What Is The Difference Between Kosher for Passover and Regular Kosher Matzah? -The Human Capacity To Disagree

Over the years philosophers, psychologists, and other observers of the human condition have identified what they thought made humans distinct from other species.  A BBC exploration of that question begins with with Aristotle:

 We are "rational animals" pursuing knowledge for its own sake. We live by art and reasoning, he wrote. 

I'm not going to claim that disagreement makes us unique, but it sure seems be be common.  I probably don't have to give you any examples.  You probably can come up with some that occurred in the last hour.

But since tonight begins Passover, here's an example that makes my point.  Not just that people disagree over things that clearly have consequences (who to vote for, what to eat for dinner), but also things that seem to be disagreement for disagreement's sake.

Since our daughter and granddaughter are visiting next week, and since it's Passover, we can't make a bread together.  So I thought we could make matzah instead.  Matzah boxes are marked
"Kosher - not for Passover"  and "Kosher for Passover."

So I wanted to know what the difference was.  It's mostly about how carefully the wheat is treated from the time it is ground to flour.

On keeping Passover Matzah kosher:

"Most authorities maintain that it is sufficient to guard the wheat from the time it is ground, in order to use it to fulfill the mitzvah of eating matzah. Some authorities dispute this, however, and maintain that the wheat must be guarded from the time that it is harvested." 

In my role as a mediator at times, I came to learn that such disagreements - that seem to be about differences that don't really make a difference - are based on unspoken assumptions or issues that are the real problem.  It's not the purity of the grain, so to speak, but some other value it represents.

Perhaps it's just about who is right or who has the power to make the decision.  Or it could be that the stricter interpretation reflects a generally greater concern for detail by that position's advocate.

I would argue that the Jews in Egypt who first baked the unleavened bread before their exodus from Egypt, did so because they didn't have time to wait for bread to rise a few times before they had to leave.  And I'm sure they didn't use special flour that had been carefully guarded.

The use of the matzah today is symbolic.  It's to remind Jews of the suffering of their ancestors and to remind them that they too were strangers in a strange land and had to flee.  And thus Jews should remember to help others today who have to flee their homelands.  So whether we use extra special wheat to make matzah probably really makes no difference.  No one eating matzah can tell the difference.  It's the symbol that matters.  And if Jews eat made from the most vigorously guarded wheat, but forget how to apply the lessons of the story to those suffering a similar fate today, they've gotten so tied up in the rules, they've missed the whole point.


For those who are unfamiliar with the Kosher labels of food packaging, here's a website that looks at the Kosher labels and the labeling authorities.

So, Where Should Trump And Kim Meet?

The obvious first choices are Pyongyang and Washington DC.  But that would require one to come to the other, to meet on the other's home turf.  Let's back up and set some key criteria for determining the location?

Criterion 1 - they should meet on relatively neutral ground.
Criterion 2 - each should travel roughly the same distance
Criterion 3 - Security, both need to feel safe

These seem to be the biggies.  I would guess only #3 is a deal breaker.  If one side gives in on one criterion then they need to gain on another, or on what comes out of the talks.  So Pyongyang and DC are not totally out of the question, but if Trump goes to North Korea, Kim would have to agree to close down his nuclear weapons.  That would be my condition at least.  If Kim came to DC, he'd have  to at least to go to an NBA game. But security might be an issue like it was for Kruschev when we was denied a visit to Disneyland in 1959.

So where else might they meet?

There's Switzerland - a neutral country of sorts - where Kim went to school.

Anchorage is almost half-way between Pyongyang and DC - a little closer to Korea, but part of the US.  By mid to late May the leaves will be back on the trees.  And there's a small but visible (South) Korean population.

Or out on a ship in the North Pacific in international waters?  Whose ship?  FDR met Churchill on a ship of Newfoundland in August 1941.  But that was a secret meeting - FDR told the press he was going on a short fishing trip.  Churchill had to brave German u-boats to get there.  Security was important, but it was a meeting of close allies.  It was not a highly publicized meeting like this one will be.

Beijing would be happy to host, I'm sure.  The US leans on China to deal with its neighbor.  It could work, but then Xi would get some of the glory.  Probably not.

And then there's Moscow.  Putin could just tell Trump directly what he wanted him to do.  And Russia borders North Korea too.  And Trump could bask in Putin's macho image.

Seoul?  They were the messenger to Trump about the invitation.  But security and other issues would seem to be a big hurdle.

When President Johnson agreed to peace talks with the North Vietnamese, location took a while to settle:

Geneva, where the 1954 talks had been held that resulted in the division of Vietnam into North and South. Hanoi rejected this on the grounds that it had ‘unhappy memories’. It then suggested Phnom Penh. This was rejected by Washington. Instead, the US offered 5 other capitals in Southeast and South Asia, including New Delhi, which was favoured by Saigon. Hanoi rejected these options and proposed Warsaw, which the US also rejected. The US then countered by proposing 9 capitals all of which were again rejected. Ultimately, after weeks of bargaining, Paris was chosen as the site to hold preliminary talks (officially referred to as ‘official conversations’ to avoid being confused with ‘negotiations’). 

Then came the question of who would be invited, and then there was the battle over the shape of the table:

These discussions, which began in November 1968, were centred on questions about the shape of the conference table, how many tables there should be, and how they would be placed. These discussions became known as the ‘battle of the tables’ and would last ten weeks until mid-January 1969 as fighting continued to rage and Richard Nixon won the presidential election. From the start, it was recognized that a triangular table (with the North Vietnamese/NLF combined but the US and South Vietnamese separate) would be a non-starter as it would imply that the Communist side was outnumbered two-to-one.  [These two quotes came from Defense In Depth]

I can sympathize with Trump wanting to get past all these seemingly petty details of status and appearance, but it's March 11 now, and the proposed meeting is in May, so they don't have time to dawdle on such things.   Can the 'Mentally deranged U.S. dotard' and the 'little rocket man' get over their past insults to resolve all these details that quickly?

And just for the record, let me put Mar-a-Lago on the list.  It defies my criteria, but it wouldn't surprise me.


This Won't Be Nixon's Trip To China

I remember being in the car during the summer of 1971 a winding road along a river somewhere in Idaho, when we heard on the radio that Nixon was going to China.  Perhaps Trump remembers that too and how Nixon got so much glory from that.  But this is not the same.  China was the most populous country in the world and through a rabid anti-communism combined with support for the nationalist Chinese who had had to flee to Taiwan, the US had spent years pretending that Taiwan was China and the mainland didn't really exist.  Or at best was a temporarily runaway province of Taiwan.  Nixon's move, preceded by months of negotiations by the adept if ethically-flawed Henry Kissinger, was really bringing the US to a reality its leaders had ignored for decades.

This meeting with Kim Jong Un is something entirely different.  First, and foremost, it's a distraction from all the political hornets swarming around the White House.  There's a certain part of me that agrees with Trump, that the State Department is often so full of itself*, it can't do things simply because, 'well, we just don't do that.  We have to go by protocol.'  But the career people at the State Department have done their homework and understand the implications of what they say and do.  No matter how cautiously.  Trump still thinks this is some simple business deal where he can sit down and work things out over a meal.  He'll use his great ability to read people to decide what to do - and that won't happen until the middle of the meeting.  (Of course, that's said with the long list of people who have left their positions in the Trump administration in mind.)


*I'm biased here.  Back in 1970, when I was slowly making my way home from Peace Corps Thailand, the package of materials that came with the news that I'd passed the Foreign Service written exam, caught up with me while I was visiting a friend in Uganda.  I went to the embassy in Kampala to talk to someone about what life in the foreign service was like.  He spent the whole time telling me about all the servants I would have and the protocol of calling cards and who comes and goes first at official parties.  That, and the idea of having to officially defend the US military in Vietnam, led me to skip the next step in the process - the interview.  I know that the State Department has changed over the years, but I do believe a bit of the upper crust proper way of doing things still persists.

Using Your Fame To Prey On Women Is NOT The Same As Defending Yourself From A Woman Sleeping With Your Husband

Marjorie Dannenfelser is the president of the pro-life organization, the Susan B. Anthony List.  She was interviewed this morning by reporter Steve Innskeep on NPR's Morning Edition.

She strongly objected to Trump’s words about assaulting women on the tape that was released last week.

 “What we just heard . . . is absolutely outrageous and unacceptable.  It is not to be set aside.  The assault and offense of women.  You know for any woman who has ever been assaulted, this is a trigger moment for them.  It brings back a flood of memories that are horrible and that’s no excuse. ”

But then she goes on.  

“For any woman who has been assaulted  and then ignored, or blamed, they should be upset by Hillary Clinton’s behavior and her treatment of the women that in a serial fashion, went through her husband’s life.  She then blamed and destroyed, ridiculed, ignored.  When you think about the women on college campuses today who often are having that happen to them, that’s a trigger moment for them.” 

Steve Innskeep interjects to say that fact checkers only have evidence that Clinton did publicly attack Jennifer Flowers, but they found no evidence that she had attacked other women who’d had relations with her husband. 

Let’s get this straight.  

Clinton, a married woman, ‘attacking’ a woman who had an affair with her husband, IS NOT anywhere near a moral equivalent to Trump’s bragging about using his celebrity and power to get away with sexual assaults on non-consenting women.

These are totally different behaviors, with totally different motivations and consequences. 

In fact Dannenfelser’s wording - in both cases she talks uses almost the exact same phrasing - raises questions for me about who helped her script this interview.  

About Trump:  “for any woman who has ever been assaulted, this is a trigger moment for them.”

About Clinton:  “For any woman who has been assaulted  and then ignored, or blamed . . . When you think about the women on college campuses today who often are having that happen to them, that’s a trigger moment for them.” 

That grammatical symmetry is not accidental.  These comments were scripted to make them sound like the moral equivalent of each other.  

It also helps her rationalize that despite Trump’s behavior - and we have to remember it’s not just this tape but his behavior throughout the campaign and his business career that is being challenged daily - her single issue of ending abortion is important enough to overlook everything else in Trump’s record.

I'd note that our polarized culture - and the media have assisted in exacerbating people's ideological differences - makes it hard for people like Dannenfelser to consider the possibility that working with her 'enemy' might actually help reduce the number of abortions.  Planned Parenthood - the icon the anti-abortionists use as the enemy - counsels women on birth control and does a significant job in preventing unwanted pregnancies.

I'd argue that Trump as a candidate has been a role model for increasing the number of, in Dannenfelser's words, "outrageous and unacceptable" behaviors among his followers that will lead to unwanted pregnancies.  And as president, Trump's model would probably cause the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions to go up.  

Life is complicated.  The simple cause and effect relationships that people glom onto, tend to be far more complex.  Think about the Three Strikes You're Out legislation that was supposed to cut down on crime, but instead swelled the US prison population, hugely increasing the costs, and ruining the lives of countless people who were no danger to anyone.

The anti-abortion movement has the same perverse consequences.  They throttle the most effective anti-abortion organization because 3% of its work involves abortions.  And they send the most reactionary, bigoted men to Congress, simply because they say they oppose abortions.  

But that is exactly what the larger script writers intended.  To get those who think in simple cause-effect relations into voting Republican.  Talk about trigger words - the conservative movement has been masterful in creating sound bites to get people angry and voting.  

Of course, it plays well with Trump’s hardcore supporters, many of whom, I’m guessing, were not offended by the tape.  Clinton’s supporters dismiss it as soon as they hear who Dannenfelser is, perhaps even without even listening to and parsing it out. 

And I doubt such arguments work any more with independent voters.  

Understanding Trump Voters: Look At Advice On Why Women Choose Bad Boys

For some Trump supporters (as it was with some Obama supporters) this is more like a romance than an election.  So I thought it might be helpful to go to some advice on relationships for help understanding at least a portion of the Trump supporters.  

Financial Samurai had a post on "Why Do Women Go Out With Deadbeat Losers?"

My theory is that in the beginning, most women don’t know the guy is a deadbeat loser. He probably is reasonably attractive and tells a good story about his current situation and his ambitions. Obviously, he will be on his best behavior during the wooing process. It might take one week, or it might take many months, but until a consummation is made, guys can be very charming! By the time a woman hooks up with the guy, only afterward will she see his true colors. 

Quora had a forum that asked: "Why is it that girls often choose the wrong guy as their boyfriend, although the right person always stood by her?"  I'd note that many assumed the question was from the 'right person' and challenged his perception of who was the right guy.  But there were others who assumed girls do often pick the wrong guy. Here are a few excerpts from some of the responses:

From Luis Garcia on Quora:

• When they are teens, girls aren't mature enough to make good choices, so they get impressed by superficial things, like a car or an expensive date. 
•  Teens are much more affected than mature women by hormones. So they go for the wrong guy just because they're more physically attracted to him. 
•  Teens are rebellious, and girls might go out with the wrong guy precisely because they're parents told them that he is the wrong guy.  [I think this may explain a lot of Trump supporters]
•  Teens are subject to peer pressure, so they might go out with the wrong guy just to be seen as "cool" by their peers.

From Anonymous on Quora:

"Humans tend to be attracted to status, which has to do with hierarchy and not morals.  Although we should base our choice of mates on their ability to do right by us,  most people cannot help but be swayed by public opinion or social status.  Maybe it is ego and maybe it is an instinctual search for a stronger gene pool.
Here are the high-status indicators that will trump good morals almost every time:

• Acting like you are good at doing things.
• Acting like you know what you are doing.
• Acting like you are not afraid.
• Acting like you know important stuff.
• Acting like you have or will have money.
• Good social skills.

None of these indicators in any way relate to being a good romantic partner, but these are the standards which many people use.  The real question may be:  Why would a person imagine they could achieve happiness with someone who chooses status over substance?"

Peter Kemau on Quora:   (He even takes the dynamic to the political realm.)

I'm going to assume that the wrong guy here is the infamous  "bad boy" character. If you really think about it, it has to do with instinct. For women with no experience of a bad relationship, the allure and charm of the bad boy is irresistible. There is something about someone who has confidence, arrogance and an outgoing attitude. Most politicians do, that's why they are able to mass-seduce,  spiritual/religious leaders too. They can make most people believe in them even though their intentions are not particularly honest. 

 Aysha Griffen on Quora offers a different insight:

Often, we are attracted to those who can help us heal a deep childhood wound by letting us play out a similar dynamic, in the hope of redeeming it. This is all unconscious, and usually ends in us rewounding ourself because no one can give us the love or make up for the wounding, except our own conscious self-love. 

Wintery Knight takes what he calls a Christian look at why women choose weak men.  Good Christian men, he posits, will require more from their mates.

"Sometimes a really good man places moral and spiritual obligations on a Christian woman that require her to improve and grow, in order to help him with his life plan. Also, men flourish when a woman encourages him, recognizes him, supports him in his male roles. A good man who has definite ideas on what counts as good behavior may expect more from a woman, and those moral obligations can get in the way of her selfish pursuit of happiness."

So the women fear they won't live up to his expectations, according to Wintery Knight, and they'll be abandoned.  Thus weak men are a safer choice because they are easier to blame and control.

"Let me explain some other reasons why a Christian woman might prefer to have a weaker, non-Christian man: 

1. A woman may prefer to blame a man in order to rationalize her selfish actions, and an immoral man is easier to blame. 
2. A woman may prefer to blame a man in order to punish him for some real or imagined crime, and an immoral man is easier to blame. 
3. A woman may want to avoid moral obligations to a man, and a weaker man is easier for her to control. (e.g. – using pre-marital sex in order to avoid having to love a man self-sacrificially) 
4. A woman may need to avoid being judged or led morally by a man, so she prefers a man who is weak at morality and moral reasoning. 
5. A woman may need to avoid being judged or led spiritually by a man, so she prefers a man who is weak at theology and apologetics. 

So, it’s not that the poor, sweet, innocent women are helpless victims of nasty, evil, brutish man-beasts, at all. Far from it. Some of them DELIBERATELY CHOOSE to pass up the best Biblical Christian men, because they fear rejection or moral judgment or loss of control, and/or they want to avoid moral obligations to men that may interfere with their selfishness."

We've all known people who hooked up with the wrong romantic partner despite all the warnings from their best friends.  It sort of feels like that with Trump supporters.  The more you point out his flaws, the stronger they defend him.

The World's Disappearing Wilderness - The Importance Of Long Term Thinking

A news item about the disappearance of wilderness in the world caught my attention the other day.  Since I live in state that still has some wilderness left, I thought it worthy of discussion.

From PRI:

"The result showed that about 20 percent of the world's land area is currently wilderness or about 11.6 million square miles.
Most of that wilderness is in Australia, North America, North Asia and North Africa.
Comparing the old map to the new one showed that an estimated 1.3 million square miles — almost 10 percent of the wilderness area — have been lost in the past two decades.
The amount lost is equal to twice the land mass of Alaska, or about half the entire Amazon.
The study did not delve into reasons why, but Watson said it comes down to increased development by the planet's growing human population."

Given that airplanes fly over just about every part of the world and that pollution travels by air and sea to every part of the world, I'd guess there isn't really any wilderness left, but here's the study's definition:

"For the study, researchers defined 'wilderness' as 'biologically and ecologically intact landscapes free of any significant human disturbance.'"

Let's put this in context.

WILDERNESS LEFT	TOTAL SQUARE MILES/km2/acres	% OF TOTAL LAND
in the world	11.6 million sq mi / 7.4 billion acres	20%
in the USA	170.5K sq mi / 109,129,657 acres	5%
in Lower 48	82.1 K sq mi / 52,553,809 acres	2.7%
in Alaska	88.4K sq mi/ 56,575,848 acres	13.3%
Alaska total size	663,268 sq mi / 424,491,520 acres	100%
Wilderness size from NWPS ;   Alaska total size from Wikipedia

Wilderness disappears as people make short term decisions; about survival for some, about profit for many.  Long term collective decisions, like the creation of the National Park Service by Teddy Roosevelt and the idea of setting aside natural areas for conservation, are what keep the small amount of wilderness we have left in the world.

As Alaskans debate where they can drill for oil,  log for timber, mine for coal and gold and other minerals, I'd suggest some longer term thinking.  Thinking that recognizes that what is rare is valuable.  Wilderness is becoming rarer and rarer.  Alaska's wilderness will become more and more valuable in the future.  Rather than destroy it for meager short term profit, let's save it for longer term, more valuable benefit.

I haven't addressed why we need wilderness.   I've written about before is described by Edward O. Wilson who talks about how the trillions of dollars worth of ecosystem services provided by nature -  recycling and purifying water, cleaning the air, enriching the soil, etc.

For those who doubt the need, here are a few more resources.


National Geographic: What is Wilderness, Why Preserve It?

Nash Roderick:  The Value of Wilderness (1978)

Why did US citizens feel the need to legally protect wilderness?

List of largest wilderness areas in the US

Now That Republicans Are Trying To Dump Trump, Maybe They'll Nominate Darth Vadar

So, Trump will go to the convention with the most votes.  But you need a 1237 delegates. If no one reaches that number, then the second round is wide open.  Trump may argue that he has the most votes so he should win, but that's not the rules.  And despite his 'most votes.'  a large majority of Republicans who voted or caucused, chose someone other than Trump.  He can't claim 'majority wins,' if he doesn't have a majority of the delegates.

And the Republican establishment as well as many non-establishment Republicans think he'd be a terrible candidate.  Personally, I think that for the most powerful - whether in elected or unelected positions - it's less about his policy and more about the fact that they don't control him and he doesn't owe them anything.  They fear for their power, positions, and access to the inner workings.  After all, he merely says what they've been using code to say all these years.  (OK, there are rational Republicans who are sincerely repelled by what he says as well as concerned about losing power.)

And they aren't too excited by the number two man Ted Cruz.  After all, he thumbed his nose at the Senate leadership with a 21 hour filibuster against Obamacare against the party leadership's wishes.

So now things seem wide open to find a candidate wh will appeal to the leadership and to the American voter (not just Republicans.)  Paul Ryan's just emphatically said he wouldn't run or be drafted.  So who's left?   In the Senate there are 55 Republicans.  The ones with the most name recognition are from places like Alabama .  Then there are few folks whose names will cost them 5% of the vote - like Flake and Crapo.  Sorry, this is not a cheap shot, but the reality of life, like the fact that good looking people get an advantage.  [Trying to find some study to support the idea that a weird name will lose votes was distracting and unsuccessful.  Maybe Johnny Cash was right and I'm wrong.]

And then there are former Republican officials who weren't elected - like Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell.  Republicans do like conservative blacks.  I think it's because they think it proves they aren't racists.  They can say things like, one of my best friends . . .

So who's out there?  There are the Republican governors.  Unlike legislators, governors actually have to govern, not just talk and posture.   The FiveThirtyEight blog has a list of governors by popularity ratings.  Here are the top few:

From FiveThirtyEight blog

So we start off with a governor from a coal state, in this day and age of climate change with coal being one of the biggest culprits.  Then we get a governor from the state that Bill Clinton was governor of.  The last presidential candidate who was governor of Arkansas was, oh yea, Mike Huckabee.  Nice try, but Beebe is a Democrat.  Utah's Gary Herbert.  He's two months younger than the last Republican nominee and he's also a Mormon.  Are the Republicans ready to try that again?  The governor of North Dakota?  That state was hot when oil was $100 a barrel, but things aren't so good there any more.  Oklahoma has a woman governor..   Didn't McCain pick a woman governor with high popularity ratings?  As I recall, that didn't work out too well.


There may or may not be some good Republican politicians out there who would make good presidents, but name recognition matters.  I suspect that Republicans will do what they've done several times before - pick a celebrity candidate with name recognition.  You know, like Reagan, Schwartzenegger, or even Sonny Bono.

So, what Republican celebrities are out there?   I found a list.   None of these on the list has held office to my knowledge.     Reagan at least had been governor of California.  ((If you're looking for another celebrity governor, Jesse Ventura, well, he was in the Independence Party, not the Republican.) Here are some from a list I found at Buzzfeed.

• Sylvester Stallone

• Tom Selleck

• Wayne Newton

• Bruce Willis

• Chuck Norris

• Clint Eastwood

• Mary Lou Retton

• 50 Cent

• Robert Duvall

• LL Cool J

• James Earl Jones

•  Gloria Estefan

• Adam Sandler

Some we'll just ignore.

From my way of looking at this, there are only a couple of names here that have any traction, but really only one that is solid.

Not even the Academy Awards could find its way to give Sylvester Stallone his long denied Oscar this year, so he's out.

Bruce Willis, Chuck Norris, and Clint Eastwood all could give strong performances as president.  "Make my day!" is so Trumpish, but with much more style.

Robert Duvall seems to have a little more depth and breadth.

Gloria Estefan would allow the Republicans to nominate a Cuban, since they wanted Rubio so bad and, well,  the leadership did. Except Jeb!  And since they'd be bumping Cruz too.

Jones image from E

For my money, there's one on the list who is the perfect candidate.  He's got great name recognition and even greater voice recognition.  He's already been a king several times (Lion King and King Lear.)  He's been President (The Best Man.)   He was a Vice Admiral (The Hunt for Red October) And, of course, he was Darth Vadar.  That voice would make people jump and vote Republican.  James Earl Jones for president.  And he wasn't born in Kenya. You know he'd win.

[I want to put up an Irony alert on this post, but I'm afraid this could happen.]

Information and Power - A Few Examples

My dissertation was on privacy and I concluded that the consequences of exposure is the critical issue and thus the privacy debates are basically about power.  It's about the power to keep others out of your physical space and the ability to prevent access to information about yourself.  My conclusion was that given changing technology, if someone really wants to know about you badly enough, they will be able to do.  There is no way to protect yourself from someone determined to get into your life.  The only protection, and it's certainly limited, is to have everyone equally vulnerable so that people don't invade others' info because they could have the same thing happen to them.  We are protected thus only by enlightened cooperation or observation of the Golden Rule.

Time has confirmed my predictions made back in the 1970s.

This all is a preface to some articles in the LA Times today that illustrate different aspects of this power to hold one's info and the power to get into someone's info.

• Malik’s Facebook clues Shooter sent two private notes sharing jihadist longings to Pakistani friends online, officials say.

Let's start with US security officials failing to find private Facebook messages written in 2012 and 2014 in Urdu by Malik.  It's a little scary to think that anyone thinks the FBI should have been able to find those messages.  It's just mind-boggling to think of the level of intrusion into private communications that security agencies would have to do to detect such messages.  

• Plumber sues over ‘jihad’ truck Texan is tormented after his business vehicle shows up in an image posted by rebels — in Syria.

This guy traded in his truck for a new one.  The dealer stopped him from scraping off the lettering with his company's name and phone number.  The dealer didn't want him to scratch the paint and assured him they'd do it.  But then his truck shows up as an ISIS vehicle on ISIS websites with weaponry in the back.  The picture quickly went viral resulting in hateful calls and emails.

• Mystery owner buys Las Vegas paper  Speculation on the sale is that a wealthy individual is looking for political influence.

Las Vegas' newspaper has been secretly bought.  The owner isn't being disclosed.  What does that mean for readers?  The article says this is unprecedented.   Unfortunately, most people aren't willing to cancel their subscriptions until the owner's identity is revealed.

• Trial of key rights lawyer in China prompts scuffle: Police violently shove away journalists and diplomats seeking to observe proceedings.

The Chinese government is trying a key human rights attorney.  He's blogged openly, but his trial is secret.  How many Chinese officials get away with corrupt behavior because criticism of the government is so strictly limited?

• A BROKEN PLEDGE Officials let China Shipping ignore emissions-cutting requirements

Here, LA Port officials, in response to protests of pollution, promised to require ships reduce emissions while in port, to turn off their engines and to plug in for power,   But the LA Times, through a public records act request, found out the port authorities gave the Chinese shippers permission to ignore the regulations.

• L.A. schools to reopen Wednesday; threat against schools was 'not credible,' officials say

Anonymous emails threaten terror at LA schools and the district decides to shut them all down.  Who sent the emails?  How can the officials know if they are real or not?  And how many school districts are going to get similar threats just to shut them down?  And how many times will it take for the districts to ignore the threat?  Think of the sense of power this gives a disgruntled school kid.


The movie Stink! which I saw at the Anchorage International Film Festival chronicled how corporations hide toxic chemicals in products by preventing the FDA and other agencies from even knowing what's in their products, let alone disclosing them to consumers.

Just keep your eyes open for examples of the power to hide or expose information and who wins and who loses.

At Least Eight Appeals Received By DNR On Chuitna Water Reservation Decision

I've been planning to do an update on the Chuitna Decision, but I needed to go through it carefully and figure out reasonable questions.  I thought I'd ask David Schade, the head of the Water Division, who signed the decision and then some of the other interested parties. 

But life happens and I only got through to David today.  We haven't had a chance to discuss my questions, but he did tell me that he'd been told there were eight appeals by late this afternoon - people had 20 calendar days to get appeals in, and the decision was on October 6.  He hadn't seen them yet, so he didn't know who submitted them. 

Here are some of the kinds of questions I had:

1.  Was this decision a postponement of the decision or a denial?  It seems to me that at one point the decision says that the Upper and Central fork portions of the Middle River, which are in the proposed mining area, are ripe for decision yet because the the mine's water reservations aren't complete.  That sounds like things are postponed.  But elsewhere it says the reservations have been denied, which sounds final. 

2.    What is the state of PacRim’s water reservation applications?  Different references were made to their applications but it wasn't clear where they were.
- not ready to be submitted because not enough info?
- have they submitted incomplete applications?  What does this mean?
- if submitted, when were they submitted?


3.  The Department finds that it is in the public interest to allow the PacRim permitting review process to be completed, and therefore that it would not be in the public interest to issue a reservation of water on the Main or Middle Reaches of Middle Creek/Stream 2003 at this time.
Is this a logical fallacy?  If one is in the public interest, does that automatically mean the other isn’t?  What this does seem to be saying is that if the reservation is issued, the permitting process would end.  

4.  Can PacRim really close down the Middle Fork above the Lower Reach and divert the water around and back to the Lower Reach and this won't harm the salmon?  Is there a difference between naturally flowing stream water and water that goes through culverts and how does that impact the quality of the water when it gets returned to the natural water way?  And how long would the water be cut off from the Lower Reach while this is being constructed?  Or are those questions people are still waiting on answers for?


There are more questions, but this gives you an idea.  The Oct 6 decision is linked at the earlier post on this.

Chuitna Citizens Coalition Gets Rights on Lower Reach of Middle Creek/Stream 2003 But Not Main And Middle Reaches

 The decision is just out.  Here's the DNR press release with links to the decision.  Haven't had time to figure out what it means.  At first glance this looks like a cutting the baby in thirds decision that will leave everyone dissatisfied, but then the parts of the Creek where rights weren't granted, it seems, weren't denied, but deferred because "they were not ready for decision."  

[Note at 11:17am same day after a little more careful reading:  It also says at the end:  "We will not approve significant impacts to the Chuitna River."  The mine plans to excavate thousands of acres 300 feet deep, including parts of the river.  They then say they will restore it after the coal mining.  But shutting down of the river - even if they actually can restore it later - has to qualify as "significant impacts" and so this seems to be a significant win for the Chuitna Citizens Coalition.]


Here's the press release: (with links to the whole decision)

"Decision reached on water reservation applications in Chuitna River watershed

The Division of Mining, Land & Water has issued a decision on the Chuitna Citizens Coalition Inc.'s three applications for instream flow reservations for Middle Creek/Stream 2003, a tributary of the Chuitna River. Two of the applications are for segments of the stream located within the footprint of the proposed Chuitna Coal project.
After review of the facts in the administrative record, public comments and hearing, the decision grants the Chuitna Citizen Coalition's application for the lower reach of Middle Creek/Stream 2003 but does not grant its applications for the creek's main and middle reaches. This decision does not award any permits or water rights to the proposed coal project.
This decision is a reasoned approach that reached conclusion on the lower reach of Middle Creek/Stream 2003 while denying the applications for reservations on the main and middle reaches because they are not ready for decision. The division cannot not yet determine, on this incomplete record, which of the competing applications for the same water would be subject to a preference as the most beneficial use. The division will adjudicate any remaining requests for water rights or instream flow applications in the Chuitna River watershed after the Clean Water Act 404, Surface Mining Coal Regulatory Act (SMCRA) and Title 16 fish habitat permits are done so that we can consider impacts to the watershed by an approved mine plan. We will not approve significant impacts to the Chuitna River. [emphasis added]

Please review the following documents to better understand the decision.

• October 6, 2015 Decision on water reservation applications for the Chuitna River watershed (PDF)
• Map of Middle Creek/Stream 2003 with reservation application reaches identified (PDF)

• October 7, 2015 Press Release (316 KB)"

OK, that's it for now.  The mine company, PacRim, and the various other opponents flat out said the reservation should be rejected, so in that sense it's a loss for them and a win for the Chuitna Citizens Coalition, but I hate to talk in terms of wins and losses.

This is not over and the decision is likely to be challenged in court. 

Dave Schade To Sign Chuitna Decision After Hours Tonight - To Be Posted Tomorrow Morning - Memos and Maps

As a blogger who works from home or wherever I happen to be, but basically without colleagues, I sometimes feel like maybe something happened but I didn't know about it.  I did google around to see if the Chuitna Citizens' Coalition application for an Instream Flow Reservation had been decided on before posting last night that the decision was due today.

This morning I checked the DNR webpages and also the Coalition's Facebook page, but there were no announcements.  I called the Chief of the Water Resources Management Unit, Dave Schade, who is the person who has to sign the decision.  His phone said he's out of the office for a week or so.  So I tracked down someone else and left a voice mail.

Elizabeth Bluemink called me back a bit ago to say that Schade will sign the document around 8pm tonight and that it would be posted tomorrow morning.  In the meantime, she's sending out copies of documents that are related but don't talk directly about the decision.

So I've posted them on Scrbd and embedded them below so you can look for clues to what the decision will be.

1.  A memo to the Commissioner of DNR called a primer on Types of Water Use.  This is sort of a Water Use for Dummies version that's pretty straightforward.  As I read it - having been to the objections hearing, but without any specific expertise here - it sounds like the opposition's arguments that the application should be simply denied was a lot of smoke.  But I'm sure there are subtleties here I'm missing.  Judge for yourself. 

2.  A list of water reservations certificates in Alaska.  There are 75 bodies of water listed (mostly rivers, then creeks, then lakes) and 131 certificates.

3. A map of the Chuitna Coal Mine project - which I can't totally make sense of.  I think my problem is that this is about the mine and doesn't identify the area where the Chuitna Citizens' Coalition is applying for the IFR.  But maybe I'm just missing it.

4.  The memo sent out to notify potential objectors to the reservation that the hearing would be held.  I don't have that up in this post, but I did post it before the hearing and have it at Srbd already.

Alaska DNR Types of Water Use Memo 9-30-15

Alaska Water Reservation Certification Status 09-29-2015

Chuitna Coal Mine Project Map - Alaska

IFR, Fish v. Coal: The Chuitna Water Decision Due October 6

Tuesday, Oct. 6, 2015 is the court ordered deadline for the Department of Natural Resources to make its decision on the Instream Flow Reservation application by the Chuitna Citizens Coalition.  I did a brief post during the lunch break for the hearing back in August and was hoping to try to give a better sense of what was argued.  But as a presidential candidate recently said, "stuff happens" and I didn't get around to it.

But tomorrow the decision is due and so I feel a need to at least say something here.  For a more organized view of the hearing itself, you can check Zaz Hollander's ADN article. 

Above everything, you need to understand what an IFR application is, because this hearing was about such an application.

This is important if you are to understand anything about this, because those opposing the application from the Chuitna Citizens' Coalition argued they had no business filing for this application in the first place and that DNR has only one option:  to reject it.   So Read Carefully.

So here's from DNR's own website:

What is reservation of water for instream use? A reservation of water for instream use is a water right that protects specific instream water uses,such as fish spawning or recreation. It sets aside the water necessary for these activities and keeps later water users from appropriating water that may affect the instream activity. Water can be reserved for one or more permissible uses on a particular part of a stream or lake during a certain period of time. Under AS 46.15.145, permissible instream uses include: Protection of fish and wildlife habitat, migration, and propagation Recreation and parks Navigation and transportation Sanitation and water quality A reservation of water for one use may also allow that same water to be used or reserved for another purpose. For example, a reservation for recreation may also benefit fish spawning. Like an out-of-stream water right, an instream reservation of water is similar to a property right. It cannot be abandoned,transferred, assigned, or converted to another use without approval of the Department of Natural Resources. Who can apply for a reservation of water? Private individuals,organizations, and government agencies may apply for a reservation of water for instream use.

Underlying Conflict

Essentially, the hearing exemplified the two narratives that were spelled out by sociobiologist E. O. Wilson's two narratives as he spells them out in his book The Future of Life.

"It's a battle between two narratives:

Narrative 1:

The free market is the most economical system for bringing prosperity to the world and government regulation just screws things up.

Narrative 2:
The free market has many positive benefits, but it also commodifies our collective resources resulting in the catastrophic destruction of the Earth's species and if we don't stop this trend immediately, we will destroy those things that makes life possible on earth."

 Essentially, the testimony given by the Chuitna Citizens' Coalition followed Narrative 2.  The testimony by PacRim and their supporters was based on Narrative 1.

It's sort of like the flat earth battling the round earth people.  Their predictions will be wildly different because they are beginning from wildly different assumptions about the nature of the world.  


This is going to be pretty quick and dirty because I squandered the month I had to write this.  (Presumably DNR's decision maker on this, Dave Schade. made better use of his time than I have.)

Background
PacRim proposes to build a mine.  Part of the plans call for them to excavate down 300 feet for thousands of acres, essentially wiping out the river.  Then they plan to restore that river to better than it was.  The Chuitna group doesn't believe that can happen.  They're applying for an instream flow reservation mainly because they are concerned about the salmon whose path to the tributary will be interrupted for the years that the mine exists. 

Also, there are different water bodies referred to.  There's the Chuitna and then the tributaries. 

Some issues that were raised at the testimony:

Procedural Issues

1.  PacRim argued that the Chuitna Citizens' Coalition shouldn't even be able to apply for an IFR.  They said this amounted to private citizens taking over public policy decisions the state should make.  CCC argued they would get no regulatory power, only the right to protect the river by getting the state to enforce their IFR.

2.  PacRim argued it's too early for them to apply for their own permit and CCC's permit shouldn't be reviewed until they are ready to have a competing permit.

3.  PacRim argued that if CCC got the IFR, it would kill the mine.  CCC argued PacRim's process could then keep going, but PacRim reps said their financial backers would all pull out because it would show the state opposed the mine.

4.  PacRim took the unusual position for a coal mining company (and it was echoed by the other resource extraction groups that testified) that the state and feds had excellent, rigorous regulatory processes that should be followed through that will protect the public and thus this IFR application was not only unnecessary, but counter to the process.   I don't recall so much praise for regulation by such organizations ever before. 

Measurement Issues

1.  Technical data about river, fish, flow, etc.  PacRim said that CCC's application was invalid because they had no data.  And what they had was methodologically flawed.  From my rough notes on the PacRim's first go at it:

"Lack of specific data.  Not even stream based data in places.  If the citizens coalition is asking to fulfill the role of government,  they should be at least as prepared as the government as another applicant.  That is the way it should be.  Huge problem.  Did not have site specific info.  Info about flow levels, specific features - ripples, spawning habitats.  At least one field season of work.  Methodology of their study is flawed.  Not appropriate here.  Quick and dirty method.  Hasn’t been validated for small streams like this."

The CCC argued there data and methodology were good, but PacRim's were bad.

2.  Economic Impact Data - PacRim's data focused on financial value of the coal.  CCC disputed their projections, saying there was nothing there to back them up.  Furthermore, given the change in the price of oil and the decline of coal everywhere, the PacRim project would now lose money.  CCC (different groups like Inlet Keepers also testified for CCC and I'm not distinguishing here who said what) also argued for considering a much wider range of economic impacts to be measured - the cost of the salmon fishery's damage, and even the cost of environmental infrastructure which helps clean the water and air and keeps the salmon and other species healthy.  They also talked about the recreational value of the land.  This is where the E.O. Wilson narratives seemed most obvious.

 Other Issues

There were a number of other interesting twists and I won't try to cover them all.  But a key one was the presence of the Alaska Mental Health Trust which stands to gain income from the mining on their land.  This income would be used to help provide mental health services in the state.

But I think the key issue is the conflicting narratives about the use of collective resources and private entities - whether they are coal companies or private citizens.

The impact of coal on climate change was also raised and how Alaska is the most impacted state already with melting glaciers and permafrost, eroding shorelines, ocean acidification, and loss of polar bear and walrus habitat. 



Criteria for the Decision

The criteria for making the decision are also listed on the DNR website: (I've reformatted them a bit to make it easier to read)

"When your application is complete, it will be reviewed to determine

• the need for the reservation of water and 
• its impact on other water right holders and 
• the public interest. 

An assessment will be made to determine if water is available for the reservation and if the information in the application is accurate and adequate. Public notice of the application must be given."

[UPDATE 10:41pm - here are the more detailed criteria I published in the August 20 post on this:

AS 46.15.080. Criteria For Issuance of Permit.

(a) The commissioner shall issue a permit if the commissioner finds that

(1) rights of a prior appropriator will not be unduly affected;

(2) the proposed means of diversion or construction are adequate;

(3) the proposed use of water is beneficial; and

(4) the proposed appropriation is in the public interest.

(b) In determining the public interest, the commissioner shall consider

(1) the benefit to the applicant resulting from the proposed appropriation;

(2) the effect of the economic activity resulting from the proposed appropriation;

(3) the effect on fish and game resources and on public recreational opportunities;

(4) the effect on public health;

(5) the effect of loss of alternate uses of water that might be made within a reasonable time if not precluded or hindered by the proposed appropriation;

(6) harm to other persons resulting from the proposed appropriation;

(7) the intent and ability of the applicant to complete the appropriation; and

(8) the effect upon access to navigable or public water.]

But whatever decision is announced tomorrow, you can rest assured it will be challenged by the party whose argument did not prevail.  This is just the beginning.  

Dave Schade And The Decision Over Coal, Salmon, and the Middle Fork Tributary To The Chuinta River

Organizing a post is often a problem.   For example, I went to a reception at UAA for grad students in the College of Business and Public Policy (CBPP) yesterday and now I'm asking myself:

1.   Should this be one post (about the UAA reception)?
2.   Or several posts about the different aspects I found interesting?

The problems are exacerbated by how long it takes to upload to Youtube (a movie over a minute or two takes a while on my slow upload connection.)  This is all a preface to what's below. [As I'm about to post this, several hours after I began it, I realize this will only focus on one of the people I met yesterday and the hearing he will conduct tomorrow over conflicting mining and salmon claims in the Middle Fork tributary of the Chuitna River.]

The College of Business and Public Policy has a several masters degrees - public administration (MPA), business administration (MBA), and one in global supply chain management (MS) - and the reception was for new students to be able to meet other students, alumni, faculty, and staff.  I was invited as a faculty emeritus and now sometimes adjunct faculty member.  Lots of things caught my eye and ear, but one in particular, is very timely, so let me start [and finish] with that. 

Alaska Public Radio had a piece on the Chuitna dispute between salmon and coal back in June.  Basically, as I understand this, it's about whether Pacific Rim Coal's mine in the area will negatively impact the fish in the river and if so, whose legal claim to the water and resources is stronger.  Read the article linked above to see about the conflict between traditional and reserved water rights.  There are also a few comments by Dave Schade (pronounced Shady), Chief of Water Resources for the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).  I only found that piece while writing this post.  But I did read Schade's name in the August 7, 2015 ADN article.

Dave's name jumped out at me because he was one of my students in the MPA program back in the early 1990s.  I hadn't seen him since then.  And it didn't occur to me that he'd be attending the grad student reception.  He was there at the invitation of his niece Kaitlin who is a student in the MPA program now.

I remember Dave as a strong and independent student.  By independent I mean he wasn't wedded to any particular ideology.  He was born and raised in Alaska and has a firm sense of himself.  As a student I recall he listened and read and thought and came to his own conclusion.  All he would say to folks last night about Friday's public hearing at the Federal Building Annex was that he's got criteria spelled out in the law and it's his job to try to match the facts to the criteria (see bottom of the post) and then make a decision, by the court mandated deadline of October 6.   Pretty much the kind of thing taught in the MPA program - that such decisions have to be based on the 'rule of law' -  meaning that decisions are based on the appropriate law, regulation, or professional standards that most closely govern the situation.  Not by personal preference or arbitrary whim.   I haven't followed the Chuitna River issue in detail, but there does seem to be a bit of room for interpretation, and even there Schade will, I'm sure, explain why he leans one way rather than another.

OK, as I'm writing this, it's clear that there's enough here to make this a post all by itself.  I've got the agenda for tomorrow's (Friday August 21, 2015) meeting from Alaska Business Monthly.

The current hearing agenda is as follows:
8:45 a.m. – 8:50 a.m.             Introduction of Hearing Officer and Panel
                                               Instructions regarding hearing process
8:55 a.m. – 10:25 a.m.            Chuitna Citizens Coalition Inc.
                                                Trustees for Alaska
10:35 a.m. – 11:35 a.m.          Pac Rim Coal LLP
12:25 p.m. – 12:55 p.m.         Cook Inlet Keeper
1:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.             Alaska Center for the Environment
1:35 p.m. – 2:05 p.m.             Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority
2:10 p.m. – 2:25 p.m.             Alaska Conservation Trust
2:30 p.m. – 2:45 p.m.             Alaska Miners Association
2:50 p.m. – 3:05 p.m.             Alaska Oil and Gas Association
3:10 p.m. – 3:25 p.m.             Council of Alaska Producers
3:30 p.m. – 3:45 p.m.             Howard Grey
3:50 p.m. – 4:05 p.m.              Resource Development Council
4:10 p.m. – 4:25 p.m.             Chuitna Citizen’s Coalition Inc. – Applicant’s final comments
4:25 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.             Hearing Officer’s Closing Comments

It will be held in the Anchorage Federal Building Annex (222 W. 8th) conference room.  

I tried to find the agenda on the Department of Natural Resources website to be sure it was accurate, but couldn't, so I called their information office, and they couldn't find it and asked if I wanted to talk to Dave Schade.  I smiled to myself and said, 'Sure."  Dave said the agenda was sent out to all the parties involved but not posted online.

Schade:  I'm hoping that we'll get some new information from the testimony.
Steve:  Are there any information holes you're specifically hoping to fill?
Schade:  Now you're asking for specific comments.
Steve:  No, not asking what the holes are, but just if there are any.  

So he offered to send me a copy of the letters he sent out to the parties.

First is the most recent letter which has the agenda (with breaks included) and goes down into administrative details about equipment presenters might need. 

Middle Creek Hearing Letter And Agenda - August 21, 2015

The June 23, 2015 letter narrows the scope of the testimony to objections that have already been made to
1.  to some part of the DNR analyses, and
2.  to granting the reservations

It also addresses the issue I raised above - about information holes DNR might want to fill.  Specifically it identifies questions DNR might ask:

• how particular objections relate specifically to each application under consideration
• what back up information supports particular objections
• what is the basis for any legal or constitutional argument being made
• what timelines or processes an objector might suggest as an alternative to a timeline or process objected to
• how DNR should consider particular objections in relation to the criteria set out in AS 46.15.080 (see bottom of the post)

Alaska Middle Creek Reservation of Water Objection Hearing Notice by Steve

I have to say that from what I can see in these letters, that Schade has spelled out the process in detail for participants and given a sense of the kind of questions they might be expected to respond to. 

They've had this information since June, giving them sufficient time to prepare.  And the things he's asking are what any MPA student is taught to ask for - supporting information for claims, alternatives to things they object to, and the legal basis for their claims.  I remember a student once in class, after I'd asked a question, got an answer, then followed the answer up with "Why?", saying, "I knew you were going to ask that." That 'why?' should be automatic to people doing this kind of work.   Dave needs all the supporting information he can get to be able to make his decision on this.

Since he mentions the specific criteria he's requred to use, I thought I should look them up and post them here. 

AS 46.15.080. Criteria For Issuance of Permit.

(a) The commissioner shall issue a permit if the commissioner finds that

(1) rights of a prior appropriator will not be unduly affected;

(2) the proposed means of diversion or construction are adequate;

(3) the proposed use of water is beneficial; and

(4) the proposed appropriation is in the public interest.

(b) In determining the public interest, the commissioner shall consider

(1) the benefit to the applicant resulting from the proposed appropriation;

(2) the effect of the economic activity resulting from the proposed appropriation;

(3) the effect on fish and game resources and on public recreational opportunities;

(4) the effect on public health;

(5) the effect of loss of alternate uses of water that might be made within a reasonable time if not precluded or hindered by the proposed appropriation;

(6) harm to other persons resulting from the proposed appropriation;

(7) the intent and ability of the applicant to complete the appropriation; and

(8) the effect upon access to navigable or public water.

 You can see there's a bit of room for interpretation - words like 'adequate' and 'beneficial.' 'Public interest' at least is spelled out.  A good public administrator will wrestle hard with the law and the facts trying to come up with the most defensible decision possible.  There are some close calls where both sides have strong claims and where two different hearing officers could come up with different, but justified, conclusions.  And then there are decisions where the answer if fairly clear cut. 

You can get more background information from Pacific Rim Coal , the coal mine developers, and from Inlet Keepers, a keep opponent of the mine.

You can also go to the hearing tomorrow.  Testimony is limited to those parties who have already been involved, but the public may attend and listen.

And one final comment.  The  Water Resource Section of the Division of Mining, Land & Water, of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, is just one of the government agencies that have some sort of jurisdiction over this project. 

Hiring A Mediator: Is Alaska's Governor Trying To Be The Adult?

Governor Walker has hired a mediator to try to get the two houses of the Alaska legislature to resolve their differences and pass a budget.

The governor has already had to send out layoff notices to state employees and if the budget isn't resolved by, well the new fiscal year this budget is supposed to cover begins July 1.   Below is my rough sense of what is happening in Alaska policy unmaking. 

Overview of Sticking Points

1.  Last year the legislature passed a $2 billion a year tax break for oil companies which includes big tax credits - to the tune of $700 million this year.  The Republican majorities in the House and Senate tell us this is contractual and can't be changed.  Though they have no problem breaking other contracts such as labor agreements. 

2.  The price of oil plummeted,  sharply cutting the state's basic revenue source.

3.  The budget passed by the legislature had a $3 billion gap between expenditures and revenue. 

4.  The state has a lot of money in different funds - mainly the Alaska Permanent Fund and the Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR).  But the legislature needs a 3/4 majority to get into the CBR.  Democrats were needed to get to the CBR and they wouldn't go along with the budget unless the Majority approved Medicaid expansion, union contracts whose raises the legislature had previously approved, and a version of Erin's Law to teach kids how to protect themselves from sexual abuse.

5.  The majority talked about moving money around in the Permanent Fund which on technical grounds would let them tap the CBR with a simple majority.  This move only needed a majority, but six of their own, sensing political suicide (even talking about messing with the Permanent Fund Dividend Checks everyone gets has been taboo) and severe limitations on future budget options, refused to go along. 

6.  The governor refused to sign a budget that was $3 billion in the red and sent it back to the legislature, set up a special session in Juneau (the state capital), and told them to fund union contracts, pass Medicaid expansion, Erin's Law, and a balanced budget.  (The governor is a former Republican who ran as an Independent because he didn't think he could get through a Republican primary.  During the campaign, he teamed up with the Democratic gubernatorial candidate who became his Lt. Gov running mate.  A major National Guard scandal for the sitting Republican governor helped Walker become governor.)

7.  The Republican majorities in the House and Senate threw a hissy fit and refused to meet in Juneau.  They held ten and 15 minute meetings - long enough to open and adjourn - and then called their own special session in the newly, and luxuriously, refurbished Legislative Information Office in Anchorage.

8.  The House majority and minority caucuses finally came up with a compromise budget - which got a few things the Democrats wanted (no Erin's Law, no Medicaid) along with a promise to vote for access to the CBR, but only IF the senate went along. 

9.  The Senate rejected the House compromise and sent back their own new budget.

10.  This budget was rejected by both the Democrats and the Republicans unanimously in the House.

So that gets us to now.  The governor announced that he'd hired a man who mediates business disputes.  The governor is an attorney who is used to working through business deals with mediators if nothing else works.  

This seems to me like a logical and reasonable approach.  The governor says the legislature is squabbling over 1% of the budget and seemingly is willing to risk shutting down the government over what he thinks are really tiny differences.  I would guess that while the financial differences are small, the ego differences are still pretty big.

My main question when I heard about the mediation offer was about separation of powers.  I would suspect given the already mentioned bruised egos, having the governor meddle with the legislature by hiring a mediator would add even more capsaicin to an already fiery stew.

But it is the kind of thing an adult would do.  I think of something I heard during the Alaska political corruption trials in 2007 -2008.  I believe it was someone working with the prosecution who observed that the businessmen (there were no women indicted) all quickly came to settlement agreements while the politicians were the ones who tended to go to trial.   The businessmen, he hypothesized, knew how to assess their situation and cut their losses while the politicians protested to the end that they didn't do anything wrong.

The governor tends to take more of a business approach than the Republican politicians in power in Juneau (well, in Anchorage at the moment), despite their non-stop pro-business rhetoric.  And lest I be accused of picking on the Republicans, let me say in my defense, that they are, and pretty much have been, the folks who call the shots in Juneau.  The Democrats are relegated to scraps that fall from the Republican table.  They haven't had any power over anything until their votes were needed for the CBR.  The Democrats, from my perspective, have still been meek in their demands (maybe requests is a more accurate term) but the Senate seems galled that they have to acknowledge their existence at all. 

AIFF 2014 - Saturday - What To Do?

I'm throwing up my hands here.  Lots of good things and some I really want to do are at the same time.  And the alternative times conflict with something else.  But that's the nature of festivals like this.  More than anyone can see.

I'm going to try to get to Global Village Shorts Program which has four films in competition and to Rocks in My Pocket.  I hate to miss The Homestretch at Loussac and will try to get to the discussion at least.  But I may change my mind.  The grid below will get bigger if you click on it.  Or go to the original at Festival Genius.  There, if you mouse over a film, a popup will give you more detail.

Note the Frost Drive-In.  And there's a family friendly drive-in, in the Loussac Parking lot (I think that's what someone told me, the program just says Loussac.)  That's at 7pm.  You'll use your car radio to get the audio I was told.  

UA President's Retention Bonus Part 2: My Questions, Their Answers, And The Contract

After writing my earlier post on the president's retention bonus, but before posting it, I decided I should check with the Board of Regents, so I sent this set of questions.  The response letter did not address the questions one by one.  Instead it was one long answer.  Below I attempted to find the answers to each of my questions in their response and in the contract and put them after my questions.   You can judge for yourself if I've accurately and fully done this task by looking at their response letter at (1) near the bottom of the post.  The contract itself - "the Agreement" - is at (2) below.)

Q1.  Can you explain to me what the logic behind this was? 

Answer:

• President's salary is 25-28% under market for systems presidents at comparable universities
• Board believes President's leadership has been exceptional
• Evidence includes the Shaping Alaska’s Future initiative (www.alaska.edu/shapingalaskasfuture), a collection of 23 different effects or outcomes the university intends to achieve within five thematic areas. Agreement on this important strategic direction for the entire UA System represents unprecedented collaboration between multiple stakeholders. Quite simply, it has never been done before at UA. 
• The board has also seen first-hand strong evidence that Pat Gamble understands and anticipates national and state trends and has learned the
  details of university operations and educational processes in the State of Alaska.

Q2.  Was there a threat that President Gamble would leave if you didn't do this?

Answer:  It appears the answer is 'no.'

• "Pat Gamble is an accomplished nationally known and exceptional leader, who could readily take his skills elsewhere or simply decide to retire."
• Salary is "already 25-28% under market for system presidents at comparable universities.  . . . "  Rather than increase his salary, which would give him no incentive to stay, they decided to use a retention bonus, which "addresses the market issues while creating a powerful incentive for President Gamble to stay on board."
  

Q3.  Was there any discussion about other ways this money could be used - like hiring faculty or other direct program benefits?

Answer:  Response letter did not address this question.

Q4.  Was there any opposition to this proposal? Can you tell me what the discussion was about?

Answer:  Not really addressed.  See Q5.

Q5.  Was the vote unanimous? If not, who voted for and who voted against this item?

Answer (from the email, not the attached Response Letter):  "The vote tally for approval
of the presidential contract during the June 2014 meeting was 10-1 ."  The letter did not say who voted against.  I learned through other channels the no vote was Kenneth Fisher.

Q6.  Was there any sort of review packet of his work, say as faculty are required to turn in each year?  Was there any sort of quantification of the benefits the President brought to the university that could be tied to the amount of bonus?

Answer:  This was not answered directly. It appears the answer is no.   Some of the reasons they listed for finding the president exceptional are listed in the answer to Q1.  The letter also included:

"President Gamble also has worked with governance and the board to make real progress on longstanding academic issues that will facilitate student access and success. Those include improved graduation rates, student advising, better service to students and working more closely and effectively with the state, the K-12 system, and all of Alaska's employers.  President Gamble also has maintained good working relationships and open communication with the legislature and governor. The funding of the UAF heat and power plant and the continued progress on the UAA and UAF Engineering buildings is evidence of that relationship."

Q7.  Was there any discussion of faculty or staff bonuses and the propriety of paying the President a bonus when others, not only aren't getting bonuses, but instead are being cut? 

Answer:  The letter did not address this directly.  Perhaps this was intended to address it:

"We understand some people will disagree with our approach. We cannot always agree on every issue. Ultimately, however, I believe the board’s decision was in the best interests of the University and the state, and we stand by our decision to offer the performance- based retention incentive in lieu of a market adjustment."

Q8.  In the Summary of the June 4-5, 2014 meeting, it says: "The Board of Regents approves an extension of Patrick K. Gamble's contract of employment as president of the University of Alaska System at an annual salary of $320,000 per year, retroactive to June 1, 2013, and continuing through May 31, 2016, with terms as authorized by the board."

a.  Why was it made retroactive? 

Answer:  Because he has been working without a contract since June 2013.

b.  What was his annual salary prior to the June meeting? (Presumably, since the pay increase was made retroactive, it was lower than $320,000. If it was already $320,000, why was it made retroactive?)

Answer:  It was $320,000.  Retroactive, as mentioned, because he was working without a contract since June 2013.

c.  What are the "terms as authorized by the board."  I assume this is the $320,000 bonus, but are there other terms besides that one?  

Answer:

"With the incentive approach, if the president voluntarily departs the university before the end of his contract term, he does not get a dime of the incentive.  The president also remains an at-will employee, so the board may terminate his employment for no reason or any reason at any time.  If the Board terminates the president's contract at-will, the incentive amount would be reduced proportionately."

There are also provisions in the contract - copy at bottom of this post -that provide for proportional payment if the president gets sick and can't work for three months, gets disabled, or dies.

Additionally, the contract includes a number of perks:

• the president is required to reside in provided residence which "is to be used for official business and entertainment associated with your position.  The University provides for maintenance, utilities, and domestic assistance . . "
• "an allowance for a vehicle appropriate for University business, entertainment and other purposes."  This includes "maintenance, repairs, fuel, insurance, and other costs."  However, personal use has to be reported to the IRS as additional compensation.
• 240 hours a year annual leave plus sick leave at 4.62 hours/pay period (two weeks)
• relocation expenses up to $27,000 on termination

Q9. Can you please send me a copy of the contract between the President and the Board of Regents?

Answer:  The contract that was also sent along with the "2013 Retention Addendum" contains all the details.  I've posted the contract at (2) below.



(1) The University's letter in response to my list of questions:


  

Questions on Retention Incentive Response Letter by Steve

(2)  The President's 2013 Employment Agreement

President Gamble's Contract 6-1-2013!5!31-2016 by Steve

There's a lot to digest here.

In the abstract, there are good reasons for retention bonuses, the question is whether they apply in this case.
Part of the answer depends on how a)  how good a job the president has done and is expected to do in the future and b) the likelihood he would leave before the end of the contract.
Another question the Board seems to not have addressed is the appropriateness of high salaries for public university presidents.  The Alaska governor makes $145,000 a year (compared to President Gamble's $320,000) and the governor turned down the additional $6,000 a year recommended by the Alaska State Officers Compensation Commission.  Although a governor's spokesperson had said the governor approved the increase, 

"His office says he changed course  'in light of budget constraints and upon further reflection.'"

In a follow up post I will try to assess the Board's decision.
[UPDATE Aug 31 - The follow up post (#3)  has the list of schools used in the salary survey.]