Terrible News Reporting - Treating Trump Like A Reasonable Candidate; "Worst Day Since . . ."

I'm going to comment on how two articles in Saturday's LA Times distort the moment by how they word things.  

1. Comparing North Korea Policy - Ignores the Overwhelming Difference Between the Candidates

While US North Korean policy is important, this headline reminded me of other articles that skip over the part about Trump being the worst, most horrible person to every be nominated to be president.  The candidate who would discard the constitution, set up internment camps for immigrants and his 'enemies' and who knows who else.  The candidate who would turn the US Democracy into a dictatorship.  See Project 2025 to see what he and his Heritage Society Friends are planning.  That link is Wikipedia's entry.  You can look at Project 2024's own site as well.  Is Trump smart enough to do that?  Probably not, but he's got some nasty folks behind the scenes and Project 2025 outlines what they plan to do with his next presidency.  

So seriously asking questions like whether Trump or Biden would have a better North Korean policy is sort of like asking which candidate has biggest ears.  It's beside the point  [I looked this up to see if it should be beside or besides]  Electing Trump would be an unmitigated disaster for all. Even the multi-billionaires who hope to have their taxes and regulations cut will find that Trump, like Putin, would go after any of them is there is any sign their total obeisance is slipping.  The word defenestration has come back into use for a reason.

This sort of article makes it seem that this is a normal election and it simply isn't.  All these sorts of comparisons help legitimize Trump as a candidate.  

It also assumes that Trump has policy or is capable of carrying out policy that is more than his personal, at that moment whim.  That his policy is more than feeding his ego.  

2.  Worst day since April

[I'm leaving the ad in, because somehow I suspect monetizing online newspapers like this plays a role in why we get silly headlines like this.  Media these days seem to always add a negative to any positive that might reflect on Biden.  It used to be that newspapers and blogs had pictures that illustrate the story.  But now they have clickbait pictures like this.  They are either disgusting, irrelevant to the story, or misleading because readers think the picture is related to the story. ] 

My key point here is that much of the media seem to feel that "strong economic reports" has to always be balanced with a negative like 'S&P has worst day since April."   Is the S&P's one bad day equal in importance to the 'strong economy report'?  Or is it a minor blip, but they felt they had to 'both sides' the headline?  

And "since April"?  Really?  This is just May.  I'm waiting for the headline that says, "Worst day since yesterday."  

Let's look at the S&P 500 for the last year:

Source

S&P 500 has trended up over the year and it's higher now than any time in April.  What are they really trying to tell us with "worst day since April"?  What does one bad day mean when the trend is a steady long term climb?  And why is that mentioned in the headline?

3.  Why are the media taking shots at Biden when his administration has such a strong record on many things, while at the same time treating Trump like a viable presidential candidate when he's so demonstrably terrible and dangerous?

I don't know.  People have suggested a number of reasons, none of which I can show proof of.  The proof is their performance, but why?  Some possible explanation.

• The main media are owned by very rich people and their interests are aligned with the wealthy
• Media need sensational headlines to get eyeballs.  As a blogger, I can see how such headlines get more readers.  I don't do lurid headlines, but if I can post a funny or dramatic headline because it fits the story, I'll usually do it.
• Media want people to follow the presidential (and other) election because that sells news.  So keeping the presidential race close, they believe, will get them eyeballs and advertisers.
• Media make money through advertising.  Political ads are a great source of income. 
•  "Traditional ad spending will grow 7.9% (over 2020) to $8.86 billion. TV makes up nearly all of that, with $7.06 billion in spend, up 7.5% over 2020. Print, radio, and other traditional media make up the rest." (From eMarketer)

Those are four plausible reasons for media to forgo journalism ethics in the name of profit (and for many newspapers survival.)

All I can say is that people should read these kinds of headlines - and articles - critically.  Even better, write letters to the editors challenging the assumptions.  

US Political Accountability Is Badly Broken

[There are so many forces and issues intertwined.  Every day there are new shocking reports to support one thing or another that I argue here.  This is several drafts along and so I'm just going to post it.  Yes, we are in crisis and I'll probably be writing more about the nature of the crisis.  Here the focus in on the lack of accountability.]

The reports of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' benefits from wealthy benefactors who have interests in the outcome of Supreme Court cases has already told us things weren't working.  

The fact that people who participated in the January 6 insurrection are still in their Congressional seats and voting like other members of Congress, also tells us this.

The fact that most Republicans in Congress voted against Trump's impeachments, and continue to support him publicly and take no action on corrupt Republican Senators and Members of Congress, tells us that accountability is broken. 

The report on Rep. George Santos says it once again, loud and clear.  Our accountability of elected officials and Supreme Court justices is broken.  From the Table of Contents of the report released last week:: 

"III. FINDINGS........................................................................................................ 10

A. OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 10

B. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW, HOUSE RULES, AND OTHER

APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT ......................................................................... 13

 1. 2. 3.

C.

1. 2. 3.

Campaign Finance Violations............................................................................ 13 Willful and Knowing Financial Disclosure Violations ...................................... 37 Lack of Diligence and Candor During the ISC Investigation............................ 48

OTHER ALLEGATIONS REVIEWED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE..................................... 51 

Sexual Misconduct Allegation ............................................................................ 51 Conflict of Interest Violations ............................................................................ 52 Additional Allegations Charged by the Department of Justice.......................... 54"

You can read the complete report here. 

WHAT DO I MEAN BY BROKEN?

One could argue that the release of this report on Santos, and his subsequent announcement that he will not be running for reelection, shows that there is accountability.  

The problem is that we have known of evidence of widespread wrongdoing by Santos since shortly after he was elected.  Nevertheless, he's been allowed to serve as a Member of Congress, influencing US public policy through his committee work, public announcements, and votes all this time.  And unless the House votes to expel him, he'll continue doing that until his successor is sworn in.  

In most any other job, if employees are found to have lied on their applications or resumes, have been found to have violated organizational rules, or state or federal laws, they can be fired immediately.  At the very least they can be put on suspension and not allowed to continue using their position for personal gain or to otherwise work against the interests of the organization.  It's trickier to remove an elected official because one can argue 'they were elected by the people in their district." But we still have procedures to do it.  Republicans just won't do it for one of their own.  

Accountability Too Slow

Santos shouldn't have lasted this long.  Trump is using all the courts' protections for the innocent to delay his trials as long as possible.  Just the other day Judge Cannon is allowing delays that mean the classified documents case won't be decided before the 2024 election.  This clearly should be an expedited trial.  The consequences of stealing secret documents, showing them to unauthorized eyes, and probably selling them to enemy nations should be high priority and fast tracked.  

Supreme Court justices continue to rule on cases that have horrendous consequences for democracy.  Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has outlined four types of cases on which the conservative  Justices consistently vote together to help large corporation get their way:  [The link includes his time at the Amy Coney Barrett hearings.  This court background discussion begins around minute 21 on the video.]

1. unlimited dark money; 
2. knock down the civil jury trial down; 
3. weaken regulatory agencies  
4. voter suppression and gerrymandering  on that weaken government powers to regulate, voting rights, women's rights, etc. even though it's now clear that there is no accountability for clearly corrupt judges, and we're moving very slowly if at all to correcting that.  

In other presentations I've heard him include anti-labor cases.  The point is that these are all decisions that significantly weaken opposition to large corporations.  And there are further conflicts of interest due to Justices owning stock that is affected by their rulings on cases before them.  

Corrupted Officials

Republicans in the US Senate refused to impeach Trump despite overwhelming evidence of wrong doing.  They've allowed January 6 co-conspirators to remain in Congress.  

• the lust for power and fear of losing it - Republicans are afraid to buck the party because they fear  loss of GOP funds and the Republican voters in the next primary. They won't hold their colleagues accountable because they fear losing their majority in the House.  They support a Supreme Court that looks the other way in the face of gerrymandering that keeps many Republicans in power.
• the lust for the prestige of being in Congress - Maybe they don't care that much for power, but rather they enjoy the prestige and privileges that come with being a Member of Congress.  The same issues arise as for the lust for power.
• the lust for money for campaigns and personal benefit - Money for campaigns is intertwined with lust for power and prestige.  But Members of Congress also get hefty salaries, travel, health insurance, and retirements.  Additionally there are other opportunities to get richer than they already are.  Staying loyal to their corrupt party seems to be the safest way to hold onto these benefits.  
• mental slowness - I first labeled this 'utter stupidity' but that seemed too simplified.  

• short term thinking - as Republicans reveled in the ending of Roe, they didn't see the backlash that was coming.  And while they feel the need to cater to rabid Trump cultists to win the primary, they fail to see how their actions (and inactions) mean greater risks of losing in the general elections.  And even if they are in a highly gerrymandered district and will win, they are likely to lose the majority in the House.
• sheltered thinking - their beliefs and prejudices are reinforced by the people they spend their time with.  They see people who don't agree with them as caricatures  of evil rather than as rational human beings with different, but reasonable world views
• lack of empathy for others - whether they are sociopaths or have other afflictions that allow them no sense of understanding of other people's issues and problems
• inability to break from outdated (if ever even accurate) explanations of how the world works - things like individual responsibility even in a society that favors some over the many; religious and racial stereotypes; belief in the correlation between work and worthiness even as automation makes much work unnecessary and wealthy people need not work at all; belief that money and power will solve all their problems; 
• lack of analytic abilities - they can't understand the complexities of modern life and are stuck on simplistic and black and white explanations

Additionally, Republicans in the Senate allow Senator Tuberman to block appointments of military officers and others to delay the appointment of judges and high government officials.  For various reasons - 

Blocking military appointments only hurts our military readiness and can only help our military adversaries.  Blocking judicial and senior civil service positions, some argue, fits in with the Project 2025 [see below] blueprint, by keeping these positions vacant making it easier for Trump, in a second presidency, to fill them with his loyalists.  

The Republicans in Congress allow (and in many cases support) all the dragging out of these delays.  They refuse to work with Democrats to speed up the accountability of the egregiously guilty.  

HOW ARE THINGS DIFFERENT TODAY THAT MAKES THIS MORE OF A PROBLEM?

In the past, the idea of Democracy was never at stake.  Notice I said 'idea of Democracy.'  For non-whites and non-Christians democracy in the US has been spotty to non-existent.  Voting rights didn't exist for Blacks in the South and their courts were made up of all white juries. US citizens of Japanese descent were locked into camps during WW II and their property taken over by whites.  Immigrants have always been vilified.  Native Americans were displaced and massacred.   

But for white politicians, the idea of Democracy was pretty sacred.  The US was touted as the bastion of democracy in a world of dictators.  

Today, that's not the case.  To say that the election is about Democracy vs. Authoritarianism (whether that be Fascist, White Christian, or whatever democratic antonym is probably not that crucial)  simply is NOT an exaggeration.

You think people like me are alarmist?  Even long time Right Wing Anchorage Times and then Anchorage Daily News columnist Paul Jenkins says democracy is at stake.

"Trump is a danger to US democracy. How can so many good people still support him?"

Just take a look at Project 2025.  (The link is to Wikipedia which is written in a calm, pseudo-objective tone. If democracy and fascism are both equally moral and viable option, that might be ok.  But they aren't.  If you don't read it carefully, you might not see the real danger.  Sentences like:

"Project 2025 seeks to place the entire Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of the Department of Justice, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission and other agencies.[4]"

For people who don't have a deep understanding of how our government works, that sentence might not be alarming.  But trust me, it is the path to an all powerful president.    

Even NPR's (Here and Now) interview with a key author of Project 2025, while pushing back some, doesn't really give the sense of how this is a full blown attempt to overthrow Democracy.  While they talk about getting rid of 50,000 civil servants by making them 'at will' employees (who can be fired for no reason), they don't mention the long struggle to set up a merit system which hires people based on qualifications for the job rather than political allegiance and which protects civil servants against political firing by requiring their dismissal be based on just cause (such as not doing their job as required by law.)  Despite GOP rhetoric, staffing the government with educated and dedicated civil servants is a good thing if you want a government that runs well and provides the public the services they want and need.  But not if you want to use government to carry out your personal vendettas.

Project 2025 is a Heritage Foundation plan to give the next Republican president the power to obliterate the obstacles that would keep a Trump from controlling the US government as he sees fit.  It eliminates safeguards, it puts Trump's sycophants into power - the kind of people who told him the 2020 election was rigged and that he actually won.  It's a blueprint for taking down Democracy and setting up an authoritarian government.  It's written by the type of people spent 40 years plotting to pack the Supreme Court with Right wing extremists who ignored precedent to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Prior to the Trump presidency, we had lots of lines that politician's didn't cross.  They respected the many unwritten rules because, for most, they had a sense of decency and propriety.  For other because violating them would lead to censure or expelling.  But Trump and his supporters see those lines as challenges.  How many can they mow right over?

Trump violated every such rule that got in his way.  To the point that overthrowing Democracy and replacing the Constitution with the Bible seem to be reasonable to large numbers of people - including the current Speaker of the US House of Representatives.   

We've got January 6 enablers still serving in the Congress.  This would not have been accepted before Trump.  

The Heritage Foundation is behind Project 2025 - aligned surely with the Federalist Society that planned the takeover of the Supreme Court for forty years.  This is not just a band of crazies ready to attack at Trump's command.  Those crazies are are more sophisticated and more than willing to use Trump's cult as their attack dogs.  

The Supreme Court, restructured by Federalist Society judges that Trump dutifully appointed, has overturned long standing precedents - like Roe v Wade - even though each of the Trump nominees swore that such long standing precedents would be respected.  

• Political Violence Is One Of Those Lines

Nancy Pelosi's husband was attacked in her house in San Francisco by a Right Wing conspiracy consuming fanatic and the prospect of more political violence aimed at elected officials, judges, and election officials is on the rise.  

From AP via Anchorage Daily News Nov 19, 2023

The Trump types are using the slow and deliberate court processes to subvert justice.  We've never had an ex-president under multiple indictments who was also running for president again.  There's an urgency to these cases because they are running up against the election deadline.  The Trump team ignores the basic standards and pushes everything way past normal standards of conduct.  Because an ex-president is on trial and because the court's aren't used to this kind of a full court press, they continue to use constraint and deference as if we were in normal times.  We aren't.  I'm not asking judges to go around the law. I'm asking them to stand up to the bully defendants and not tolerate the flouting of their orders.  

SO, ARE YOU SAYING DEMOCRACY IS DOOMED?

If we don't take every action necessary to prevent Trump or any Republican from winning the 2024 election, Democracy as we know it is doomed.  

Senate and House Obstacles 

The US Senate is, in essence, gerrymandered by the Constitutional requirement that every state has two US Senators.  That wasn't a big deal in 1800 when state populations were comparatively (by today's standards) even.  But today state's like Alaska and Wyoming have fewer than one million people and get two Senators just like California with 39 million people.  And the smaller, more rural states tend to be redder.

"With the even split in the current Senate, the 50 Democratic senators represent 56.5% of the voters, while the 50 Republican senators represent just 43.5% of the voters. In 2018, the Democrats won nearly 18 million more votes for Senate than the Republicans, but the Republicans still gained two seats." (From the Brookings Institute)

In the House, the slim Republican majority is almost certainly the result of Republican gerrymandering of districts so that Democrats were either pushed into one or two districts or scattered into Republican majority districts.  

The US Supreme Court Leans Way Right

It used to be that Republican Supreme Court Justices used the Constitution as their guide for making decisions.  Today's Federalist Society judges use a pro-business ideology to find ways to twist the Constitution to favor the rich over the poor.  Individual rights - like abortion rights, voting rights - suffer.  How the Supreme Court will rule if the 2024 election is challenged by Trump does not give me hope.  

Another Insurrection, but larger

Trump persuaded lots of people to come to the Capitol on January 6 to try to stop the Congress from ratifying the election.  Many of them have been convicted of various crimes.  How many others are out there who are ready to make armed protests should Trump lose again?  

People support Trump for various reasons.  The US economy has shifted and good working class jobs no longer pay as well or are lifetime guarantees.  The array of GOP tax cuts for the rich over the years has created a an unbalanced division of wealth, with the top 10% controlling nearly 70% of US  wealth!

People's lives and prospects are not as good as they were.

With greater legal protections for women and people of color, there are more people competing for jobs.  Before the 1960s, white males were the only people competing for the better jobs.  The Republicans have convinced many of those white males, that the decline is because women and non-whites are taking over.  That's what the extreme abortion laws are about and the diatribes against immigration.  Arrows aimed straight at the emotional parts of the Trump cult members.  

IS THERE ANY HOPE?

Part of me takes hope from the elections, particularly those related for abortion, since the 2022 election.  The vast majority of voters do not support Trump.  It's possible the Trump team and the wealthy conservatives they are proxy for to simply collapse.  I hope that happens.  But I also don't want to be in shock the way we were after Clinton lost in 2016.  We need to be in shock now.  If we work harder than necessary to win, that's better than not trying hard enough and losing.

NPR reported that 80 million people DID NOT VOTE in 2020.  That's a lot of votes.  Convincing 10 million of them that Trump means the end of Democracy, would save Democracy, for now.  

But with all the lies and conspiracy theories, with mainstream media acting like the GOP is a normal party to be treated with respect, and with the many calls for violence, I'm convinced that the Trump campaign will do everything it can to obstruct voters, to subvert the election, and to repeat Jan 6 type insurrections, but with more discipline, if they lose again.  Trump's biggest incentive right now would appear to get back the power to pardon, starting with pardoning himself.  

So the votes have to be so strongly for the Democrat that there is no question about who won.  And that will take a lot of grassroots organizing to get non-voters educated and voting.  

Reagan Told US in 1983 NOT to "Both Sides" In The Face Of Evil

[Video excerpted from speech to National Association of Evangelicals, March 8, 1983.  Full speech available here.]

While Reagan was distinguishing between the United States and the Soviet Union, he was warning people not to step back and treat both sides as equal.  He was saying the US was on the side of good and the Soviet Union was on the side of evil and you can't just offer both sides as equally worthy.  

Today we have a Democratic Party, with all its inconsistencies and flaws, basically standing for the United States and the freedoms and the democracy that were established in the US Constitution.  Opposing it are the Republican Party, essentially a cult ruled by a leader who has ties to Reagan's evil empire*, who lies, who makes false accusation, who foments violence, who favors white nationalism and fascism, and who is attempting to tear down the US Constitution and the US Government.  

United States journalists have long argued for 'objective' reporting of the news. It's part of the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics.  

"Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant."

Generally, this has meant both major political parties are given equal time, and 'responsible' spokespersons for different sides of an issue are cited.   

But when one of the major political parties has become anti-democratic and does so with lies and misinformation that obfuscates and distracts from the important issues, then both sides journalism exacerbates the problem. They are basically polluting the public forum.  Much of the media has yet to adjust to this change in the Republican party.  

The media still  try to 'objectively' present opposing arguments.  Even when one side favors the basic principles and freedoms in our Constitution and the other side would ignore the Constitution when it conflicts with their goals.  

I think I'm being a bit generous here, ascribing this presenting of both sides equally as an attempt to be 'objective.'  

Despite indisputable evidence that the Republican party has become an anti-democracy cult, many mainstream media treat both parties as though the were equally valid points of view.  

This is like giving the pro-slavery side equal time with the equal rights side. "Well, now let's consider the upsides of slavery."  Oh, yeah, I forgot.t Republicans have actually done that.    Or like giving the child pornography proponents equal time and respect to the anti-child pornography side.  

Many Evangelical Christians are among those who are supporting this anti-American, pro-Trump voice. 

So I just wanted to offer this warning from one of their heroes - Ronald Reagan - against both-sidesing issues.  The video above comes from a speech to  the National Association of Evangelicals on March 8, 1983.  [And it appears that those loyal to Reagan are losing favor in Trump's GOP.]

Here's more of Reagan's comments from the transcript of that speech.

"So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride–the temptation of blithely..uh..declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil."

There is more that is not in the clip I have at the top, but in the full speech. Reagan (below) is supporting the rights of 'minority citizens,' he's arguing against racism and anti-semitism, something else the Republicans today no longer agree with.

There is sin and evil in the world, and we’re enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our might. Our nation, too, has a legacy of evil with which it must deal. The glory of this land has been its capacity for transcending the moral evils of our past. For example, the long struggle of minority citizens…for equal rights, once a source of disunity and civil war is now a point of pride for all Americans. We must never go back. There is no room for racism, anti-Semitism, or other forms of ethnic and racial hatred in this country. [Long Applause]

I know that you’ve been horrified, as have I, by the resurgence of some hate groups preaching bigotry and prejudice. Use the mighty voice of your pulpits and the powerful standing of your churches to denounce and isolate these hate groups in our midst. The commandment given us is clear and simple: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” [Applause]

Reagan is not a president I admire, for many reasons.  I don't endorse mucht of this speech.  And it's tricky to quote parts that appear to support the point you are making.  

But Reagan is clearly telling this Evangelical audience that when there is a clear choice between good and evil, treating both sides with equal respect, as though they are equally valid, is wrong.  

We're there now, yet media are giving Trump prime time interviews.  And often using Right Wing lies as counterbalance to stories on President Biden.  

I think they understand these are not normal times and the old rules don't work, because one side doesn't follow any rules, other than obeisance to Trump.  They are trying to figure out how to report in these perilous times.   

I think they are also carefully looking at their bottom line and calculating the number of eyeballs and clicks the GOP crime scene will generate for them.  

*I'd note that Reagan was talking about the Soviet Union which has been replaced by Russia.  But much of the evil still exists.  Putin was spawned by the Soviet KGB.  And just watching the destruction of Ukraine by Russia makes it clear that Russia is ruled by an inhumane war criminal.  

I'd also like to acknowledge that I discovered the Reagan clip while watching the Netflix series SpyOps, Episode 3, Operation Pimlico.

Stewart Rhodes, Witness At David Eastman Trial Found Very Guilty [UPDATED 5/8/23]

Exhibit 1:  Alaska Constitution Article XII

§ 4. Disqualification for Disloyalty

No person who advocates, or who aids or belongs to any party or organization or association which advocates, the overthrow by force or violence of the government of the United States or of the State shall be qualified to hold any public office of trust or profit under this constitution.  (emphasis added)

Exhibit 2: Head of Texas House General Investigative Committee on why a Republican member should be expelled from the House for having sex with an intern (from Austin-American Statesman):

"The expulsion of a fellow member is a level of punishment we don't take lightly," [Republican Rep. Andrew] Murr said to House members. "It's not meant to punish the member. Rather it is intended to protect the integrity and dignity of this legislative body and to provide accountability to everyone who works and serves in this building."

[UPDATE May 8, 2023 - Texas State Rep. Bryan Slaton resigned today.]

Exhibit 3:  Below - link to and excerpts from the Sentencing Memorandum for nine Oath Keepers after conviction of multiple crimes related to Jan. 6, 2021.   

Tying the threads together:

A.  Alaska state House member David Eastman is a life member of the Oath Keepers.   Its leader, Steward Rhodes was convicted this week of, among other things,  

". . . the jury found through its guilty verdict, that Rhodes led a conspiracy to use any means necessary, up to and including the use of force, to oppose the lawful transfer of power from President Trump to President-Elect Biden. Numerous co- conspirators testified that Rhodes’ repeated messages urging forcible resistance to the election results are what caused them to join the attack on the Capitol on January 6." 

B.  A lawsuit filed after the November 2022 election against then reelected, but not yet sworn in, Rep. Eastman by one of his constituents charged that he should not be sworn in because his membership in the Oath Keepers violated the state constitution provision cited above [Exhibit 1].  See ADN Dec. 6, 2022

The trial judge found that Eastman belonged to such an organization in violation of the Constitution, however, the judge also ruled that the First Amendment of the US constitution trumped Article XII Section 4.  

C.   Steward Rhodes was a key witness for Eastman in the trial, testifying electronically while in custody.

This past week Stewart Rhodes, the head of the Proud Boys, was convicted of a number of charges relating to his organization of and promotion of the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.  The prosecutors are arguing that he be sentenced to 25 years, by far the longest sentence of any Jan 6 defendant so far.  

Below are excerpts from the sentencing memorandum from the prosecutors to the judge - for Rhodes and the eight other Oath Keepers who were convicted with him.  

The first excerpt is the opening of the memorandum dealing with the group as a whole.  The second excerpt is a couple of pages the begins the 20 page justification for Rhodes' sentencing recommendation which begins at page 81.  (The whole document is 183 pages, so you can see Rhodes takes up a good portion.)

I offer this to remind the Alaska Legislature who their colleague is.  He has a life membership in this organization which he very easily could have ended, but chose not to.  

Excerpt 1:

"GOVERNMENT’S OMNIBUS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM AND MOTION FOR UPWARD DEPARTURE

These defendants were prepared to fight. Not for their country, but against it. In their own words, they were “willing to die” in a “guerilla war” to achieve their goal of halting the transfer of power after the 2020 Presidential Election. As a co-conspirator recognized, their actions made these defendants “traitors.”1

Using their positions of prominence within, and in affiliation with, the Oath Keepers organization, these defendants played a central and damning role in opposing by force the government of the United States, breaking the solemn oath many of them swore as members of the United States Armed Forces. To support their operation, they amassed an arsenal of firearms across the Potomac River and led a conspiracy that culminated in a mob’s attack on the United States Capitol while our elected representatives met in a Joint Session of Congress. Two juries found all nine defendants guilty of participating in this grave conduct. These defendants are unlike any of the hundreds of others who have been sentenced for their roles in the attack on the Capitol. Each defendant therefore deserves a significant sentence of incarceration."

Excerpt 2:

"A. Stewart Rhodes

Rhodes led a conspiracy to oppose by force the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. He exploited his vast public influence as the leader of the Oath

[Table of Penalty Enhancements here]

Keepers and used his talents for manipulation to goad more than twenty other American citizens into using force, intimidation, and violence to seek to impose their preferred result on a U.S. presidential election. This conduct created a grave risk to our democratic system of government and must be met with swift and severe punishment. A 25-year (300-month) sentence is compliant with the Sentencing Guidelines and necessary to satisfy the factors this Court must consider under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in imposing a sentence.

All of these counts group. Accordingly, the total adjusted offense level for Rhodes would be the highest of the offense levels for the three counts, which is 33.

The government also submits that an upward departure of six levels is warranted under Note 4 for the degree to which Rhodes’ offense conduct “was calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4, cmt. n.4. And Rhodes deserves no credit for “acceptance of responsibility.” This would bring the defendant’s offense level to 39, for a recommended sentence of 21.8 to 27.25 years (262 to 327 months) of incarceration. The government’s recommended sentence of 25 years (or 300 months) of incarceration is just above the mid-point of that range.

a) Additional Factual Support for the Specific Offense Characteristics

The relevant conduct of Rhodes’ co-conspirators caused and threatened to cause physical injury to the law enforcement officers protecting the Capitol on January 6 and substantial damage to the building. It is appropriate to apply Section 2J1.2(b)(1)(B) simply for the relevant conduct of the conspirators he led. But there is more.

The evidence at trial established, and the jury found through its guilty verdict, that Rhodes led a conspiracy to use any means necessary, up to and including the use of force, to oppose the lawful transfer of power from President Trump to President-Elect Biden. Numerous co- conspirators testified that Rhodes’ repeated messages urging forcible resistance to the election results are what caused them to join the attack on the Capitol on January 6. See, e.g., 10/18/22PM Tr. at 4099 (testimony of Jason Dolan that Rhodes’ words constituted a call “to take up arms and fight back”); messages “regalvanized” him to “resist the fraud” and to come to D.C. on January 6 prepared to fight against “[t]he corrupt elements in the government that were allowing the election to proceed, and obviously leftists and extremists and whoever else was in the way”); 1/3/23PM Tr. at 2556-57 (testimony of Caleb Berry that he believed, based on the messages of Defendants Rhodes and Meggs, that he and his fellow Oath Keepers had a duty to “defend the Constitution” by “fight[ing] against the federal government if I had to,” because “[w]e needed to act or we would die”). And a preponderance of the evidence shows that Rhodes ordered his co-conspirators to join in the attack on the Capitol, both directly and indirectly. Indirectly, Rhodes sent his followers knowing words of approval of the riot, like his message that “the founding generation -stormed the governors mansion in MA . . . . They didn’t fire on them, but they street fought. That’s where we are now. Next comes our ‘Lexington.” Directly, Rhodes spoke on the phone with Meggs moments before Meggs led Stack One to breach the Capitol. Gov. Ex. 1500. Accordingly, this Court can and should find that Rhodes, through his offense conduct and that of his co-conspirators, caused and created a risk of injury to others and damage to property."

Message to the Alaska legislature:

Rep. Eastman acknowledged membership in the Oath Keepers, acknowledged his continuing membership in the Oath Keepers, and that he was on the Capitol grounds on January 6 (though he did not enter the Capitol).  He has not announced that he has cancelled his membership in the Oath Keepers.  In fact, Stewart Rhodes was a key witness in Eastman's December trial.  

Eastman's membership is in clear violation of the Alaska Constitution Article XII, Section 4.  

Keep in mind the words of the Texas Investigation Committee Chair, Rep. Andrew Murr:  

"'Rather [the purpose of expulsion] is intended to protect the integrity and dignity of this legislative body and to provide accountability to everyone who works and serves in this building.'"

I'd also note that Article II, Section 12 gives the Alaska legislature the power to expel a member with a 2/3 vote.  The limits on the judge in Eastman's trial do not apply here.  

§ 12. Rules

The houses of each legislature shall adopt uniform rules of procedure. Each house may choose its officers and employees. Each is the judge of the election and qualifications of its members and may expel a member with the concurrence of two-thirds of its members. Each shall keep a journal of its proceedings. A majority of the membership of each house constitutes a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel attendance of absent members. The legislature shall regulate lobbying. [emphasis added]

I realize that there are reasons both the Republicans and the Democrats in the Alaska House feel it might be in their best interests to leave Eastman in the House.  I realize that minor compromises must often be made to pass legislation.  But harboring a member who is a member of an organization that tried to overthrow the US presidential election, and a supporter of its leader, who was convicted of multiple crimes related to Jan 6, is not a minor compromise.  

Integrity of the legislative body is also important.  Doing the right thing only when it doesn't possibly threaten your own best interests is NOT integrity.  

[I'd note that the Texas House has not yet voted to expel Rep. Rep. Bryan Slaton as I post this, nor can I find any indication that he has resigned.]  

$229 Million Settlement Is More Than 1/3 Of Santa Monica's Budget For Sex Offenses

The Richard Winton in the LA Times writes this week: (the link should be accessible) 

"This week, Santa Monica settled more lawsuits, bringing its total payout to $229.285 million — the most costly single-perpetrator sexual abuse disbursement for any municipality in the state."

Imagine what Santa Monica could have done for poor families, for the homeless, for schools, for health care, for $229 million.  That's more than 1/3 of the total Santa Monica budget for 2022-2023!

From the City of Santa Monica, 2022:

"The total adopted budget for the City for FY 2022-23 is $665.4 million."

There's a lot to untangle in this story.  I've got other posts in draft form lined up, but this one tugs at a number of issues I've been mulling over.  With good administration, this shouldn't happen. With good accountability mechanisms this shouldn't have happened for so long.  There are ways to, if not totally prevent such things, certainly to minimize their impact.   But there are also other societal issues that need to be addressed, particularly how we deal with pedophiles.  So let's look at some of the issues here.

1.  The Cost of poor oversight

One study said it was $3 billion over the last ten years.  That's just police!  That's an average of $300 million per year.  But I'm guessing with this single, one quarter of a billion dollar settlement, almost the average annual cost reported in this study, either that $3 billion figure is low, or awards are getting higher.  

But the cost isn't just in money.  The costs include:

• impacts on the lives of people who were harmed by the police and others.  In the Santa Monica case over 200 kids have reported the employee abused them.  Eighty were part of the settlement
• impacts on public safety since police were were spending time abusing citizens instead of protecting them, when people are wrongly convicted, the actual perpetrator isn't apprehended
• impacts on trust in government - among those abused and their families and among the general public when these crimes and settlements are publicized
• opportunity costs - the costs of things this money could have done (though one of the reports says most of this comes from insurance companies, which means all other organizations pay higher insurance rates, and I'd guess it spills over to the rest of us paying car, health, and other insurance

Here's another NPR piece looking at these issues.

2.  Why we don't see  

Most people see what they want to see.  

"The confirmation bias is a cognitive bias that causes people to search for, favor, interpret, and recall information in a way that confirms their preexisting beliefs. For example, if someone is presented with a lot of information on a certain topic, the confirmation bias can cause them to only remember the bits of information that confirm what they already thought."

We also have a truth bias.  Certainly honest people have a tendency to assume others are honest as well. (And there is evidence that most people are basically honest.)

So adding these two tendencies together, we tend to discount indicators of trouble and hold on to more positive interpretations of the behavior we see.  Especially of a person we've known and respected over the years.  "Nah, he couldn't have done that." 

And the people whose behavior is problematic are often (I'm guessing here) quite capable of giving us believable stories to explain away the problems.  This is why it's often a good idea to have outsiders, people who don't know the people involved,  come in to investigate problems.  

But we also have negative biases.  People who complain might be part of an out group - many of the kids in the Santa Monica case were from poor, immigrant families whose parents might fear deportation if they report and are less likely to be believed if they report.  

Most people, I would argue, take a long time before they realize that something is seriously wrong.  And then it takes a long time to report it.  How long did it take you to acknowledge that your (car, toilet, spouse) had a problem.   Then once you accepted it, how long to take action to fix it.

"But his biggest claim to fame was his work as a volunteer in the Police Activities League, where, beginning in the late 1980s, he worked with boys and girls in the nonprofit’s after-school program.

Uller was a familiar face at the PAL center that served Santa Monica’s Latino neighborhoods, often traveling in a police vehicle and befriending generations of youths.

It took decades to uncover that Uller was a sexual predator, the center of a stunning series of crimes that destroyed the lives of children and exposed grave questions as to why it took so long for authorities to uncover what he was doing."

3.  Why why don't act when we do see

Humans seem to have a basic loyalty built in to one's 'group.'  Betraying family, friends, and community (church, work group, etc.) are seen as moral violations and we have lots of negative names for people who do that - snitch, tattletale, traitor, stool-pigeon, etc.  Among law enforcement agencies, this is often known as "the blue wall of silence."

Competing against that loyalty, we have the Rule of Law - a set of moral expectations for people living in a community, in a society.  

When group loyalty comes in conflict with rule of law, individuals face a moral quandary.  Which set of rules should one follow?  We recognize this in the law with rules that allow spouses to not testify against each other, that ban nepotism and other forms of conflict of interest.  I'd argue that the group loyalty is built into our genes, our emotional make up.  The rule of law is something we learn logically.  And strong emotion generally beats out logic.  

“You have to understand in this liberal city, this is a Black and brown part of the city, and no one in the government was watching out for our kids. The Pico neighborhood was marginalized in that era,” said De la Torre, noting that Uller’s abuse occurred “under the shield of law enforcement” and “not one person lost a job” in response to the oversight.

Reporting people in our in-group for breaches of the rule of law  has real, immediate consequences on our families, our social circle, and even on our employment.  

This conflict keeps many from speaking up, even when they see wrong doing.  If you've ever lied to protect a friend, a family member, or someone else you have a close bond with, you understand what I'm talking about.  

3.  When Good Employees Also Do Bad

Seeing wrongdoing becomes particularly difficult when

• the employee is otherwise exemplary in their job performance

"In nearly three decades as a civilian employee with the Santa Monica Police Department and the city, Eric Uller was considered a standout public servant who won awards for his technological innovations."

• has work activities where they work independently, where supervision is not close - such as working with youth after school. (I should mention I was an after school playground director at an elementary school to help pay for college, and I was usually alone with the kids, without supervision. No, I didn't abuse that independence, and I suspect most people don't.)

4.  How the US deals with 'wrong' sex

 Right now in the US, there probably aren't many people considered lower than pedophiles. Gay sex used to have a similar stigma (which, given all the anti-trans laws were seeing introduced across the US now), isn't completely gone either.  Sex and marriage between people of different races was also illegal.  Despite a US Supreme Court ruling banning such laws, 

"As of February 3, 2021, seven states still required couples to declare their racial background when applying for a marriage license, without which they cannot marry. The states are Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota (since 1977),[42] New Hampshire, and Alabama."

There are good reasons for our laws against adults having sex with children, though the lines get blurry as the age of the child gets higher and the age of the adult gets lower.  There's no question about why a 30 year old shouldn't have sex with a nine year old.  Yet according to NBC news in 2019:

"Idaho and California are not alone in not having a minimum marriage age. A majority of states, which issue marriage licenses, allow 16- and 17-year-olds to marry, a few allow 14-year-olds, and 13 states have no minimum marriage age as of September. Before 2016 — when Virginia became the first state to put its marriage age into law — more than half of the states had no minimum marriage age fixed by statute."

While it appears there are requirements for parental or court approval, it does appear that there are no minimum ages in these states.  I would guess that the proponents for allowing  young marriage often argue that pregnant girls should be allowed to marry the fathers - but I didn't look that up and could be wrong.  

My point in all this is that some sexual preferences are seen as evil while others are perfectly ok. (Though for many, still, sex outside of marriage is frowned on.)  

People don't choose at some point in their lives to be sexually stimulated by one type of sexual encounter or another.  Some argue some attractions are genetic.  Some argue that sexual preferences are based on early sexual encounters.  

People with heterosexual preferences would appear to be the luckiest.  These are what our society condones.  While some people frown on any sex out of marriage, heterosexual sex among the consenting, unmarried seems to be alive and well.   The kinkier the sex and the more people will disapprove.  As people's preferences stray from heterosexual, single partner sex, there is more disapproval.  

But imagine if a person were forbidden from having unmarried heterosexual sex and punished if they did.  Buzzweed lists a number of ways women have been punished in the US, some of which involved sexual acts.

For many people the sexual urge is very powerful, even irresistible.  I suspect that is probably the case of people who view child pornography and who engage in sex with children.  I would only request that people who have been in situations where they could not resist their sexual urges with another person, consider what it would have been like if that other person were legally a child.  Or for people who couldn't resist opening a porn site and watching porn that turned them on.  

I'm not defending pedophiles.  But simply labeling them monsters and locking them up forever is not a good way to reduce pedophilia.  I'm only suggesting that such urges can be hard to control.  And many such relationships that are considered taboo today, have in different periods of time been acceptable.  And sexual practices condoned today were in past times seen as evil.  

But we've evolved in our beliefs that sex should be consensual.  We've evolved in our beliefs that people in positions of authority have a power in the sexual relationship that makes consent, at best, a morally difficult determination.  

And we believe that adults having sex with young children is, without question, non consensual and also an example of an unbalanced power relationship.  

Child pornography is a problem because children have been exploited to produce the images.  Is viewing drawings of child sex as viewing photos and videos?

If AI could produce child pornography (I suspect it already can and does) without any actual children being involved, would that be ok?  Some will argue that such pornography would lead to actual sexual encounters.  But we really don't know how many viewers of child pornography actually go out and find victims.  

My goal here is to raise the question of whether there are ways to recognize some people's sexual attraction to children, even let them indulge in pornography that didn't exploit actual children, and also figure out ways to protect children from sexual predators?  

The person in this article excelled in some aspects of his job.  But he had a taboo sexual attraction to children.  What do you think his options were to seek help from a counselor?  In many situations people who professionally learn about child abuse are mandated to report that to the authorities.  

If this were not such a reviled and taboo attraction, would this employee have been able to seek and get counseling and treatment that would have helped him deal with his inappropriate attractions?  Psych Central says:

"Pedophilic disorder treatment options include medication, hormone, and psychosocial therapies. “Stigma often discourages people from seeking help, but resources are available."

Most mental health problems are stigmatized making it difficult for people to seek help.  Pedophilia  is probably one of the most stigmatized.  

That leads me to offer a few options for reducing sex between adults and children.

Some ways to lessen the incidence of work related pedophilia:

1. General education to let people know that there are treatments for people sexually attracted to children and reducing the stigma connected to it so people are more likely to seek such treatment  (I realize that this is a long term solution, since people with more common, more visible mental health problems also avoid getting help because of the stigma involved.)
2. Education in schools that teaches children how to recognize inappropriate touch, acts of grooming, and steps to take when they encounter such behavior.  Erin Merrin came to Alaska in 2015 and got such a program (Erin's Law) adopted, despite the obstacles set by then Senator Dunleavy, under the guise of 'parental rights.'  Now Governor Dunleavy is still using 'parents rights' as a cover for trying to weaken Erin's Law.  Erin's Law has been adopted in a number of states and seems like one of the more promising ways to reduce pedophilia, by educating the potential victims. 
3. Increased vigilance for situations where children are vulnerable to predatory adults - situations where adults work with children such as playgrounds, social services that care for children, recreational activities such as sports and Boy Scouts.  
4. Changing the laws that give public employees immunity for lapses at work.  There do need to be protections against lawsuits or people wouldn't become public servants.  I think the bulk of monetary punishment still needs to be born by the agency.  But individuals who make serious mistakes, who don't report abuse they know about (not just sex related) should also have some monetary consequences.  

That's a start.  I'm sure others can think of other ways to do this sort of work.  

Kent State, Photo Ethics, How Subject And Photographer Were Affected

[Note to readers:  This post started with one article about a photograph.  But then it seemed like a good place to slip in some book notes on books about photographers.  The ideas are stacking up on my desk faster than I can post.  Sorry if this one rambles.]

When I first started blogging I spent a lot more time pondering the ethics of this medium, including using of images - of others' photos,  of people without their knowing, let alone permission.  I decided that for kids it was taboo.  For adults, if they were part of a crowd in public and relatively innocuous, it was ok.  But it's better if I get at least their oral permission.   (See some links to some of those posts below.)

I thought about that reading this Stars and Stripes article  [Thanks Brock, I think it was you] about the girl immortalized by photographer John Filo at Kent State in May 1970.  Turns out she was a 14 year old who had run away from a bad situation in Florida and just happened to be on the Kent State campus when the National Guard started shooting students.  And the photographer was too.  Below is a snipped from the article, but I recommend going to the link.  

From Stars and Stripes:

"Last May, when Mary Ann Vecchio watched the video of George Floyd's dying moments, she felt herself plummet through time and space — to a day almost exactly 50 years earlier. On that afternoon in 1970, the world was just as riveted by an image that showed the life draining out of a young man on the ground, this one a black-and-white still photo. Mary Ann was at the center of that photo, her arms raised in anguish, begging for help."

Photo from Cincinnati.com  John Filo/Getty Images

It focuses mainly on how that photo affected both the subject and the photographer over their life times, but it also reminds us about another time in recent (for us that were alive and aware back then) US history when the country was deeply divided.  And it shows that law enforcement shoots at white folks too, if they've categorized them as 'the enemy.'

I've also just finished three books about photographers (two were book club books) in which very task oriented photographers took pictures without regard to others.  The Short Nights of the Shadow Catcher by Timothy Egan examined the life of photographer Edward S. Curtis, who, in the early 20th Century, set out to capture American Indian culture before, as he saw it, it died out.  His was a manic effort to document the 'real' Indians and their culture.  

In Arctic Solitaire, Paul Sauders chronicles his own quest to take the best ever photograph of a polar bear.  He goes to extremes chasing bears for several summers in a small boat in Hudson Bay.  

You Don't Belong Here is Elizabeth Becker's documentation of and tribute to three women journalists who broke barriers in Vietnam by getting out to report from the battle field.  One of the three was the French photographer, Catherine Leroy.  This work focused more on the battles women faced as journalists at that time.  An excerpt:

Chapter One begins with Leory in a C-130 cargo plane.

"Leroy was the only journalist on the plane, the only photographer - she had two cameras draped around her neck - the only civilian and the only woman.  Her US Army-issued parachute nearly swallowed her.  At five feet tall and weighing eighty-seven pounds, she was less than half the size of the dozens of US Army parachutists sitting alongside her."

The shots she took of the parachute assault were printed in newspapers and magazines around the world.  

"With so much riding on the operation other reporters had demanded to be on the ground with the paratroopers.  Many were upset, some even disdainful, when they found out Leroy would be the only accredited journalist to jump.  For over year, Leroy would be the only woman combat photographer in Vietnam and had given up trying to change attitudes.  Eve the great photographer Don McCullin, who admired Leroy's work, was taken aback seeing her on the battlefield.  'She did not want to be a woman amongst men but a man among men.  Why would a woman want to be among the blood and carnage? . . . I did have that issue with Cathy.'"

"There was a horror of assigning women to sports much less war," said Hal Buell, the New York photo editor of the Associated Press who worked with the Vietnam War photographs sent from Saigon.  "Look at the history of photography.  It was male oriented for so long:  the equipment, the printmaking.  We didn't think women could handle it.  Women just weren't part of that pool."

But the readers know she got on that plane because she was the best qualified.

"She had lobbied to jump with the troops ever since she arrive in Vietnam from Paris.  Few other press photographers were remotely qualified.  Leroy had earned first- and second-degree parachute licenses in France while still in secondary school, egged on by a boyfriend who had dared her to try it, where she jumped eighty-four times over the vineyards and meadows of Burgundy." 

The book is very much worth reading.  I'd started to write, particularly for those who were watching the war at the time.  But, of course, it's an important history lesson for readers who weren't even born yet - about the war and about the obstacles for women covering it.  

Here are some of my earlier posts on photo ethics as I was confronting issues as a blogger.

Do You Put Your Kids Pictures On Facebook?  Should You?

Photography Is Not A Crime:  Blogging, The First Amendment, And Your Camera

Our Rights To Film Cops In Public

Anchorage Daily News Updated Photo Policy - Icon-Sized Photos Usable

Blooming Hoya And Dripping Icicle - The World Is Better Than Media Portray

 

These hoya flowers are past their prime.  It's a natural part of the cycle of birth and death.   

From Bloomscape:

"Hoya plants are some of the easiest indoor houseplants to care for. They are slow-growing vining plants native to tropical and subtropical Asia. They are also known as Wax plants due to their thick and shiny foliage. As Hoyas mature, they produce clusters of sweet-smelling star-shaped flowers."

 They were pretty amazing a week ago.

And even though those blooms are gone, there's a new cluster starting to bud.  

This plant has been growing downstairs in our 'greenhouse' - really a room with lots of south facing windows - for years. It does tend to bloom most years with minimal care on my part.  

Spring is technically here according to the calendar, but we still have plenty of winter on the ground and icicles hanging from our roof.

[While the drop on its way down is kind of neat, I accidentally deleted the drop that was just below the end of the icicle, still suspended by a trail of water.  The whole three foot icicle, after growing for a week or two, came crashing down just after I took this picture.]

[UPDATE March 24, 2021 1:30am:  I found the deleted album on my phone and there was the other picture.  So here it is:                                                                                                          ]

But we are getting significantly more light every day.  At Anchorage's latitude we are gaining almost 6 minutes a day - an hour in 10 days.  That's just the official 'daylight' but we have much longer twilight periods than further south.  

Yesterday I pulled out my bike - the old one with the studded tires - to ride to a routine annual physical not far from our house.  

And here's rider's view on my way home.  I'm still amazed at how well the studded tires worked on the icier parts of the way home.  

This pictures in this post are for Barbara and an Anonymous commenter  in recent days lamenting the sorry state of the world.  Our news media give us a negatively skewed view of things.   

But we also have had a lot of positive things happening.  My sense is that the anger of Republicans that boiled over on January 6 is a reflection that they feel their privilege slipping away.  They, of course, don't think of it as privilege.  They still believe in various mantras that help justify why rich people are rich and poor people are poor.  Mantras that put all the onus on the individual and ignore how social norms and beliefs, economic and legal infrastructure, and the media portrayal of some ideal USA, all combine to advantage white males.  But their anger now reflects that women and people of color have made great strides toward equality.  The election of a black president brought it all home, for many.  White males no longer can assume they get to go to the front of the line.  Now women and minorities have much better access to good education and then good jobs.  Just look at how the number of women doctors and lawyers and members of Congress have increased in recent decades.  The same is true for people of color.  For example.

Our job now is to change the conditions that produce people who understand their place in the world and work to make the world more just for everyone.  No individual has to save the world.  We all just have to take care of our selves and our families and friends.  If we have energy and resources and creativity left over, then we can help others, then we can work for a happier society. 

But when we do work to improve the conditions we live in,  we should working humbly.  Not to prove how good we are.  Not to make others grateful to us.  But in recognition that we've been lucky to have what we have and that in our own gratefulness, we want to share it.  Some of what we have we have earned through our own hard work.  Some because we've been the lucky winners of the birth lottery.

But nature itself is a lottery which affects our happiness.   I've heard that, despite what one might think, more people get down during spring and early summer than other times of the year. I did double check on that and found that indeed, spring and early summer are the worst.  And it's more so further north than closer to the equator.  So I send my hoya flowers and dripping icicle to all.  May you find pockets of peace and hope that you can fill up with good stories, good friends, good food, and good ideas.  

AK Redistricting Board Talks About Transparency Then Goes Behind Closed Doors

[The title is accurate, but I do want to say that at this point I have no reason to believe they were not acting in good faith and don't mean to imply that. But I think it's worth paying attention now and seeing how they react going forward.]

In my last post, I included my rough notes from their Friday, Feb. 26 meeting. When they talked about agenda items numbers:

"4. Staff Public Outreach Directive

5. Response Protocol for Meeting Requests"

several members expressed a clear need to have guidelines that would be as clear as possible to the Board and public so that they:

•  wouldn't appear to be playing favorites - giving information to some groups but not others
• would all be responding to folks the same way
• could be as transparent and fair as possible

I have some thoughts on how to do this - based on good public administration standards and on the experiences of blogging the previous redistricting board - but I need to think them through a bit more.  

In this post I want to focus on what happened when they got to agenda item number

"7. Interview with Legal Services RFI Respondents, Executive Session"

My notes [and I acknowledge I could have missed something] say:

"John [Binkley]:  Next, interview with one of the law firms that replied.  Thanks to Brittany for working on this.  Doing it in Executive Session.  Ready now to interview one of the respondents.   

Moved to move to executive session:  Peter if you can coordinate with leg affairs and let us know." 

What's wrong with that you ask?

By state law, a public body has to do two things before going into executive session.

1. They have to vote to do it.  [They may have voted and I just didn't catch it]
2. But before voting they have to declare why they're going into executive session. 

Here are the reasons a body can go into Executive Session:

(c)    The following subjects may be considered in an executive session:
(1)     matters, the immediate knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse effect upon the finances of the public entity;
(2)     subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of any person, provided the person may request a public discussion;
(3)     matters which by law, municipal charter, or ordinance are required to be confidential;
(4)     matters involving consideration of government records that by law are not subject to public disclosure. 

Number (2) seems the most likely reason for them to go into Executive Session while interviewing an applicant to be the legal counsel for the Board.  But think again.  The law firm representative being interviewed is not likely to say anything about themselves that would prejudice their own character or reputation.  




Rather, they will be telling the Board about how good they are.   




Now, it's possible that the Board has done some background investigation that raised some questions about the applicant,  and they want to ask questions about that.  At that point, they could go into Executive Session.  




The Board didn't even tell us who the finalists were.  There was an Alaska Supreme Court opinion about whether finalists for policy making position should be made public.  In that case (City of Kenai v. Kenai Peninsula Newspapers) a case concerning the City Manager of Kenai was consolidated with a case of the Municipality of Anchorage selecting a Police Chief.  In both cases the selection process was not carried out openly and in both cases the local newspapers sued the governments.  Part of the courts ruling said:

"The appellee does not contend that the City Council may never go into executive session when discussing city manager applicants. It argues that generally such discussions do not have a tendency to damage the reputation of the applicants, and that the City erred in routinely convening executive sessions.

Appellee's reading of the statute is not without a degree of merit. Ordinarily an applicant's reputation will not be damaged by a public discussion of his or her qualifications relating to experience, education and background or by a comparison of them with those of other candidates. However, a discussion of personal characteristics and habits may well carry a risk that the applicant's reputation will be compromised. Such a risk is especially acute where the qualities of several applicants are being compared. We believe therefore that the City Council was authorized by § .310(c)(2) to meet in executive session while discussing the personal characteristics of the applicants.[29] To the extent that the order of the court prohibits this, it must be reversed.[30]" [emphasis added]

These issues came up last time when the Board had to hire a new Executive Director.   Here's what I posted March 14, 2013:

"I learned just now that Rich Mauer of the Anchorage Daily News pressed the Board on the Public Meetings Act and got them to open the interviews with the Executive Director candidates today.  Two have dropped out.  That leaves three and they were planning to interview each for about 50 minutes to an hour."
One could argue that this is not a high policy making position, but that would be contrary to facts.  The Board will make decisions that will decide the election districts for the next ten years.  How they do that will affect which parties control the State Senate and House.  While the Board will ultimately make the decisions, their actions will be strongly influenced by the advice they get from the Board's attorney.  
And in 2013, the Board's attorney advised them to let the interviews for the Board's Executive Director be public.  The ED carries out the instructions of the Board and I would argue has a lesser impact on the Board than the attorney does.  
Therefore, I would argue that the Board should make these interviews public.  I also recognize that they've already done one interview behind closed doors and it could be argued that it would be unfair to the second applicant to be the only one that was made public.  But they are recording these meetings, so the first interview could be posted on the Board's website.  
I would note that the Board did not even announce the names of the firms they were interviewing.  
I have no reason to believe that the Board was acting in bad faith.  I suspect that they just didn't consider these issues carefully enough.  As yet, they do not have an attorney to advise them when they are about to do something like this.  
I emailed the Board Chair and Executive Director about these issues and got a cordial response from the Board Chair saying he would take this up with Legislative Legal before Tuesday's interview.  

I'd emphasize the importance of publicizing the candidates and opening up of the interviews.  In the Anchorage Police Chief case, the Chief selection was done in secret.  The Municipality wouldn't even release the names of the finalists.  The Municipality then announced the new Police Chief.  At that point the Anchorage Daily News did some sleuthing about the new chief and found out he'd been fired from his previous post for sexual harassment.  (And 40 years ago, that wasn't something that happened often.)  When the story came out, the Mayor, who was traveling to a national conference, had to turn around and come back to Anchorage to deal with the fallout.  
So publicizing the candidates and letting the public sit in on the interviews means that a lot more people have the opportunity to either raise issues about the candidate the Board might not have discovered and/or  might challenge claims the applicant makes in the interview which the Board might otherwise take at face value.  
Last time, when the Board publicly interviewed the Executive Director applicants, the public was able to see clearly which candidate was best.  One had held some political positions, but was unprepared and couldn't really answer most of the questions.  One was a person with administrative experience, but nothing directly related to redistricting.  The third was incredibly well qualified for the position -one of the first women grads of West Point, she'd held high level positions in the army and in Alaska.  Plus she had a PhD in geography and had taught classes in GIS - a key component of the mapping software used by the Board.  And her doctoral dissertation had been on the impact of the military on Alaska Natives, so she had contacts around the state.  And her answers and manner of answering were complete,  respectful, and knowledgeable.  
Without open interviews the public would not have known the qualities of the three finalists.  In the end, the Board decided they didn't need an Executive Director and hired no one.  But the fact that they had passed on such an excellent candidate - who turned out to be a registered Democrat - was telling.  With closed interviews they could have picked one of the lesser candidates.  

There was also a technical problem in how the Board went into Executive Session in an on-line meeting.  The last word people listening in by phone heard was the part I cited above.  Then the line was quiet for 15-30 seconds and a voice then said something like "This session is now over."  My guess is that the only business the board had after coming out of executive session was to adjourn.  But that part of the meeting should have been, technically, public.  We don't know if there was any discussion other than adjourning.  
I also realize that the Board didn't know exactly how long the interview would take.  I'm guessing that keeping everyone on the line but without hearing what was happening would be expensive.  But I think the Board could have estimated how much time they'd need and could have told listeners they could call back after, say an hour.  At that point, the operator could connect them or give a new estimate if the Board needed more time.  If the Board was finished early, they could take a break until time for the public hearing to resume.  

At this point, I have seen or heard nothing to make me believe that what happened was nothing more than oversight.  But I also know from my experience with the previous board, that both political parties have as their goal from the Board to get as many candidates of their party into the legislature for the next ten years.  
Given that goal - which was stated clearly by some politicians last time - it's critical to do as much of this work as openly and by-the-book as possible.  This will become easier if they select a top-notch attorney to advise them.
My intent is not to condemn the Board, but to help them do their jobs as professionally, legally, and fairly as possible.