I said I didn't.  FCC (not ACS) sent me a copy.  I had objected to paying increased amounts to pay for upgrades if my neighborhood with the slowest service ACC has (my package was grandfathered in and they don't offer internet in my neighborhood any more) wasn't going to be upgraded.  

ACS' response was:  We are unable to upgrade service.  Of course I checked out other options, but in Anchorage we're limited.  GCI customers complain about GCI bitterly.  Aurora Broadband can't reach my neighborhood.  (Note - I'm in midtown.  Just over a mile from ACS headquarters.)

So about five weeks ago I was surprised when a young man was at my door to sign me up for ACS fiber optic.  He said it would be ready in 3-4 weeks.  Then email I then got from ACS said 9-14 weeks.  But they really are putting in fiber optic lines (they're bright orange.)  I talked to a supervisor who said he's just in charge of the outside lines (underground and by telephone pole) and someone else would be attaching it to the house.  Before the snow flies, he said.  

All that brings me around to ACS email.  Losing your email account is a pain because you have to figure out how to transfer important email somewhere else.  I suppose there must be relatively easy ways to do that.  Losing an email address called GCI.com is no big deal.

But ACS email addresses are Alaska.net.  Therewhen Alaska USA Federal Credit Union changed its name to Global Federal, the letters to the editors at the ADN were swamped with complaints.  

I'm worried that I will lose my Alaska.net email address the same way.  And I have no confidence whatsoever that ACS and its East Coast owners care one bit.  They'll follow GCI's lead and force us to find other email providers.  

They don't realize that many of us would rather have a balky email account that isn't part of a giant corporation that likely is data mining our email.  And with the Alaska.net in the name, we feel the same way that Alaska USA members felt.  

So I hope there's some local entrepreneurs ready to buy or otherwise acquire the Alaska.net email addresses should ACS decide to abandon it.  

Redistricting Board - Ups And Downs - I Try to Sum Things Up And Comment on Loose Ends

Key substantive accomplishments:

• Board adopted their revised Cantwell map - putting it back into Denali Borough as directed thy the Court.  This was easy and there was no real debate because everyone agreed. 
• Narrowed the number of plans the Board is considering from three to two.
• Option 2  remains the same - The East Anchorage Plaintiffs plan which just changes four Senate pairings
• Option 3b (I think that's the agreed on label) replaces Option 3 -The Ruedrich plan which keeps North Eagle River/Chugiak connected with JBER and Government Hill and North Anchorage and pairs South Eagle River with South Anchorage Hillside down to Girdwood.  Ruedrich offered some changes today which leave more Senate pairings that were in the original proclamation plan.

Option 1 - The Bahnke Plan - was discarded.  Presumably because it changed more than just the just those districts directly affected by fixing Senate seat K as directed by the Court, which said only to change those other districts immediately affected by the change.  

Beyond that there was a lot of tension at times and a lot of making nice trying to smooth over the tensions.  I can talk about those things - maybe in a later post - but they are more of interest regarding interpersonal relations, listening, trying to do things without acknowledging what you're trying to do - than with where the Board is now in terms of getting their job done and what that final package might look like.  

But I would like to comment on a few things:

Law School helps with logic and dealing with reality

I've called the Board's attorney, Matt Singer, out for his manner of presenting things during the Court hearings.  I want to say that he's a much nicer person when he's in his role as advisor to the Board.  Perhaps that comes from having five bosses some of whom strongly disagree with each other.  And despite my prior criticism of his courtroom manner, he won three out of the five cases against the Board in the Superior Court and the same number at the Supreme Court.  Though they weren't the same cases.  

In the last few days he's been an important voice for reason and reasonableness.  He's tactfully tried to pull the Board back from some problematic decisions.  

For example, Craig Campbell submitted a new map that created a new Senate district that wasn't contiguous, but had a solution to this.  The Board just needed to take some unpopulated census tracks and swap them from one district to another to make the new Senate seat contiguous.  

Singer calmly advised (paraphrased since I didn't catch it verbatim)

"Could Board adjust House map?  It would need a very good explanation for the Court.  Because there are other alternatives before you.  Would be a real push.  Adding Mr. Campbell’s to add non-populated census blocks, the sound of it raises question of compactness.  Making it less compact would raise eyebrows.  Not my first choice or recommendation."

He didn't use words like "absurd" but rather when he was saying no he delicately strung his words together so as not to offend.   

I would say the same for Simpson as well.  When Binkley proclaimed that he wouldn't vote to approve the Cantwell map ordered by the Supreme Court because he disagreed with the ruling, (again, an approximation of what he said:)

"We all voted in favor of the Cantwell extension, whatever, all though it was a good idea. We were trying to accommodate residents of the area, I certainly agree with you regarding the corporation boundaries.  Feel it should be a consideration, not requirement, mapping of legislative districts.  However the order of the SC is clear on this point and my vote will be in favor, rather than continue to create heat over this issue.  Should heed the court’s decision and move on."

He did this a few other times.  Is this a less partisan Simpson?  I don't think we should assume that, but he is a trained and successful attorney and he understand the rule of law and how the system works.   

[Added about midnightr:  Borromeo is also an attorney and has been generally direct and and logical.  And I don't mean to imply that you need to go to law school to get logical and understand the rule of law.  Bahnke has stayed close to the key issues and been logical in her comments and actions as well.] 

Why Were Borromeo's Conflicts Ignored During the Scheduling?

The  Court gave the Board about a two week window to work on fixing the maps.  April 1 through 15.  On the first day, member Simpson said he'd cleared his calendar and was available.  I believe member Marcum mentioned a conflict and Bahnke mentioned  she couldn't meet on Friday.  Then the Board set up dates for this week - Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday I think.  Borromeo was pushing to get things done right away.  She said it could be done in 15 minutes.  

Tuesday, new dates were proposed - Thursday, Saturday.  Then Binkley, I think, said they should finish things on Wednesday and Thursday April 13 and 14.  At this point Borromeo said she had all day meetings those days.  Simpson said he couldn't make it on Saturday, Sunday or Monday.  Someone mentioned that he'd said he cleared his calendar for two weeks.  He responded that when the schedule was set the first day, he adding activities on the off days.  Bahnke wanted to meet on Tuesday and that's when we learned that Binkley had a conflict on Tuesday.  

Several more times Borromeo mentioned she had a all day meetings on April 13 and 14.  

Eventually they worked out that they could have public testimony without all the members being there and since they were recorded, people could watch the recordings when they were free.  

But that still left a tug of war between those who wanted to finish things earlier (the B Team - see yesterday's post) and those who wanted to take their time and pointed out that the Judge didn't ask for a new plan by April 15, just a status report (The R Team).  So today there was more debate.  Borromeo wanted to finish things on Saturday and the R Team wanted to give the public and themselves more time to get up to speed.  Binkley repeated that they'll spend the time they need on the 13th and 14th.  I was thinking - but Borromeo said she had all day meetings those days.  And then she said it herself:  "Why are other people’s conflicts taken into account, but not mine?"  

Why?  Was Binkley so set on holding off until the 13th and 14th that he didn't want to hear what she said, so he didn't?  He seemed to have those dates set from early on.  Was the conflict between dealing with her request and what he'd decided too much to handle so he just ignored it?  Usually Binkley is the flexible man.  Anything can be changed at the last minute.  Let's not lock ourselves in.  Even though the Board specifically decided yesterday that the first public testimony today would be reserved for people talking about Cantwell, Binkley let three people talk about Anchorage.  He didn't politely say, "We're just doing Cantwell first" and ask them to wait.  And when someone mentioned this, he said, well they called in and I didn't want to cut them off.  So as willing as Binkley is normally to be extremely flexible - to the point that it makes the Board less efficient - in this case he was dead set on April 13 and 14.  Given the R team's consistent mantra of taking the time we need, there's not that much rush, plus the public testimony from those opposed to the Bahnke plan also saying the process should be delayed until later, I can't help but think that this is a coordinated effort.  No proof, just looking at the bits of evidence out there.  

I'm still gathering information on this issue so I'll stop here and just leave it for people to consider.  

Don't Forget Senate Rotation and Truncation

One of the issues I want to talk about is expediency vs. taking our time, because it's been an issue debated by Board members and by members of the public testifying.  I'm working on this topic, trying to get answers no one has been able to definitively give me. 

But part of this debate came up earlier, I think, when member Bahnke said she was disturbed about not meeting to make the decisions until next Wednesday and Thursday (April 13 and 14) because the court wanted an update by April 15.  She asked about whether metes and bounds would be necessary for the changed Senate seats.  Chair Binkley responded that for Senate seats that isn't necessary because they are made up of House seats which have already had their metes and bounds done. (That is creating a verbal description of the boundaries of each district.)  That is true, though today Binkley wanted to add the Craig Campbell map to the Options and it would have required changes to a House district and that would have then required metes and bounds for that newly adjusted district.  That's not going to happen because the Board rejected that idea.  

But once the new Senate seats are approved, there will need to be an assessment of whether the new Senate seats need to be truncated (probably, because all but one were truncated the first time round) and then how the new seats will fit into the Senate Rotation system. (One third of the senate must be up for election each year, so the Board has to determine which year each of the new seats will need to run in which election cycle.)  Last time round, the Board managed to do this in a way that forced Republican Senators who hadn't been strong supporters of the Governor into extra elections. I wrote about this last November 26, 2021.

So, post Senate pairings will not be quite as 'home and clear' as Chair Binkley suggested.  Though since there should only be four or so Senate seats affected, this might not take too long, but I would hope people look at this process more carefully to be sure there isn't a hidden political twist to this as there was last time.  

Concluding Remarks

As you can probably tell, the meetings have been packed with undercurrents and I could write on half a dozen or more but there isn't enough time.  And with daily meetings, more comes in each day.  

I would note an email I got as a subscriber to the Board's email announcement this evening that also summarizes what happened today and where you can find the public testimony.  I'll just copy it to the end here.  

Thursday's meeting starts at noon.  

Good evening subscribers,

The Board met today with the following key action points:

1. The Board adopted proposed revisions to House Districts 29, 30 and 36 in response to the Alaska Supreme Court's order that Cantwell should be placed with the Denali Borough. A new House district shapefile has been produced, error checked and is being utilized to craft revised metes and bounds.
2. 
   
3. The Board received substantial public testimony regarding Senate pairings in Anchorage.
4. 
   
5. The Board unanimously adopted a revised version of Senate Pairing Option 3, now labeled 3B for the purposes of public feedback and review.
6. 
   
7. The Board unanimously withdrew Senate Pairing Option 1, originally adopted for purposes of public feedback on Monday, April 4th.

The 2022 Proposals webpage has been updated with larger scale, higher resolution Senate Pairings Option maps for Option 2 and Option 3B. The original Anchorage bowl focused maps remain. All maps are click-to-enlarge.  

• https://www.akredistrict.org/2022-proposed-revisions/

The Meeting Info (Minutes & Audio) page linked from the website footer has been updated with yesterday's public testimony and audio recordings of recent meetings.

• https://www.akredistrict.org/board-audio-minutes/

Today's written testimony submissions will be compiled and delivered to board members late this evening, then redacted to protect personal contact details and posted to the Meeting Info page tomorrow as time permits.

Making Sense of Today's Redistricting Board Trial Testimony [UPDATED Formatting]

 [UPDATE Sat. Jan 29, 2022 - The numbering got messed up horribly in the original posting and I'm fixing that now.  Blogger is tricky with outlines and if you break them accidentally anywhere it screws them all up.  Peter should be #3 overall, not #5 of the new narratives. So I've also bolded the headings of each discrete point.]

I jotted down notes today about things I thought I should write about.  I do have 14 1/2 pages of single spaced typed notes, but you really don't want that, I'm sure.  So let me talk about what struck me as meaningful  from today's testimony.  

Clockwige: Judge Matthews, Peter Torkelson,
Tanner Amdur-Clark, Matt Singer

Take aways

1. While I, like others, was worried about political gerrymandering in Eagle River, I  missed the coordinated efforts to put all the Doyon and Ahtna villages into one district.  Well, I didn't totally miss it.  Doyon reps were there at most meetings, including attorney Tanner Amdur-Clark who is now the attorney for the intervenors.  
1. the text messages revealed yesterday and today - a few, I expect we'll be seeing more - reveal communications between Amdur-Clark and Nicole Borromeo over the efforts to get all Doyon and Ahtna villages together.  And another text shows coordination between Borromeo and Marna Sanford, a member of the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly, trying to get the Assembly to pass a resolution saying that because they were overpopulated (their five districts were each considerably above the 18,335 ideal district size) to get Chair John Binkley to back off on his strong attachment to the idea that Fairbanks should just absorb the the excess 4000 people over 5 districts to keep Fairbanks intact.  This also relates to the Valdez case, because by putting those 4000 people into D36, it meant that Valdez' 4000 people couldn't be in D36 where they wanted to be.  
2. Are thsee bad things?  Human beings follow two different sets of rules - human, rules of loyalty to family and community and people versus the rule of law - those rules that government sets up for us.  These often come into conflict with each other.  That's why, for example, spouses are not compelled to testify against each other in courts of law and why we have nepotism rules. When I lived in rural Thailand, the loyalty rules took precedence over the legal rules. What I realized in Thailand was that the people in my town depended on each other for many things, including helping each other plant and harvest rice.  Survival over the centuries had depended on community cooperation.  When I got to Alaska I slowly began to realize there were a lot of similarities to that sort of communal culture among Alaska Native peoples.   
3. Doyon was working openly and explaining its objectives in public meetings.  They weren't trying to get more politicians elected from any particular party.  They seem to have been trying to get the electoral districts to match how the people of Ahtna and Doyon see themselves.  
4. There were a lot of assumptions on my part about how the GOP appointed Board members seemed to be getting advice from people outside the public participation process.  Advice that wasn't reflected in the public testimony.  Particularly on how to draw lines in Anchorage and then with the Senate pairings and the allocation of staggered terms.  If there are similar text messages or emails from the Board members, we haven't seen them yet.  And while I missed this behind the scenes communications by Borromeo, it fits in with the testimony of Budd Simpson and others today who said that there was a lot of feedback from the public that wasn't on the record because it came in discussion between two Board members, say while traveling, or in conversations about the maps with the public on the tour around the state with the maps
5. Again, what Doyon was doing was what every other community and local governmental unit was doing - lobbying for what they thought was best for their people.  That's different from lobbying to impact which party dominates in the legislature.  
2. The new narratives.  At the end of the debates over the House districts, there was a lot of concern that Bethany Marcum had changed the Anchorage House districts at the last minute and created a district that put an East Anchorage neighborhood with Eagle River.  There was a great deal of surprise in the end when Budd Simpson voted in favor of the previous map that didn't have that new Muldoon-ER district,  while Marcum and Binkley no.  
1. What had happened? Why had Simpson voted against his team on the Board?  He said later that he'd been convinced by the overwhelming testimony against putting ER and Muldoon together that way.   Though he no longer felt that way when Marcum did the same thing with the Senate pairings.   
2. Today we got a new narrative about Marcum's no vote on the House plan (that passed 3-2)  Marcum’s new explanation for voting against the successful House map was that her vote was a signal to the people of the state that she knew there were issues and not everyone was happy.  She knew it was going to pass anyway, so didn't matter.   
3. Maybe that's true.  Maybe Budd Simpson had said he was going to vote yes on the map.  Or maybe Simpson surprised Binkley and Marcum the way he surprised everyone else.  Or maybe they agreed that he would vote no on the House districts, but then vote yes on a Muldoon-East Anchorage Senate pairings, which he did.  Even though the testimony from Eagle River and from East Anchorage was still overwhelmingly against the pairing.  
4. More likely in my mind, this is the new narrative to explain that first vote. Let's see what comes out in the next few days. 
3. Peter Torkelson and the Deviation Number Mistake - Torkelson has been the Board's Executive Director since December 2020, about the same time I started monitoring the Board.  From my very first contact with Torkelson  he's been very open, receptive to my suggestions for making the website easier for the public, and he's given me information and documents I've asked for.  He was always ready to help out.  He and his staff created a very helpful website and populated it with all sorts of information for the public.  Including getting the videos and audios of Board meetings up within days at most.  He's also gotten all the public testimony up very quickly.  And even though I wrote the other day, reflecting on the third party mapping teams and Stephen Colligan's testimony - and before the outside expert Kimball Brace testified - that next time the Board really needs people with more experience and expertise with GIS and mapping software, I think that Torkelson has a great sense for the tech side and did reasonably well as did the Board.  But I'd echo Chair John Binkley today when he was asked how well he thought the Board's final map was.  He said it was as good as any of the proposed maps. Maybe.  But it wasn't the best possible map that they might have achieved with a team of really skilled technicians.  
1. That said, Torkelson was grilled today about not having a degree in computer science or training in GIS before this job.  Steve Jobs and Bill Gates never finished their degrees either.  Not comparing Torkelson to them.  Just saying that people with natural aptitude and drive can achieve a lot.  And Torkelson had a rarer skill - the ability to work well with people and keep his cool under pressure.  He also has a strong public service ethic.  He wanted to make the best maps possible, knowing that ultimately he took direction from the Board. I didn't have as much contact with the Deputy Director TJ Presley, but I only had positive experiences when I did.  And Eric Sandberg, who I knew when he worked with the 2010 Board, is also a dedicated and talented tech.  
2. I also have to note that there was mention the other day, from Outside expert for Valdez, Kimball Brace, that there was a problem with the numbers on the deviation table* that was part of the Final Proclamation Plan.  He explained something about when they changed the numbers of the districts at the end, a bunch of the districts - Calista's attorney Schecter said 28 - had wrong numbers.  Today Schecter followed up on that.  He was very concerned that these numbers were up on the website and were incorrect.  This was at a time when attorneys were gathering data for their lawsuits.  He was particularly concerned that when Torkelson discovered and corrected the numbers that the site didn't say anything about the numbers being corrected.  It would have been hard for someone working with the numbers to realize that they had been changed without such notice.
3. I know how hard Torkelson worked and how dedicated he was to accuracy.  He explained to me at one point how he and (I think) Eric Sandberg had duplicated the Census data separately to make sure they had downloaded it correctly and they really had the true numbers.  (They didn't get a hard copy, they had to download from the internet and then later got the hard copy, which they then checked to be sure the original had downloaded correctly.)  So I'm sure part of Torkelson was mortified at the problem with the deviation table.  The Board's attorney Singer in redirect tried to repair some of the damage.
1. The numbers were correct in the original list on November 5 when there was a lot of clamor for them from local governments and the media.  It was only four days later, when that had died down, that the new district numbers were applied to the districts and the new deviation table made, that something happened to some of the numbers for many of the districts.
2. The numbers for the districts that Schecter's client - Calista - is interested in, were not affected.
4. It's not clear to me how the error was discovered.  Brace (Valdez' hired expert) seem to imply that he had discovered the problem when he testified the other day.  But today it sounded like Torkelson told Valdez attorney Brena in the deposition.  In which case it would seem Torkelson found the error and fixed it, but didn't widely announce it, but he did say he told the Board's attorney and assumed he would notify people if that was necessary.
1. (I would say that on this blog when I change substantive comments, I try to always make that clear.)
4. The East Anchorage plaintiffs have a race based argument that they want to add to the record that is opposed by Board’s counsel, presumably about the affect of the ER pairings.  This is just an alert.  There have been some cryptic comments about this yesterday and today.  The last court documents added to the Most Requested Cases page on their website are dated 1/20/22, so the public (including me) hasn't had access to them, so I don't know what East Anchorage attorney has asked of the judge.  I just know that the Board's attorney is strongly opposed to whatever it is.  
5. ^Bahnke pretty much tells us that SEI (Socio-Economic Integration) is in the eye of the beholder - I think I'll leave this for a post on the weekend.  But it is significant because it's one of the key criteria for whether a district is constitutional and there's been a lot of discussion based on whether key disputed districts meet that requirement.  
6. A lot of communication between the Board and the public was not on the record - Bahnke said that, Simpson said that, Torkelson said that, and we had the text message put on the record yesterday from Amdur-Clark to Borromeo and other emails.  Mostly they said there was just a lot of communication through conversations with the public and between Board members while traveling that ever got recorded.  Partly that's the tension between gathering enough information and documenting it.  For me the test is whether there were communications that were not documented or otherwise publicly acknowledged, that changed the outcome of the maps.  
7. Can you drive to Cordova from to Valdez?  This was a question that was asked of a number of witnesses today (and I think yesterday).  Everyone said no.  But I would point out that the Marine Highway goes from Cordova to Valdez and, yes, you can take your car or truck on the ferry and 'drive' to Valdez and the Richardson Highway. That's why it's called the Marine Highway.  
8. ^4000 pop exchange between Fairbanks and Valdez into 36 - This one I'll save until the weekend too. It's important to understand these cases.
9. ^Reporting and the relationships you develop with your subjects - Another point I want to save for later, but it particularly relates to someone like me reporting on a governmental body over a long period of time - long enough to develop at least a professional relationship and getting to know people as more than just a role on a Board.  It's particularly apt today because of  my comments about Peter Torkelson.  This one can probably wait until after the trial is over.
10. ^Importance of hearing the wishes of Alaska Natives and understanding the cultures relationships, and differences - another biggie that needs to wait

*The deviation table is the list of each district and how much each deviated from the ideal district size of 18335 shown in actual numbers and in percentages.  This would be used to determine if a district was over or under populated and by how much.

^I've marked those topics I'm postponing discussion on with the carat so I can find them easier and remember to expand on them.  

Statewide Redistricting Info Session Tonight at 7pm

 I haven't been getting emails from the Alaska Redistricting Board lately.  There is something not working.  I don't know if it is just my email or if others are also affected too.  I did talk to the Board's executive director and he sent me a copy of the last one.  It's at the bottom of this post.  Here's the link for tonight:

Meet the Maps:  Friday, October 15: 6:00pm – 7:00pm: ZOOM: https://zoom.us/j/2516336685?pwd=L0paaDNOM25zdjltRm4yTVdNbzZtUT09

There was a previous statewide meeting like this and the videotape of that meeting is here. It gives an overview of the maps and some of the issues that the mappers ran up against.    This is presented by Peter Torkelson, the board's executive director who knows as much as anyone about this decade's process.  

Here's the last email message sent to subscribers from the Board:

"A couple of quick updates for today:

• Public Testimony received though Saturday, October 9 has been posted on: Alaska Redistricting Board - Minutes & Audio (akredistrict.org).  I have not been able to spend a lot of time on emails so if you sent something to the “testimony” email asking a specific question and I haven’t gotten back to you, I will be getting to it soon. You can always send an email to me at this address if you have urgent questions.
• District, Regional, and Statewide map collections – all six maps in one file for each area – will now be posted on the Online Public Notice system for each community public hearing (the links are included in the information below). The statewide and regional collections are already posted on our map gallery, but I’ll also be adding those to the public notice so they’re all in one place.  I have prioritized this week’s meetings (which should be done today) and am working on getting the rest posted – all of them should be posted by the end of the week. I will also be going back and posting for the previous meetings – you can find these in the Online Public Notice system by searching for “Alaska Redistricting Board Public Hearing“ in archived notices.
  
  NOTE: The Anchorage district file is 96 maps – if you’re having trouble finding the appropriate maps for your area, it is probably easiest to use the Anchorage regionals to create a list of districts. Still having trouble? Feel free to email me your address or area of interest and I’ll pull the district files for you.
  
  

"Juli Lucky (she/her)

Staff, Alaska Redistricting Board

(907) 251-9295 cell

 

 

Upcoming Meetings and Important Dates:

Open House/Public Hearings:

October 12: Seward: 4:00pm – 6:00pm: Community Library: http://notice.alaska.gov/204034

October 13: Homer: 5:00pm – 7:00pm: Best Western Bidarka Inn: http://notice.alaska.gov/204035

October 14: Soldotna/Kenai: 5:30pm – 7:30pm: Kenai Peninsula Borough Building: Online Public Notice: http://notice.alaska.gov/204036

October 15: Kodiak: 12:00pm ‐2:00pm: Afognak Building: Online Public Notice: http://notice.alaska.gov/204037

October 18: Delta Junction: 12:00pm – 2:00pm: Community Center: Online Public Notice: http://notice.alaska.gov/204038

October 18: Fairbanks: 5:30pm ‐7:30pm: Carlson Center: http://notice.alaska.gov/204039

October 19: Bethel: 4:00pm – 6:00pm: Yupiit Piciryarait Cultural Center: http://notice.alaska.gov/204040

October 21: Dillingham: 12:00pm – 2:00pm: City Chambers: http://notice.alaska.gov/204041

October 22: Dutch Harbor: 4:00pm – 6:00pm: The Grand Aleutian: http://notice.alaska.gov/204042

October 25, Palmer: 6:00pm – 8:00pm: Assembly Chambers: http://notice.alaska.gov/204043

October 26, Wasilla: 6:00pm – 8:00pm: Menard Center: http://notice.alaska.gov/204044

October 27: Anchorage: 5:00pm – 7:00pm: The Lake Front: http://notice.alaska.gov/204045

October 28: Utqiagvik: 4:30pm ‐ 6:30pm: North Slope Borough Assembly Chambers: http://notice.alaska.gov/204046

November 1: Cordova: 4:00pm – 6:00pm: The Cordova Center: http://notice.alaska.gov/204047

 

Statewide Call-ins (will be noticed as soon as detailed schedule is finalized):

Teleconference numbers: from Anchorage 563-9085; from Juneau 586-9085; 
from anywhere else: 844-586-9085

Wednesday, October 20

Saturday, October 30

 

Meet the Maps:  Friday, October 15: 6:00pm – 7:00pm: ZOOM: https://zoom.us/j/2516336685?pwd=L0paaDNOM25zdjltRm4yTVdNbzZtUT09

 

November 10, 2021: Day 90: Adoption of Final Redistricting Plan"

 

...

Alaska Airlines Safety Dance Goes OneWorld

 When I was relatively new to Alaska, I went to a public administration meeting downtown during the annual Fur Rendezvous.  Walking from my car I passed the ice sculptures which included a large structure with a slide.  I couldn't resist.  I went up the ice steps and slid down the slide.  And went on to the meeting.

Sometime later, one of my graduate students, a women older than I, told me that she had seen me go down the ice slide and that was the moment that she knew I was okay.  

Later I read an article about how Japanese CEOs participate in all day company retreats and join in some activities in which they aren't particularly skilled - maybe karaoke or basketball - and that showing their clumsier selves in front of all their employees is a way to humanize them and connect them with the people they work with.  

Those were my thoughts as I watched Alaska Airlines' video welcoming them to OneWorld - an alliance of, now 14, airlines around the world.  I understand the importance of OneWorld membership because when we went to Argentina a couple of years ago, LATAM airlines told me "if you are a OneWorld member" you can get much better prices and services.  

The video starts with Alaska Airlines' president and then he gets welcomed by the heads of the various airlines in the group.  Then at the end they do the Alaska Airlines safety dance, an adaptation of the Virgin Airlines safety video Alaska acquired when they bought Virgin Airlines.  (The Virgin one is worth looking at - an example of how imagination can take a boring safety announcement and make it riveting.)

So below is the second part of Alaska's new OneWorld welcome video - the part that involves a variation on the safety dance, including the CEOs of the various member airlines.  [I'll have to wait until it's actually posted to be sure it starts at the dance.  If not, the dance starts at about 3:16]

Sure, it's a PR video, but with a spirit that takes off the corporate suits and gets seriously playful

Alaska Airlines' Virgin Influences Show Up In COVID Safety Dance Video

 Virgin Airlines was bought by Alaska Airlines.  Virgin had created a safety instruction video that played before all their flights with an elaborate routine of dancing flight attendants (see video at end of post).  And apparently there are vestiges of Virgin still left in the combined airlines. 

I still can wait to get on an airplane until after I've been vaccinated.  

For those who never had the chance to fly on Virgin, below is one of their safety videos.  Well worth watching to see how to take a boring routine and make it entertainment. 

Dissemination of Info: ISER Talk; SD Library Shutting Down Depository; The Library Book And Libraries

Here are three connected short discussions.

1.  ISER Discussion on Red Dog Mine One Week From Tomorrow.

Long-Term Benefits to Communities of Extractive Industry Partnerships: Evaluating the Red Dog Mine

Matthew Berman, Bob Loeffler, and Jennifer Schmidt
Mining and oil and gas companies developing resources on land historically occupied and used by Indigenous peoples have faced criticism for offering few benefits to local communities while inflicting environmental damage. The Red Dog Mine -- a joint venture between Teck Resources, Inc. and the NANA Regional Corporation -- has often been cited as a counter-example for developing extractive industries in a way that benefits Indigenous communities. Although the mine has unquestionably brought significant financial benefits to the area, questions persist about its long-term benefits to local communities. We report on a study that assessed the long-term benefits of the Red Dog mine based on findings from a unique 14-year panel dataset. The analysis addressed the following set of questions: what percentage of the mine workers live within the region, and what percentage of the total payroll do local workers receive? How long do most local residents hired to work at the mine keep these jobs, and how does landing a job at Red Dog affect workers' mobility and long-run earnings? The findings illustrate the strengths and limitations of industry partnerships in rural Alaska, and offer insights relevant to communities across the arctic and around the world. When: Friday, March 6, 12pm - 1pm
Where: ISER Conference Room,
Third Floor, 1901 Bragaw Street, Suite 301
Note: This will not be streamed or recorded

2.  Online v Hardcopy Documents

Here's an LA Times headline today:

 "Library to end U.S. document duty
San Diego library says its depository role is unneeded when most docs are online."

I understand the librarian's concern for space.  I'm concerned though, that if these documents are only available online from the Government Printing Office, then documents can disappear.  Documents can be edited and even changed.

Given that Dr. Fauci was told he had to clear all his public announcements through the White House today, I think you get my drift.  Given all the documents the House subpoenaed but never got, you get my concern.

I first started thinking about this when I saw that the online Anchorage Daily News didn't match the print version.  That edits were made after publication and the reader couldn't tell what was changed. (It would just say, "Updated dd/mm/yy")


3.  Libraries As Depicted In Susan Orlean's A Library Book 

The genesis for this book was the 1986 fire that destroyed hundreds of thousands of books in the Los Fahrenheit 451 (which is the temperature when paper ignites).  She also discusses the wonderful memories she has of going to the library with her mother as a child, but that the internet cut her off from libraries until she rediscovered them with her son.  It's an important book.
Angeles Central Library.  But it is much, much more than that.  It's an homage to libraries and their role in maintaining culture.  It's a hands on look at what happens behind the scene at LA's central library.  It's a look at the burning of books (she even forces herself to burn one to experience it herself.)  There are details of the heat of the fire.  But also the tradition of book burning and library fires around the world - some accidental, many intentional.  She looks at how many and which libraries were burned by the Nazis in WW II and how many by Allied bombing.  She talks about people for whom the LA library was important, like Ray Bradbury, who read books there voraciously in lieu of going to college, and eventually wrote

So, given all the fires, libraries alone can't protect the government archives, but especially now, we should be preserving government reports in hard copy all around the country so that online versions can be checked for omissions and changes.


All three posts are about information dissemination about important topics.  Whether a University's research unit, a library's holdings of government documents, and the cultural and historical significance of libraries.

LA Times Headlines Help Promote Partisan Divide

The media have been painting a picture of partisan divide.  There's no question there is one.  Fox News, Donald Trump, and others have been fanning the flames of racial, social, and political divide for years.

But millions of Republicans and Democrats meet regularly at family celebrations, at work, in the military, at garden clubs, and tens of thousands of other venues daily.

The metaphors of war have infected (a metaphor of disease) our discourse.  And the media play a large role by perpetuating this idea.  Here are two examples from the front page of the LA Times paper edition today.

I expect more of the Los Angeles Times, but here's a headline today:

Reeling Biden goes on attack

But in the actual article, here is what they said he did:

“I have great respect for Mayor Pete and his service to this nation, but I do believe it’s a risk — to be just straight up with you for this part — to nominate somebody who’s never held an office higher than mayor of a town of 100,000 people in Indiana,” he said of Buttigieg.

As for Sanders, Biden said that if the Vermont senator were to win the nomination, Democrats “up and down the ballot … will have to carry the label that Sen. Sanders has chosen for himself. I don’t criticize him, he calls himself a democratic socialist.”

For the Democrats, going on attack means, I guess, making factual statements about one's opponents and raising your concerns in the most deferential way that his opponents have some issues that may cause problems in the election.  

Just think back to the kind of statements Trump made about his primary opponents.  

I would note that I read the headline above on the hard copy version online.

Really, LA Times, if Biden's statements are  an 'attack' what do you call how Trump engages his  rivals.  There were reports the Trump team told Republican Senators their heads would be up on a pike if they defected.  And Trump Jr. tweeted immediately after Romney defected, that Romney should be purged from the Republican Party.  That was followed by a nasty video from the Trump camp on Romney.  Now that's more like an attack.  

If Trump Jr. had 'attacked' like Biden, he would have said, "I respectfully disagree with Romney's vote on Article I."

Another headline - also on the front page of the LA Times - says: 

The big winner:  Partisanship

 A poll before the vote on witnesses said that 70% of voters wanted witnesses and more documents reviewed by the Senate.  That's just one sign that things are not as partisan as the media pundits suggest.   We all see what we are looking for and miss what we aren't looking for.  That's a common human trait.  The media are just lots of people, so it's natural for them too.  But professional members of the media, like professional attorneys and doctors and scientists, are supposed to be trained to overcome those natural biases.  To look beyond the obvious and to question their own biases.

I'd note that as I sought links to these articles I found that the web versions of the articles had very different, more accurate headlines:

Reeling Biden Goes On Attack 

became 

As some backers panic, Biden scrambles to save his campaign in New Hampshire

And

The big winner:  Partisanship

became

News Analysis: Trump’s impeachment and acquittal please partisans on both sides

Enstar Digs Up Newly Paved Street A Month After Anchorage Paves It

There's an alley across the street.  The alley became a street a couple of years ago and even got a name.  Apparently because a house was remodeled and has an entrance and street number facing what was an alley.   It's been unpaved since.

This summer, the street got paved for the first time.  I guess that's good.  Less dust and mud, but pavement has environmental problems too, and this alley never got much traffic.  The other alleys in the neighborhood remain unpaved.

Today, Enstar was digging a big hole right in the new pavement.

When I went over to find out why they were digging up the newly paved street, Arthur told me they were replacing the old copper pipe and connectors for ones that had fewer connections and thus fewer opportunities to leak.  Below is one of he old ones.

But don't the Municipality and Enstar communicate on things like this?  He said he thought they did, but not this time.  They came out at the beginning of the summer to see what they were going to do and there was a dirt alley way.  And now they show up today and it's paved.  

I left a message with the Municipality Street Maintenance people.  I'll update when (I'm pretty sure it's when, not if) I hear back.  My basic concern is to be sure they have a system and this just was an odd situation that fell through the cracks.  If not, they need a way not to do double the work.  It was just paved, maybe a month ago.  Today Enstar had to dig through that paving and then patch it up.  Well, it's flat and even with the paved part, but it's not repaved yet.  And they've got another cut out a little further down that I guess they'll dig up tomorrow.  

Who Invented Inflatable Tube Guys?

You've seen the dancing in car lots and lots of other kinds of businesses.  But who thought this up?

It turns out to be something of an evolutionary process - starting with Israeli Doron Gazitt who started out making balloon figures on the street for kids, a design school project helped by his father's work in agriculture - with plastic green house tubes. Trinidadian Carnival artist Peter Minshall, and eventually the the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta and the 1998 Superbowl halftime show.

"But these first tube guys didn’t look much like the simple wiggling noodle man that’s since come to dominate America’s used car lots. They were sixty feet tall, with two legs that each had a dedicated fan and a separate articulated torso, arms, and head. These weren’t tube guys. These were full-on tube gods."

All this comes from a fascinating history of inflatable tube guys at reForm, called

Biography of an Inflatable Tube GuyThe checkered past and lonely future of air puppets

Well worth the time with pictures showing the evolution from art to advertising distraction.  Or as, according to the post, both Gazitt and Minshall agree,

"the single-tubed descendants of their wacky inflatable Olympic babies are an abomination. Gazit calls them “very ugly and very unattractive,” and Gulick, 'an impoverished version of the device.”

The writer  does it all.  There's nothing for me to add, except I saw this red one Monday in front of High Frequency, a locally owned shop, where I bought a used phone for my wife before hers is no longer served.  I think I sidestepped the high prices at ATT for a reasonably good phone.  We'll see.  And it seems all the prices there are negotiable.

Today's IRS Time: One Hour 30 Minutes [UPDATED After Visit To Local Office]

[Update at the bottom] Monday I called the IRS again in hopes of resolving the payroll tax snafu for my mom's caregiver.  Regular readers know my mom died in July.  Although she had an experienced accountant and he'd suggested I hire ADP, one of the largest payroll companies in the world, to take care of the caregivers' state and federal taxes and other deductions, things got screwed up.

The payroll company did all the deductions at first.  Then they told us that, for a small household account with just one employee, they don't do the federal taxes.  They  had done the first three quarters in error and it was my responsibility to do the fourth quarter deposits.  In conversations between ADP and the accountant, they decided to put all the deductions into my mom's personal income tax return and ask that the money ADP deposited be transferred there.  And I found a payroll company that specialized in home care employment so this wouldn't happen again for 2015.

Then I started getting letters from the business side of the IRS saying they had $12,000 but no returns and from the personal side saying they had a return, but that I owed $12,000.  Sounds pretty simple right?  The business side just needed to transfer the $12,000 to the personal side.  That's what I thought anyway.  After regular monthly notices and phone calls, in September a business side IRS agent said that the way to resolve this was to amend the personal income taxes and leave out the payroll information and submit 941 forms to the business side.  And tell them to transfer the fourth quarter payment that went to the personal side to the business side.  (Remember, my mom is now dead, which seems weird to me, but the IRS doesn't worry about such things, those most of the agents I've talked to have been quick to offer condolences.)

That was done by early October.  I also was told that the power of attorney I had that allowed me to speak on my mom's behalf was no longer good because she had died and that I had to file a Form 56. (This is important to understand today's encounter and why I'm headed over to the IRS office now.)  I filed Form 56 on Oct. 16 - I have a copy of the stamped form in front of me because I went to the IRS office to do this.

I kept getting various notices - mostly fines and penalties adding up on the missing payments.

So, Monday I called the IRS again.

Agent 1:  On the business side.  Said she couldn't really help and I should talk to the personal side.  Besides, her shift was over and the next shift person was waiting to use the desk.  She transferred the call.

Agent 2:  On the personal side now.  Spent more time looking into it and finally said that the case had been sent to Advanced Account Services and she'd transfer me to someone there.

Agent 3:  The man at Advanced Account Services said he'd never heard that term before, but would like to help.  It should be easy to fix, but unfortunately, the computers had been down since 10am Eastern time (it was now around 5pm Eastern time.)  I'm not sure how the previous two agents I spoke to had looked up my stuff on the computer if it had been down all day, but I try to be polite on the phone calls so I didn't say anything.  He said I should call the Tax Payer Advocate.

Taxpayer Advocate:  The recording said they were there to help people who either had a hardship or who had problems that couldn't be resolved.  But the lady who answered the phone asked if I had a hardship.  Well, I'm not going to be thrown out of my house because of this delay, so I said 'no' but I have a long unresolved problem.  She said that they can only help people with hardships.  I pointed out what the recording said.  She said, "We got a notice recently that we are only to deal with hardship cases and she was sorry the recording had not been fixed."

I understand that Congress is not funding the federal government to the level they need to deal with the workload.  So I can understand that the IRS is trying to focus on the most urgent problems - like people who are in a financial crisis.  I also suspect this is part of the legacy of the Reagan policy to "starve the beast."  Today, the tax cut policy, along with actually cutting the budget, this means that government agencies like the IRS are understaffed.  You can wait 90 minutes for someone to answer your call.  (Today it was only 35 minutes fortunately, but as April nears it will get horrendous.)  This causes people like me, who have done everything they were supposed to do and paid their taxes correctly, to get really frustrated.  If I didn't have special expertise in public administration, I would probably be ranting and raving about how bad government is.  I suspect that there are some among the Republicans who want exactly that to happen.  I at least understand it's not the IRS, but Congress that's the problem for me.  Well, I do think someone at the IRS should have been able to fix this.  But this is an aside from my story here.

Senator Murkowski's office:  OK, if an agent tells me to use the taxpayer advocate and the advocate says they can't help me, I need to go to a higher authority.  I called my US Senator's office and gave them permission to get information about my (mom's) taxes.

Today.  I began at 8:05am.  I waited 35 minutes on hold.  The agent listened and spent a lot of time looking at the (now lengthy, I'm sure) record on the computer.  But it boiled down to this:  "You aren't authorized to represent this account."   Again, she tells me, because my mother died, the power of attorney is no longer valid.
Me:  "But I filed a Form 56."
IRS:  When?
Me:  I have a copy of the stamped form here.  October 16, 2015.
IRS:  We don't have a copy.  You sent one for the personal side, but not the business side.  You need to fill one out with the EIN number (my mom had to be a business to do the payroll deductions and so she was assigned an EIN number.)
Me:  The Form 56 I submitted has both the EIN number AND my mother's social security number.
IRS:  Well, we don't have it.
Me:  Can't you call the personal side (of the IRS) and get a copy?
IRS:  No.

Mind you, I've talked to about five or six agents on the business side since my mother died.  Only Monday and today did this issue of the power of attorney come up.

So I'm off to the IRS to file a second Form 56 and this one will only have the EIN number on it.

GRRRRRR!!!!!!!!

I know I should proof this, but I need to get to the IRS office and I have a ton of other things to do as well.  So please correct the typos as you read.

UPDATE 1:29pm (original posted at 10:30am today) -  It took less time to walk (15 minutes) to my local IRS office and wait there (3 minutes) than it took earlier to wait for an agent to talk to me on the phone (35 minutes.)  The agent who saw me did NOT say she couldn't talk to me.  She did NOT say she couldn't see the business side or the personal side.   I'd gone in to refile Form 56 which allows you to represent someone you have power of attorney for after they die.  Well, that's not entirely correct.  It allows you to establish that after the death you still have the authority to represent the deceased.  I'd already filed the form in October for both the business and personal side.  The personal side has said they have it, but the business side today said I needed one for the business side before she could talk to me.  Even though the form I'd filed listed both the EIN (for business side) and the SS#.

But Ms. E took the old form I'd filed (and had stamped because I'd filed it in person) and said I didn't need to refile.  Instead she went into the computer and went to the business side and added the Form 56 info for them.  She checked what they were doing and she checked on what the personal side was doing.  The personal side had received the amended return in early December and there was a note to transfer the money over to the business side when the review was completed.  She went into the collections side and put in a note saying to hold off on collections because they were processing the amended form.  While she didn't move the money over and make all the issues go away, she did more than any of the folks on the phone have done.

She said there's a big push to do everything electronically, but what I needed couldn't be done that way.  Or via the phone easily.  So being a walk in at the local IRS was both faster and more productive that calling on the phone.  At least in the Anchorage office.  AND I got a nice walk through the fresh snow instead of sitting around on hold.

[Sorry for those seeing this reposted - Feedburner problems again. This seems to be getting all too common.]