The addition of the second verse to the state song was passed 5-1 in the House Judiciary Committee this afternoon after a long and certainly not unanimous discussion. I'll post this now with my VERY ROUGH NOTES - DO NOT RELY ON THEM EXCEPT FOR A SENSE OF THE DISCUSSION.
I'll try to add pictures a video later. This was a very emotional meeting. Now the committee is working on SB 284 - Campaign Expenditure Disclosure. Chair Ramras has said the committee will carry over to tomorrow Saturday at 10am so it can be voted on.
SB: 43 State Song Second Verse Discussion
Ramras: Talking about the people in the room including the state archivist to ensure that the words as originally authored and copyrighted,
to insure we are being respectful culturally and to the author. Floor is yours Sen. Menard as long as you can stay.
Sen. Menard: I proudly bring this second verse to you today. This passed a few years back from the house with a strong vote, but stumbled in the Senate. This year the opposite. We'll go ahead and see how this plays out. I've spent hours trying to explain.
[Reads sponsor statement.]
[She goes on] The intent is to recognize Alaska Natives and the Native lad who designed the flag. Some have said it changes history, I say it adds to it and compliments. We've added other parts of history. There are others who want to speak to the bill and hope we have enough votes to pass it out of committee.
Gatto: The sponsor was referencing me with the honor and remember flag. It does not add to the American flag or any other flag by adding on to it. But the verse is adding on to something. There is a difference from adding a flag and adding it to others from adding more stars or stripes to the flag. There is no corrolary between adding a flag and changing it. I want to hear from the public first.
Herron: Why did you introduce this personally?
Menard: I was asked to do this. I feel strongly. I have a minor in music, it is a tribute to Native people I feel was left out. I had conversations with Fran Ulmer over it, and I thought I could be the vehicle. I didn't need my name on the bill. When I believe in something and feel I continue to press on, which this has turned out to be. I'm not backing down because I feel it's a good bill. People would like the ability to sing both verses without copyright problems.
Herron: I don't believe you are worried about pride of authorship. Was there a contest for the flag?
Menard: Yes there was. I'll turn this over to staff Michael Rovito.
Rovito: There was a contest to designe the flag and Benson won.
Herron: Was there a contest for the first verse of the song?
Rovito: I can't answer that, but others are here who can.
Ramras: Go off line with archivsit, and some others, here in the room, I only have one person listed, if others wish to testify, please sign up. Letter in your packet April 7 from University of Alaska, in order to protect the copyrights no alteration made in the text and that on copies, there be copyright information on the text. If you turn to page 2, this is the way the authors wrote it, this is the verse we have, typos and capitalization problems included. [Native is spelled with a small "n" in both places in the bill.]
David, would you speak to the authenticity of the song as we have it.
Mr. David Woodley: UA foundation holds the copyright of second version 1986 from the US copyright office, which appears identical in text to the bill at issue today. Over the years it has become clear a number of changes have been made, some of which were not objectionable, - capitalization, commas, etc. not objectionable, but others more significant. Our attorneys say that these probably do not jeopardize the copyright. But we feel that we should maintain it as close to the original as possible.
Ramras: There are 40 very interested people in the room and we appreciate your commentary. Would you tell us your position and for how long as archivist.
David Woodly: Exec. Director of Advancement SErvices, includes all forms of records available to the foundation. Employee of foundation for 4 years and UA 10 years before that. Before that Mr. Scott Taylor and he has been an employee for ages, but was not available for this session today, or I would have relied on him. He has reconstructed a whole history of UA and state song relationship.
Gatto: By chance, not by design, I found myself in company of a patent attorney. But in the discussion we discussed how to violate a patent. it came down to not a comma, not a period, not a space, could you simply change when it was already patented. I'm curious when you say this is not the identical to the original. Is using this a patent violation since it has changes.
Woodley: Not an attorney. But over the years we've seen little alterations here and there, we don't go after them to say you violated. We are concerned with preserving the work as a whole. IN the event used for farcical or comedic, takes the words and tryies to provoke something not intended by the author have we taken action. The owner , Davis, gave us the second verse, and we feel it is our obligations.
Ramras: Want to make it clear - Gatto just went out - that what we have is now the exact version that is copyrighted. Fairbanks reported chastised over changes. We have tracked down the original version. Thank you for your assistance in authenticating this song.
Darren Friday from Kake: I want to testify in support. You may have heard the 2nd verse doesn't flow along or isn't singable, so with the chair's ... [Everyone was invited to join Darren in signing the song - both verses.]
Carol Davis - the daughter of the author of the words of the second verse. My mom and Marie came to Alaska about the same time. My father was on the final committee to choose the flag. Marie wrote the first verse with school children in mind so they could read and understand it. Marie would approve this song. It is in context of the time when the flag was adopted and first verse was written. The flag was chosen by the Alaska branch of the American Legion. Marie Drake was his secretary. They monitored the flag contest. Aug. 1 was the deadline and the commitee voted on it that month and the legislature adopted in in May.
Ramras: We've been joined by Rep. Edgmon and Millet. I am a native alaskan born and raised in Alaska. i believe Rep. Holmes joins me. Reps. Edmon and Millet are both Alaska Native and native Alaskans. We want to handle this with respect. Letter from Village Council Presidents. "......" We do not support the passage of the bill as it stands. We would prefer a comepition of all youth. We support the goal of including Alaska Native, but feel the words could be constructed in a more appropriate matter." As chair, I find this friction to be healthy. I find our differences - rural - urban, Native non-Native. I'm glad there is not unanimity among all Alaskan Natives. It's healthy.
ZZZ: I think a contest in this time may be in conflict.
Connie ??: Sourdough since 1971. When first discussed in early 70s, we had talked about a second verse - I wouldn't sing it unless all of us were included - newcomers - they said we should have a contest. They got back in two weeks and said after discussing it with Native colleagues, they didn't want to seem to be objecting to Sourdoughs and maybe in the future someone would write a second verse. I spoke to Marie Davis. So when she finally wroted at age 95. She decided to do it. There was not contest for the first verse. She was the secretary and happened to be a poet. We should accept this give. It honors all of us. We have come here with the help of Alaska Natives.
Ramras: Thank you. Anyone else who would like to testify.
Lorraine Houseman on line: I live in Anchorage, raised in Kodiak. Calling today in regards to proposal to add verse to flag song. There's been a lot of representation of everyone and I was really trouble with this and testified before, not only me, but a lot of Alaskans who aren't getting to testify. I do know it was presented by Fran Ulmer in 1987 and she checked with a lot of people and let them know what was proposed. She received a lot of "no don't change it" particularly pioneers of Alaska that they didn't want to add anything to our beautiful song. In the original song it talks about Alaskans dear. I believe that talks to everyone - not just those who came for the gold. It also talks about the flag and the intent of Benny Benson. The big dipper and excited about the contest and excited about Alaska becoming a state. I wanted to have something from Benny Benson's own words. ... Doing researh I found some things I'd like to read to show how important it is to people who don't want to change it. Not racist thing. Goes deep into our history. Alaska all of us.
Benny Benson born in Chignik in 1913 and just before he turned 3 his mom died of pneumonia. Father fisherman, couldn't support three children, with heavy hard took him to orphanage in Unalaska. Father from Sweden, come as young man, fisherman. Mom, Russian Aleut. Went to Jesse lee orphanage and embraced by loving people he admired. Words from him, recorded on tape by a neighbor of mine who put it in a book form. I would like to read, so much more to the history and acceptance of this beautiful song. He graduated from high school in Seward. 1932. Recording this in 1967 before he died in 1972. He was getting ready to leave to united with his father:
I had a hard time, holding back tears as I was leading my brother Charlie... and to meet my step mother for the first time. 16 years with Jesse Lee home were among my happiest. They taught me to love God and my neighbors, respect my elders and care for others.
He was a very humble person ... I can't keep track of what she is saying and what he is saying.
Whenever I hear the Alaska Flag song, I get a tingle down my spine as memories of JL home come to mind. 1955 when I met Marie Drake in Seattle and we were photographed together and I carried that photo with me for many years.
1967 came to Alaska Native Hospital, had leg surgery for circulation problems. Didn't know if he would leave hospital with leg and foot. Doctors helped him. Trying to help everyone else in the hospital. Interview with Anchorage Daily Times, a portion.
He had gone to a class thinking he'd take up art because he won the contest. But didn't do well at art. He said, he tried art on for size, but it wasn't for me. He works well with his hands and designs small craft.....He thinks the flag song sits next to the national anthem. I think if it is good enough for him. He was so proud of that song. You can't add any more that would honor him. ONe other thing. Member of Koniac Native Association....
Ramras: Lorraine.
Lorraine: He was part of the American Legion. I'm opposed to adding to the song.
Ramras: Your comments are important, and this primer of Benny Benson is good for all of us as we approach the end of the session. Dermot Cole wrote in Fairbanks. The blue field...Can't keep up. I'll link the article later] Davis added her own interpretation which is different... Just trying to read into the record both sides as they sit. Back to testimony in the room. Rep. Gatto back.
Mayor of ??? Borough: Exited bout the diversity of Alaska. I want to take the time to celebrate the rich culture we have. Tlingit, Haida, Aleut, etc. The amazing cultures we have and power of the people. I leave you to your decision and support the original author of the song.
Ramras: What a lovely hearing we're having today. I would invite anyone to stay after this for campaign disclosure.
Sherril George, from Angoon, in Juneau for 30 years. Born 1922, makes me 87 years old. I came in support of this bill. Hunting, on top of mountains with my dad. When I look at the words to this song, I get a feeling, I get a feeling they run pretty deep with the people that wrote them. Trying to tell others why they fell in love with this land. I was taught, take cood care of the land it will always feed you. I'd fill a treap and my dad would watch and say to fill it in with moss. You learn to love the land. As I look at these words, the people telling us about the beauty, the moonlight, the stars, love for our land, it kind of throws me when they reject it. I'm told being rejected because native. In growing up I was, I spent all my years in Sheldon Jackson, in grade school, and there reading about great atheletes I admired so much. He's a native of Ohio. He's not an Indian. Kind of confuses me. IN my old age when I'm told that somethings ...we've come a long way, I've seen a lot of changes in Juneau. We used to come to Juneau. I'd ask my dad, how come those signs "Whites ONly" in the restaurants. INt he village you don't feel that. So I asked my dad. Had a time to explain. My dad made friends with people, so I just wanted to say that I'm in favor. I think these are beautiful words. I'm always in awe of people that write a song n put words to it. Love songs, whether for antoher woman and here I know a lot of friends who have come to Alaska, not meaning to live here, but they fell in love with our land. We should keep working in that directions. To make this the best in the union.
Ramras: Mr. George. Are you a Tlingit?
Whispers in his ear: You are 100% Tlingit.
Ramras: My seat mate in House, is Bill Thomas, he gave me a name, it means bed house because I'm in the hotel industry.
Gatto: I really enjoyed listening to you. You remind me of someone I want to spend a few hours with my ears just hearing some of your stories.
Ramras: But not now...
Thank you very much Mr. George.
I am 100% Tlingit, ever since the land claims came about... I have a card that says ... My mother comes from Auk Bay. There was a huge native settlement there. We were called. ??
... We have a matrilineal society. Things are inherited through the mother. However, my father comes from Sitka. Whenever I introduce myself I honor my father. It is out of respect created by my parents. My mother adored Carol Beery Davis. When my mother was leaving, she gave her a huge hand crocheted ... As a little girl he looked like a giant. Both were giants in their respect for Ntive culture. Not only recognizing, but also giving herself????
Ramras: Thank you very much.
Name in Tlingit I think. Speaking in Tlingit. Any questions? Laughter
Thank you for the opportunity to say a little bit of hat - my name is Walter Samson - originally from ???, Alaska. Combat veteran. I thought it would be good for me to say a few words. Certainly Alaska is home to all of us. We've hard the testimony about our diverse culture. Something we all appreciate. Time when a community, whether HOONah, or Cordava, ... is given an opportunity to have a say on some of the issues that is discussed at the state level. I'm referring more to when the fed or state system decides to rename a mountain, that opportunity is not there. The amendment being discussed here I certainly support. If you look at the second verse. The first line talks about Ntives. We are all Native alaskans. The third line says cultures, not cultue. Fourth line says Natives, so we're all native Alaskans. it refers to all of us. We are all Alaskans.
So what the amended version ... refers to all of us. But it represents all of us. That's what I see. Thank you for the opportunity. I didn't plan to come, but I came down to peek.
Ramras. Thank you. We've been joined by Rep. Gardner.
Close public testimony. Thank all of you for recentring us. We get cught up in things. When I reflect on this, I'll remember this testimony. It left an indelible impression on me. Bring discussion back to our committee.
Lynn: As military veteran I've lived all over the country. We have the best I recall of other states. I don't recall other states where people stand for their song. On par with the national anthem. PEOPLE give special respect here.
Gatto: I think Walter really hit on a solid point. The mountain was called Denali. Then some dude chnged it to McKinley. Now here's the question. If you indeed to get Denali back as the name. Would you think it credible to call it Denali-Mckinley. Or do you want to think it should just be Denali. Am I the only one here who treasures history? I think the Alaska song, Alaska bird, etc. The Alaska insect is the four spotted dragonfly. We shouldn't add another dragonfly. We want to retain the history or it is not history. I'm a no vote here. I'm for history. I want to do that for this state. I will stand pat. I like the song. I'm here to protect the first verse. IF you change the song, we no longer have the first verse. Anyone can sing the second verse, they can. this is a change to your history that I'm here to protect. You can call me an idiot if you want. But I'm here to protect the history.
Ramras: Public testimony has been closed. Let me explain. We can adopt a motion to move the bill. If someone objects. There is a roll call to advance either to the next committee or to the floor. The motion we did today, by doing a Judiciary substitute. We have the original language. As we conclude the discussion today. The chair will ask for a motion to move it from the committee. Yes or no votes to advance it to the floor of the state house. it doesn't have a fiscal note so it would go to the floor. Do our visitors, Reps Edgmon or Millett?
Edgmon: Thank you for the privilege to sit in on this meaningful meeting. I was born in Dillingham, a singer, in a native household, heartfelt testimony, of many Alaska Natives, this whole subject of adding a verse has risen above merely acting a second act. I want to be real careful to caution for people to characterize this as pro-Native or urban or rural,b ecause it shouldn't be. If we are in fact to amend the song, turning to the ABCP letter, we should do it in a way the whole Native community embraces. I've never heard the second verse sung. I would support, I'm Alaska native, know music, not comfortable with metering. It should transcend SE Alaska. If we do want to rewrite the second verse, with respect to Davis and you in the room, we should respect Alaska Natives, five of the state corporations were Alaska Native corps, we can argue Natives haven't gotten their due. I'm very proud of my heritage. I'm comfortable with the first verse, not oppoosed to second verse. Let's take it to a statewide level, maybe a contest. Whatever happens, I hope hard feelings should go away.
Millett: I'm also proud of my heritage. I grew up with my 1/2 inupiaq grandmother.. I've never seen such a discussion about an issue. It really touches a core with folks. Talking about the Alaska state flag. I've spoken to Alaskans across the state. Amazing to me here discussing a song that wasn't meant to be divisive. With some people who have strong sense of history. I thought, what would Benny Benson, what would the author think about changing the language of the song. I thought, the state has evolv, it hqw changed. I go back to what the Mayor has said. A lot of cultures have called Alaska home. While Alaska Natives have come a long way. There has been a lot of healing. I think the song is perfect. I don't think they aren't recognized and not acknowledged in the song we have. It has raised the dialogue to where it should be.
Ramras: I would encourage both of you to considr the Judiciary Commitee next session
Holmes: I share your comments, this is fascinating. Clearly a heartfelt issue on both sides. I've listened intently. Because of all the interesting views, I'd like to see it moved forward and discussed on the House floor by all.
Ramras: Other comments?
Gruenberg: As a relative newcome of 40 years in the state. I voted for this when it was first on the floor and will vote for it again. We need to come together as Alaskans. All the things tht bring us together can be framed so the split us apart. If we keep laughing and crying together and succeeding and failing together.
Ramras; Motion
Roll: Gatto no Holmes yes lYnn - yes Gruenberg yes Herron yes Ramras yes
5-1 passes committee.
Gatto:
Pages
- About this Blog
- AK Redistricting 2020-2023
- Respiratory Virus Cases October 2023 - ?
- Why Making Sense Of Israel-Gaza Is So Hard
- Alaska Daily COVID-19 Count 3 - May 2021 - October 2023
- Alaska Daily COVID-19 Count - 2 (Oct. 2020-April 2021)
- Alaska Daily COVID-19 Count 1 (6/1-9/20)
- AIFF 2020
- AIFF 2019
- Graham v Municipality of Anchorage
- Favorite Posts
- Henry v MOA
- Anchorage Assembly Election April 2017
- Alaska Redistricting Board 2010-2013
- UA President Bonus Posts
- University of Alaska President Search 2015
Showing posts with label flag. Show all posts
Showing posts with label flag. Show all posts
Friday, April 09, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Alaska State Song - Messing Up A Classic?
[Update April 9: SB 43 was passed out of House Judiciary after a long and emotional hearing.]
I've done several posts already on SB 43 which would officially add the second verse to the Alaska Flag Song. In two hearings before the House State Affairs committee, the opposition to the bill has been about the meaning of Native and why it is necessary to identify a specific people in the song, about the sanctity of history and culture which shouldn't be changed, and questions about the implications of the copyright of the song.
An email alerted me to long time Fairbanks NewsMiner reporter Dermot Cole's piece opposing the second verse based on aesthetic grounds:
So I do think aesthetics is a reasonable factor to consider here. But it shouldn't be the only one. And as good as the first verse is, it isn't Hamlet. The second verse can be seen like a sweater knitted by a favorite aunt. Some people may think it a bit lumpy, but they don't understand the significance of the pattern she knitted in for you or they don't share your love for her.
Besides, these two verses have been a couple for years. It just isn't official. Do they have to have a civil union or can they finally get married?
I've done several posts already on SB 43 which would officially add the second verse to the Alaska Flag Song. In two hearings before the House State Affairs committee, the opposition to the bill has been about the meaning of Native and why it is necessary to identify a specific people in the song, about the sanctity of history and culture which shouldn't be changed, and questions about the implications of the copyright of the song.
An email alerted me to long time Fairbanks NewsMiner reporter Dermot Cole's piece opposing the second verse based on aesthetic grounds:
The simplicity, originality and imagery of the Alaska flag combine to make Benny Benson’s design a work of art. The same qualities distinguish the poem “Alaska’s Flag,” written by Marie Drake in 1927 and set to music by Elinor Dusenbury in 1938. It was adopted as the Alaska song in 1955.Rep. Peggy Wilson did hint at problems with the quality of the verse when she asked how someone would sing it. Particularly the third line. And I had some problems with that myself.
With all due respect to the late Carol Beery Davis, who wrote a proposed second verse in 1986, the state song needs an addition about as much as the state flag needs a ninth gold star or “Hamlet” needs an extra act. [See the rest of the piece]
So I do think aesthetics is a reasonable factor to consider here. But it shouldn't be the only one. And as good as the first verse is, it isn't Hamlet. The second verse can be seen like a sweater knitted by a favorite aunt. Some people may think it a bit lumpy, but they don't understand the significance of the pattern she knitted in for you or they don't share your love for her.
Besides, these two verses have been a couple for years. It just isn't official. Do they have to have a civil union or can they finally get married?
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Rep. Gatto Discusses Culture, History, and Change
In the House State Affairs committee this morning, discussing SB 43 on adding a verse to the Alaska state song, Rep. Gatto, at the end explained why he was voting against the bill. It was a discussion on history and culture and why they shouldn't be changed. I've transcribed his comments as accurate as I could from the tape. You can listen to the tape too. It begins at 64:44 on the tape below.
[Photo: Reps Johnson, Gatto, and Seaton after the meeting.]
Rep. Gatto often points out his interest in words and how they are used. Bear that in mind as you read his words.
(64:44) Gatto: I don't want anyone here, and I don't think anyone does, believe that I don't have a lot of respect for my state and the Native culture and all cultures here.
I want you to know that's is exactly why I object. Because I believe we have a certain history in the state. And that we don't need to modify the history for any reason I can see.
We have named . . . I don't know that we have anyone in the room who can probably name the state insect, the state flower, the state bird, the state mammal, describe the flag and do all of those things. But we accept it as part of our history.
And I believe our history should not be changed. And that's what we're doing. We're taking something 20 years old, I'm not sure how old it is, 20 years old and saying, 'I'm ok with what was done 20 years ago and I think we need to add something to it.' Which, Mr. Chair, is a change. There is, and as the sponsor spoke, no reason why a person could not simply sing this song in its entirety, by itself as a second verse you can add a third, fourth, and fifth verse. You can take the first or second. All of that is allowed and no one would object that you can sing it anyway you like. Or not sing it. But what we are doing is something entirely different.
We aren't okaying a person "now you can sing this song if you like, but you can't do it unless we vote you can." You can sing it.
No one sings this song and says you know it's the Alaska song and then have to stop and say "by the way I'm going to continue my singing after I tell you that the second verse is not the Alaska song. But just sing it if you want to sing it.
So I am here, really, to protect our culture; more so than anybody who votes to change it.
And that's why I have to vote no on this.
Is that if you want to change our culture get out there and change it all. Make this a 2010 Alaska culture if you want to. But I don't want to do that. And I would hope no one else would want to do that. I'm ok with the culture as it exists.
Because it is the written history.
And no one goes back and decides to investigate the Bible and say, "You know what? I'm going back to that verse?? over here. I think I've got some new information .
You can do that but you can't change the bible. It is what it is.
And if you want to change it, it better be a new edition. Not the old edition with some added language, because we're not making this a new edition. We're not making this a 2010 Alaska Song.
We're saying we're going to keep the old one and change it. Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I'm not for changing it. I'm not for changing the insect or the bird or anything else. Although we could have some people offer to do do that. and say, "You know, the seal itself, our state seal. does not have an issue of Alaska Natives on it. It doesn't. Maybe it should have, but it doesn't. I've been here the whole time. Those issues of changing things have always failed. I don't think this one will fail, I think it will pass, but it won't pass with my vote.
This begins at 64:44 on the audio. Give it a minute to load.
As forcefully as Rep. Gatto makes his argument against changing history, it still seems a bit slippery to me and I still have some questions. For example:
[Photo: Reps Johnson, Gatto, and Seaton after the meeting.]
Rep. Gatto often points out his interest in words and how they are used. Bear that in mind as you read his words.
(64:44) Gatto: I don't want anyone here, and I don't think anyone does, believe that I don't have a lot of respect for my state and the Native culture and all cultures here.
I want you to know that's is exactly why I object. Because I believe we have a certain history in the state. And that we don't need to modify the history for any reason I can see.
We have named . . . I don't know that we have anyone in the room who can probably name the state insect, the state flower, the state bird, the state mammal, describe the flag and do all of those things. But we accept it as part of our history.
And I believe our history should not be changed. And that's what we're doing. We're taking something 20 years old, I'm not sure how old it is, 20 years old and saying, 'I'm ok with what was done 20 years ago and I think we need to add something to it.' Which, Mr. Chair, is a change. There is, and as the sponsor spoke, no reason why a person could not simply sing this song in its entirety, by itself as a second verse you can add a third, fourth, and fifth verse. You can take the first or second. All of that is allowed and no one would object that you can sing it anyway you like. Or not sing it. But what we are doing is something entirely different.
We aren't okaying a person "now you can sing this song if you like, but you can't do it unless we vote you can." You can sing it.
No one sings this song and says you know it's the Alaska song and then have to stop and say "by the way I'm going to continue my singing after I tell you that the second verse is not the Alaska song. But just sing it if you want to sing it.
So I am here, really, to protect our culture; more so than anybody who votes to change it.
And that's why I have to vote no on this.
Is that if you want to change our culture get out there and change it all. Make this a 2010 Alaska culture if you want to. But I don't want to do that. And I would hope no one else would want to do that. I'm ok with the culture as it exists.
Because it is the written history.
And no one goes back and decides to investigate the Bible and say, "You know what? I'm going back to that verse?? over here. I think I've got some new information .
You can do that but you can't change the bible. It is what it is.
And if you want to change it, it better be a new edition. Not the old edition with some added language, because we're not making this a new edition. We're not making this a 2010 Alaska Song.
We're saying we're going to keep the old one and change it. Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I'm not for changing it. I'm not for changing the insect or the bird or anything else. Although we could have some people offer to do do that. and say, "You know, the seal itself, our state seal. does not have an issue of Alaska Natives on it. It doesn't. Maybe it should have, but it doesn't. I've been here the whole time. Those issues of changing things have always failed. I don't think this one will fail, I think it will pass, but it won't pass with my vote.
This begins at 64:44 on the audio. Give it a minute to load.
As forcefully as Rep. Gatto makes his argument against changing history, it still seems a bit slippery to me and I still have some questions. For example:
- We can't change the bible, but if we do it has to be a new edition. Does that mean if the bill renamed this the 2010 edition of the State song it would be ok?
- So, what people have done in the past, for better or worse, is our culture our history, so we must live with that and never change it. Does that mean Rep. Gatto is against amending the Constitution?
Alaska used to belong to the Russians. Should the US not have changed that? It used to belong to Alaska Natives? Should we have not changed that? What things are ok to change and what things aren't?
State Affairs - SB 43 Adding 2nd Verse for Official Flag Song
Several things were covered in the discussion of the bill this morning which was passed out of the committee to House Judiciary with a 5 yea 2 Nay vote.
Here's the overview and below I have more detailed notes.
1. Changes to the Bill. [37:30 of the audio below.] Bill sponsor Linda Menard said there were some changes added in Sec. 2. The major change was to add language to note that the song was copyrighted and other than non-profit use needed approval. There were some typographical changes as well.
2. What Does Native Mean? This became a heated discussion and I've gone over today's audio to get as close a transcript as I can. Rather than try to describe it you can read it and listen to it on the audio. It begins at 42:16 on the audio.
3. Copyright Issues. Rep. Johnson began this discussion. To what extent do the copyright restrictions in the new section 2 restrict people from singing the song? It does seem to allow non-profits to use the song. Rep. Wilson wanted to know if a local group reproduced the song to sing and didn't include the copyright language what would happen to them? Rep. Petersen citing his musical experience said it was only intended for people who want to make a profit off the song. Rep. Gruenberg said he didn't know this part of the law and that since the bill was going to Judiciary next, where legal issues are considered, the committee should pass it on for Judiciary to deal with. They amended the bill, with the consent of the sponsor, to remove section 2 which includes the copyright information. And the bill passed.
4. Changing History and Culture. Rep. Gatto made a final statement about his opposition to changing history and culture. This is so interesting that I'm going to make it a separate post so people can carefully consider Rep. Gatto's argument against change.
Below are my notes which give more details. AGAIN Regard these as my rough running notes and use the audio to check for detailed accuracy.
1. Changes to the bill. SB 43 to CSSB 43. (Committee Substitute for Senate Bill)[Begins at 42:16 on the audio below.]
My name is Senator Linda Menard, I represent District G.
Three very small changes that arose from copyright infringement.
Added to be sure on line 5 made clear who is the composer of the song second verse. Multiple words and punctuation were changed to be sure it complies with copyright. This was an oversight of the drafter. Copyright to University of Alaska.
Line 13 removes comma between northern and midnight, etc.
Very simple changes to get this as exact as we can get it.
Wilson: Thank you Mr Chairman. I can't think how it can be sung on page two, line nine. With the words, sentence ending in the middle there. Just my head. It will still be sung the way the wording was. . . I don't know how that will come out.
Lynn: That's common in poetry.
2. What Does Native Mean? [This section is pretty close to verbatim] [42:16 on audio]
Gatto: Sen Menard. Is there a definition or a difference between the word Native and the word Alaska Native?
Menard: I don't believe there is. I don't know what your concern is Rep. Gatto.
Gatto: Well, I'll tell you. My children are natives, born in Alaska they are native Alaskans, but they are not an Alaska Native. I believe Mr. Chair, the purpose of the song was to honor the native or the Alaskan Native and I don't see that distinction made anywhere.
Menard: This would be, probably, an argument for semantics. Whatever your interpretation is. I can appreciate you are of the belief that your children are native. And, of course, most of us given the date this was written were referring to the Alaska Native.
Lynn: This is semantic. It's been a controversy for years. Are you Native American or not, well yes I am. It depends how you define Native. It's a controversy probably outside the scope of this bill.
Gatto: I disagree Mr. Chair.
Lynn: That's why we have a committee.
Gatto: The intent of the sponsor of the bill was not to honor her children or my children or your children. But to honor... tell me . . was it to honor our children? Mine? Whose? Whose? What's your intent in establishing the second verse, to honor whom?
Menard: I've stated that. My intent is not to get into a debate.
Gatto: I'm sorry your honor, I'm really asking a question and not getting an answer. This is the place for debate. If we don't debate in a committee, I'm not sure if we have to go to the lounge first? But this is the committee, I'm a committee member. I'm asking a question You can refuse to answer or whatever. But that's a question.
Menard: I . . .
Gruenberg: Mr. Chair, I'm going to impose a point of order. He is harrassing the witness. And I'd appreciate if he didn't do that.
Gatto: I'm going to object to that point of order. These are reasonable questions. . .
Lynn: At ease. [Goes off the record.]
Back on the record.
45:29Lynn: I have a note from House records. I was told that it is a capital N it refers to Alaska Native, if it is small n it means native Alaskans. If the N in the bill is capital N then it refers to Alaska Natives, and not those of us who may have been born in Alaska.
Menard: Thank you Mr. Chair, I think we've all learned something.
Gatto: I've learned something too. I've never heard of that before. Thank God for House Records.
3. Copyright Issues. [46:25 on the audio.]
Johnson. My question is on section two. Is this a new section? If I pass out a copy of the Alaska Flag song and I'm not a non-profit, Is this a copyright violation? [Rep. Johnson has worked in radio.]
Menard: 20 year limit,
Leg Legal online:
Johnson: All other rights reserved. If I print up the song and hand it out at the hockey game am I violating the copyright.
Bullard: I don't know a great deal about copyright light law, but if it has this note on the sheet you distribute, the law would be satisfied.
Lynn: Would this be the same for any other copyrighted song passed out at a game?
Johnson: Any other song is a member of ASCAP or BMI and that money is distributed to the authors. So if you sing Happy Birthday, it has been calculated and the writer is being paid. When you sing that song it is not free, so I don't agree with that interpretion. If we bring this into the copyright, I want to be sure we aren't doing that.
Wilson: The comment was made that the 20 year copyright was over. Is there a copyright on the second verse? You were talking about the first verse.
Menard: The second verse has a copyright. But the foundation doesn't have a concern.
Rovito: The foundation's concern is that the second verse of the song is fine with how we want to use this, they just want to be sure that the copyright is included in the song.
Wilson: My concern is that someone would print this up not realizing they had to put the copyright on it. What would happen to them?
Rovito: I'm not sure. I can find out certainly.
Seaton: I'd just like to bring up this says, can be produced for public use and non-profit permitted. So, if you were printing them up and selling them, this is waiving the copyright fee for non-profit use. Does the University of Alaska Foundation have the copyright to both the first AND second verse. So this is covering both verses.
Menard: Yes.
Gruenberg: I'm very concerned from a legal point of view about the question that Rep Johnson asked. We don't know. It goes to judiciary next. That is why it goes to Judiciary. I'm concerned about the limit of the copyright and will ask the sponsor and be sure we have real copyright lawyers. That will be my lookout in that committee. It must be absolutely properly drafted. Otherwise the tail would wag the dog. Would the University be able to drop section two?
Lynn: I like what you are saying on that point
Johnson: I tend to agree with that. They could move this into public domain. If they have no reason down the line to gain. Non-profit permitted, all other uses reserved. I read that to not permitting other uses.
Petersen: I've been involved in playing and singing music for over 40 years. This is the basic disclaimer on all music. If you buy that sheet music in a music store, you can use that music for yourself, but if you try to make a profit on it. That's when you have to go the BMI group and pay your money. As long as you are using it for a non-profit use - sing it at the ball game - this is the classic disclaimer used in any public sense.
Johnson: Rep. Petersen makes my point exactly. That is why it is on the music, so the copyright holder. . . I would encourage that we delete it if we choose and let Judiciary put it back in.
Lynn: That might be the way out of it. Sponsor's feeling?
Menard: That's fine. I have an acquaintance, from your district Mr. Gatto, she wants to sing the second verse, but she so much wants to have the recognition of the second verse. I understood from Fran Ulmer who I highly respect. She thinks it is worthy. The University says they will release that second verse.
Gruenberg: I feel comfortable with that amendment. One question I'd like to have answered. I know nothing about this area of the law. Do we need to put something in to say it is in the public domain? We all remember when you could sing Happy Birthday and now you can't do it because someone owns the copyright.
Wilson: I'm comfortable with, the sponsor, I just want her to check out before the next committee, because it says "they must have the following notice", if someone doesn't, what is the consequence.
Gatto: Rep. Gruenberg, please don't interrupt. Is a person disallowed for singing the second verse after they sing the first verse?
Menard: No they would not be arrested.
Gatto: I know the person you mentioned. Why doesn't that person sing the second verse.
Menard: Becasue the state doesn't recognize it as the official second verse. She would like it elevated to official.
Johnson: I'll make this conceptual [A conceptual amendment isn't the exact language. Leg Legal will take the concept and draft the amendment.] Section two delete all language.
Amendment adopted.
CSSB 43 Any objections.
4. Changing History and Culture. [64:41 on the audio.]
I'm going to make this a separate post so people can consider Rep. Gatto's perspective on change and culture carefully.
Final comments before voting:
Gruenberg: In response to my friend from the valley. If we look at line 13. It recognizes the Sourdoughs the folks who came from the Lower 48. The second verse talks about the original inhabitants of Alaska. It seems to me the second verse just restores the balance.
VOTE: Petersen yes, Seaton yes Wilson yes, Gatto no, Johnson no, Gruenberg yes, Lynn yes. Passes: 5 yea 2 nay.
Guide to finding things on the audio.
1. Changes to the Bill. Begins at 37:30 of the audio
2. What Does Native Mean? Begins at 42:16 on the audio.
3. Copyright Issues. Begins at 46:25 on the audio.
4. Changing History and Culture. Begins at 64:41 on the audio.
Other posts mentioning the second verse of the flag song.
Here's the overview and below I have more detailed notes.
1. Changes to the Bill. [37:30 of the audio below.] Bill sponsor Linda Menard said there were some changes added in Sec. 2. The major change was to add language to note that the song was copyrighted and other than non-profit use needed approval. There were some typographical changes as well.
2. What Does Native Mean? This became a heated discussion and I've gone over today's audio to get as close a transcript as I can. Rather than try to describe it you can read it and listen to it on the audio. It begins at 42:16 on the audio.
3. Copyright Issues. Rep. Johnson began this discussion. To what extent do the copyright restrictions in the new section 2 restrict people from singing the song? It does seem to allow non-profits to use the song. Rep. Wilson wanted to know if a local group reproduced the song to sing and didn't include the copyright language what would happen to them? Rep. Petersen citing his musical experience said it was only intended for people who want to make a profit off the song. Rep. Gruenberg said he didn't know this part of the law and that since the bill was going to Judiciary next, where legal issues are considered, the committee should pass it on for Judiciary to deal with. They amended the bill, with the consent of the sponsor, to remove section 2 which includes the copyright information. And the bill passed.
4. Changing History and Culture. Rep. Gatto made a final statement about his opposition to changing history and culture. This is so interesting that I'm going to make it a separate post so people can carefully consider Rep. Gatto's argument against change.
Below are my notes which give more details. AGAIN Regard these as my rough running notes and use the audio to check for detailed accuracy.
1. Changes to the bill. SB 43 to CSSB 43. (Committee Substitute for Senate Bill)[Begins at 42:16 on the audio below.]
My name is Senator Linda Menard, I represent District G.
Three very small changes that arose from copyright infringement.
Added to be sure on line 5 made clear who is the composer of the song second verse. Multiple words and punctuation were changed to be sure it complies with copyright. This was an oversight of the drafter. Copyright to University of Alaska.
Line 13 removes comma between northern and midnight, etc.
Very simple changes to get this as exact as we can get it.
Wilson: Thank you Mr Chairman. I can't think how it can be sung on page two, line nine. With the words, sentence ending in the middle there. Just my head. It will still be sung the way the wording was. . . I don't know how that will come out.
Lynn: That's common in poetry.
2. What Does Native Mean? [This section is pretty close to verbatim] [42:16 on audio]
Gatto: Sen Menard. Is there a definition or a difference between the word Native and the word Alaska Native?
Menard: I don't believe there is. I don't know what your concern is Rep. Gatto.
Gatto: Well, I'll tell you. My children are natives, born in Alaska they are native Alaskans, but they are not an Alaska Native. I believe Mr. Chair, the purpose of the song was to honor the native or the Alaskan Native and I don't see that distinction made anywhere.
Menard: This would be, probably, an argument for semantics. Whatever your interpretation is. I can appreciate you are of the belief that your children are native. And, of course, most of us given the date this was written were referring to the Alaska Native.
Lynn: This is semantic. It's been a controversy for years. Are you Native American or not, well yes I am. It depends how you define Native. It's a controversy probably outside the scope of this bill.
Gatto: I disagree Mr. Chair.
Lynn: That's why we have a committee.
Gatto: The intent of the sponsor of the bill was not to honor her children or my children or your children. But to honor... tell me . . was it to honor our children? Mine? Whose? Whose? What's your intent in establishing the second verse, to honor whom?
Menard: I've stated that. My intent is not to get into a debate.
Gatto: I'm sorry your honor, I'm really asking a question and not getting an answer. This is the place for debate. If we don't debate in a committee, I'm not sure if we have to go to the lounge first? But this is the committee, I'm a committee member. I'm asking a question You can refuse to answer or whatever. But that's a question.
Menard: I . . .
Gruenberg: Mr. Chair, I'm going to impose a point of order. He is harrassing the witness. And I'd appreciate if he didn't do that.
Gatto: I'm going to object to that point of order. These are reasonable questions. . .
Lynn: At ease. [Goes off the record.]
Back on the record.
45:29Lynn: I have a note from House records. I was told that it is a capital N it refers to Alaska Native, if it is small n it means native Alaskans. If the N in the bill is capital N then it refers to Alaska Natives, and not those of us who may have been born in Alaska.
Menard: Thank you Mr. Chair, I think we've all learned something.
Gatto: I've learned something too. I've never heard of that before. Thank God for House Records.
3. Copyright Issues. [46:25 on the audio.]
Johnson. My question is on section two. Is this a new section? If I pass out a copy of the Alaska Flag song and I'm not a non-profit, Is this a copyright violation? [Rep. Johnson has worked in radio.]
Menard: 20 year limit,
Leg Legal online:
Johnson: All other rights reserved. If I print up the song and hand it out at the hockey game am I violating the copyright.
Bullard: I don't know a great deal about copyright light law, but if it has this note on the sheet you distribute, the law would be satisfied.
Lynn: Would this be the same for any other copyrighted song passed out at a game?
Johnson: Any other song is a member of ASCAP or BMI and that money is distributed to the authors. So if you sing Happy Birthday, it has been calculated and the writer is being paid. When you sing that song it is not free, so I don't agree with that interpretion. If we bring this into the copyright, I want to be sure we aren't doing that.
Wilson: The comment was made that the 20 year copyright was over. Is there a copyright on the second verse? You were talking about the first verse.
Menard: The second verse has a copyright. But the foundation doesn't have a concern.
Rovito: The foundation's concern is that the second verse of the song is fine with how we want to use this, they just want to be sure that the copyright is included in the song.
Wilson: My concern is that someone would print this up not realizing they had to put the copyright on it. What would happen to them?
Rovito: I'm not sure. I can find out certainly.
Seaton: I'd just like to bring up this says, can be produced for public use and non-profit permitted. So, if you were printing them up and selling them, this is waiving the copyright fee for non-profit use. Does the University of Alaska Foundation have the copyright to both the first AND second verse. So this is covering both verses.
Menard: Yes.
Gruenberg: I'm very concerned from a legal point of view about the question that Rep Johnson asked. We don't know. It goes to judiciary next. That is why it goes to Judiciary. I'm concerned about the limit of the copyright and will ask the sponsor and be sure we have real copyright lawyers. That will be my lookout in that committee. It must be absolutely properly drafted. Otherwise the tail would wag the dog. Would the University be able to drop section two?
Lynn: I like what you are saying on that point
Johnson: I tend to agree with that. They could move this into public domain. If they have no reason down the line to gain. Non-profit permitted, all other uses reserved. I read that to not permitting other uses.
Petersen: I've been involved in playing and singing music for over 40 years. This is the basic disclaimer on all music. If you buy that sheet music in a music store, you can use that music for yourself, but if you try to make a profit on it. That's when you have to go the BMI group and pay your money. As long as you are using it for a non-profit use - sing it at the ball game - this is the classic disclaimer used in any public sense.
Johnson: Rep. Petersen makes my point exactly. That is why it is on the music, so the copyright holder. . . I would encourage that we delete it if we choose and let Judiciary put it back in.
Lynn: That might be the way out of it. Sponsor's feeling?
Menard: That's fine. I have an acquaintance, from your district Mr. Gatto, she wants to sing the second verse, but she so much wants to have the recognition of the second verse. I understood from Fran Ulmer who I highly respect. She thinks it is worthy. The University says they will release that second verse.
Gruenberg: I feel comfortable with that amendment. One question I'd like to have answered. I know nothing about this area of the law. Do we need to put something in to say it is in the public domain? We all remember when you could sing Happy Birthday and now you can't do it because someone owns the copyright.
Wilson: I'm comfortable with, the sponsor, I just want her to check out before the next committee, because it says "they must have the following notice", if someone doesn't, what is the consequence.
Gatto: Rep. Gruenberg, please don't interrupt. Is a person disallowed for singing the second verse after they sing the first verse?
Menard: No they would not be arrested.
Gatto: I know the person you mentioned. Why doesn't that person sing the second verse.
Menard: Becasue the state doesn't recognize it as the official second verse. She would like it elevated to official.
Johnson: I'll make this conceptual [A conceptual amendment isn't the exact language. Leg Legal will take the concept and draft the amendment.] Section two delete all language.
Amendment adopted.
CSSB 43 Any objections.
4. Changing History and Culture. [64:41 on the audio.]
I'm going to make this a separate post so people can consider Rep. Gatto's perspective on change and culture carefully.
Final comments before voting:
Gruenberg: In response to my friend from the valley. If we look at line 13. It recognizes the Sourdoughs the folks who came from the Lower 48. The second verse talks about the original inhabitants of Alaska. It seems to me the second verse just restores the balance.
VOTE: Petersen yes, Seaton yes Wilson yes, Gatto no, Johnson no, Gruenberg yes, Lynn yes. Passes: 5 yea 2 nay.
Guide to finding things on the audio.
1. Changes to the Bill. Begins at 37:30 of the audio
2. What Does Native Mean? Begins at 42:16 on the audio.
3. Copyright Issues. Begins at 46:25 on the audio.
4. Changing History and Culture. Begins at 64:41 on the audio.
Other posts mentioning the second verse of the flag song.
State Affairs - Division of Elections Overview
8:00 am | House State Affairs Committee Capitol 106 Audio stream will be available when the meeting starts. Overview: Division of Elections
|
The first item on the agenda was a presentation from Director of Division of Elections Gail Fenumiai (Fe (e as in let) Nú-Me-Eye). The basic issues discussed were (see notes below for more details):
1. Preventing Double Voting: Fenumiai procedures for making sure voters don't vote absentee and in person.
2. Rural and urban vote counting time differential. People voting absentee in-person in regional centers - Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, and Nome - have their votes counted on election day. Other absentee votes are not counted until 7-10 days after the election. Rep. Seaton was concerned that since the parties often organize before all the votes are counted, rural legislators may be at a disadvantage in getting committee assignments, chair positions, etc. and wanted to know if there was a way to get the rural and urban area counts more balanced.
Rep. Johnson said he was concerned that they were involving the election board in party organization. Seaton agreed that wasn't proper, and that the Division of Elections was doing its job as assigned by the legislature to be sure there was no voter fraud, and he wasn't asking about vote outcome, but was asking if the legislature's instructions to the Division of Elections had this unintended consequence of differential vote counting time in the rural and urban areas and if there was a way to correct this.
3. Voting Rights Act Compliance in Aftermath of Nick Case
Rep. Gruenberg wanted to know whether the State was now fully compliant throughout the State after the settlement of the Nick case, which he said cost the State a million dollars just to pay the legal fees of the party that brought suit. Fenumiai said she was confident the state was now in compliance and gave examples of things the Division has done.
A few other issues were discussed briefly and the discussion was not as neatly divided as I've made this. Below are my running, rough notes of the discussion. WARNING: These notes are my best effort to record what happened. DO NOT RELY on my notes. I've added the audio of the session at the bottom where you can listen. The Elections discussion started the meeting.
1. Preventing Double Voting. Gail Fenumiai Division of Elections: Over 99,000 absentee ballots counted in 2008. This includes early voting. In primary found that there were 26 people who voted twice. Talked to those people. Not an issue of fraud. A lot were elderly people who forgot. Applied for ballot. It's three weeks early. They voted. Then three weeks later they go to vote, thinking it was a new election.
In the general election there were no duplicate voters. We did not count absentee ballots on election night. We needed to get the precinct registers back and get in-person voting history done by district. Then we run duplicate voter check for all ballots received and logged and we compare. If we have an absentee ballot from someone who voted at polling place. We count just the election day vote.
Gatto: Did you have experience of person voting twice but differently?
Fenumiai: We have no way of knowing.
Absentee voting locations and mail-in starts 15 days before election. For processing and logging. All absentee ballots are viewed by bi-partisan board. It takes time. When they come into office. Received and logged. Voter's eligibility determined. Then, absentee review board has to count and validate by 15?th day after election.
Seaton: What percent was the 99,000?
Fenumaia: Just under 40%.
2. Rural and urban vote counting time differential.
Seaton: Since regional offices have the precinct books, then those voting at regional offices - Fairbanks, Anchorage, etc. were counted for up to three days before the election.
But for more rural precincts - Kenai, SE, Western Alaska - were all counted seven days after election. That third that vote earlier than those who vote on election day because of the close races. Concern that we have most of the ballots counted for Juneau, Fairbanks, Anchorage and known, but then the rural districts will be unknown and in question.
Important because party organization takes place after election, so if rural districts decided 7 days after election but urban decided right away, this will influence how the political organization process in a way that was not intended. Is there a way to balance the regional hubs and outside regional hubs?
Fenumiai: A huge proportion of the 99,000 absentee are mail-in which we don't count until seven days later. Our goal is to have the absentee mail-in ballots done by the tenth day after the election.
Seaton: So absentee, whether cast in Anchorage or Kenai, will be counted the same day?
Fenumiai: That's our intent.
Seaton: Distinguish absentee and early voting?
Fen: Early voting takes place in regional offices, Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, and Nome. I could go to regional office in Juneau.
Difference: My eligibility to cast ballot is determined on the spot. They have info in that system, It is displayed, printed, verified, nothing has changed, witnessed by voting official, and it goes to be counted on election.
Absentee in person: Someone votes out of his district. [I didn't get this]
Seaton: Trying to understand how voting early in regional centers in rural v. regional. So rural ones won't be counted until 7-10 days after the election. But in the urban regional centers, they get their votes counted right away on election night. But rural won't be counted til 7-10 days after. I realize a few people from Homer could vote in Anchorage. But all the people voting in Anchorage could early vote and their vote would count on election night. Correct?
8:22 Fenumiai: That's correct.
Seaton: I guess the problem is that people in Homer go to City Hall. Those ballots won't be counted - even though the process is the same as in urban center - the process of counting the votes won't affect the outcome, but how soon we know the outcome. So you haven't figured out a way to get around that?
Fenumiai: No we haven't. Statutes say where the regional offices are.
There were over 73,000 other absentee ballots election night. It appears that some elections are determined before election night and nothing is official until after the final counting. We are charged with insuring that everyone who casts a ballot actually was eligible and staff takes great pride.
Lynn: The parties organize after the election. Didn't the Republican side organize seven days after the election. When we organize - speak speaker of the house, committee chairs, etc. I've seen in the past when we were trying to do that when we weren't sure if someone had won the race or not. Of course, the party could change the time.
Gatto: Do you separate out the military vote?
Fenumiai: No we don't. We know how many applied and returned their ballots.
Gatto: The overseas military. Do they vote?
Fenumiai: I don't have stats in front of me, but I could get that information to you.
Gatto: Because it might help me in the future. I'm interested in that number in presidential election years and other years.
Johnson: I'm a little uncomfortable quizzing the division of elections on how parties organize. The D of Elections' duty is to insure the elections are honest - one person one vote, are you eligible, did every vote get counted. We shouldn't be raising party organization with them.
Seaton: The question isn't whether the division should be involved. I'm asking if we've set up a differential process so urban centers get counted before the rural. They shouldn't be involved in our party process. The Question is how do the processes we established have had urban/rural differential results or reporting of results. I wouldn't want anything to result in double vote. Question here is whether there is some other policy method to have everything balanced now we've had you be sure there is no double vote.
Wilson: You said something about 327,000 votes. That was?
Fenumiai: That was total votes cast.
Wilson: How many was mail in v. doing something in person.
Fenumiai: I don't have that, I could get it.
3. Voting Rights Act Compliance in Aftermath of Nick Case
Gruenberg: Yesterday, we passed our supplemental budget. One part was payment of legal fees in Nick case - just for the other side's attorney. Brought on behalf of voters in the Bethel region based on the federal voting act. I'm concerned we might have other suits. What steps are being taken to be sure that other rural areas have the same rights too. Will they have to sue to get their rights?
Fenumiai: No they won't have to sue. We believe the Nick case gave us an opportunity to improve our language rights system. There are only a few languages that we are required to provide. We believe we have a very effective language assistance program now. We have hired bi-lingual translators and improved our training in language assistance. Our workers are very well aware of sec. 203 of the Voters Rights Act. We were providing assistance, but it had been oral. Over the years I think people assumed it was being done, but it turns out not adequately.
Gruenberg: I want to follow up with you. I don't know if committee is interested, but I certainly am. ARe you saying there is nothing further the division needs to do to comply with Voting Act?
Fenumiai: It's our understanding we are in compliance which requires language assistance to be provided and I'd be more than happy to go over this with you.
Gruenberg: There's nothing further you need to do under the 2000 census figures?
Fenumiai: Yes that is correct. Having come in two years into the Nick case.
Seaton: We have early voting system, but also absentee and in-person allowed. What would be the effect if all those early voting people at regional centers were counted as the rest?
Fenumiai: There would be more votes for the division to log and process after election day.
Gatto: I've always wondered if we can get a list of people who asked for an absentee ballot. We do know voter reg, but we don't know if people voted.
Fenumiai: I believe the information that people purchase,
Gatto: If you don't do that, can anyone determine I voted.
fenumiai: Anyone can buy that.
Gatto: Why would we release the name of people who requested a ballot. I thought the vote was private?
Fenumiai: I don't know.
Seaton: What was the percent of turnout.
Fenumiai: 66.0?% statewide.
Seaton: do you think it was high because of absentee?
Fenumiai: I don't know. We do get turnouts in the 60s% for presidential elections.
Below is the audio of the hearing.
Flag Song Passes Out of State Affairs
I'll give details later, but the bill passed out of committee 5 yeas 2 nays. There was debate about the copyright which was handed off for the Judiciary Committee to sort out.
Other posts mentioning the second verse of the flag song.
Other posts mentioning the second verse of the flag song.
How Did Racism Become the Topic In The Flag Song Hearing?
Sen. Menard's SB 43 has passed the Senate and was heard last Thursday in State Affairs. Unfortunately, the audio for that hearing is not available on Gavel to Gavel so I can't exactly trace how race got into to the discussion. Basically the bill would officially make the second verse, written in 1987, part of the Alaska state song.
I believe the first person who testified was in the hearing room, the daughter of the woman who wrote the second verse. The next person was online and she opposed the second verse. I can't say for certainty what she said. I know there was something about taking more time. Without the audio or a transcript, and I didn't take good notes, I can only say that at the end, my sense was that the mention of the word Native in the verse was her main objection. She may have said it explicitly, but I just don't know.
Then others in the room testified for the verse. It was clear that having Natives mentioned in the second verse was important to these witnesses. It was a way of showing respect to the Native peoples of Alaska. But it was just one part of this. A lot had to do with their respect for the white woman who had written the verse before she died.
Then there was an exchange between testifier Carol A. Treebian and Rep. Gatto. (This is a part of the video below.)
Here are some of the questions/comments that Rep. Gatto raised. I list them because we don't normally have frank public discussions of race these days. He discusses his own experiences in diverse New York City. This was an interesting exchange and I think that Rep. Gatto was asking these questions in all seriousness.
This last question really struck me because it echoes a well-known exchange between a legislator and an Alaska Native woman 65 years ago. It's an exchange one would hope that all of our representatives would know. It was just over a month ago that we celebrated Elizabeth Peratrovich Day marking the passage of Alaska's first civil rights legislation.
From my perspective, it doesn't seem unreasonable that the people whose families have lived in Alaska for as long as ten thousand years might be recognized with a nod in the state song. But I can also understand that some people might not want any group of people singled out in the state song. I think that is a bit mean spirited, but I could understand the logic. EXCEPT that the first verse does mention a group of people. A group of mostly white, and definitely not Native people.
Rep. Gatto said he will explain his objection when the time comes. The hearing on the bill will continue today, Tuesday March 30, 2010 at 8 am in the House State Affairs committee.
By the way, Rep. Gatto is the sponsor of the Iran Divestiture bill.
Other posts mentioning the second verse of the flag song.
I believe the first person who testified was in the hearing room, the daughter of the woman who wrote the second verse. The next person was online and she opposed the second verse. I can't say for certainty what she said. I know there was something about taking more time. Without the audio or a transcript, and I didn't take good notes, I can only say that at the end, my sense was that the mention of the word Native in the verse was her main objection. She may have said it explicitly, but I just don't know.
Then others in the room testified for the verse. It was clear that having Natives mentioned in the second verse was important to these witnesses. It was a way of showing respect to the Native peoples of Alaska. But it was just one part of this. A lot had to do with their respect for the white woman who had written the verse before she died.
Then there was an exchange between testifier Carol A. Treebian and Rep. Gatto. (This is a part of the video below.)
Here are some of the questions/comments that Rep. Gatto raised. I list them because we don't normally have frank public discussions of race these days. He discusses his own experiences in diverse New York City. This was an interesting exchange and I think that Rep. Gatto was asking these questions in all seriousness.
Gatto: Do you feel racism against, you know, I don’t have racism. I grew up with it, I didn't like it. Do you feel racism against Natives is different today than it was, say 10, 20, 30 years ago? That there’s more or less?
Gatto: Are Natives prejudiced against other Natives?
Gatto: Some of my best friends come from other cultures. They’re the ones that intrigue me the most. So I don’t have any bad thoughts about other cultures. But I don’t, and you’ll see my vote, I’m really not in favor of adding another verse and I want you to know it is not a reflection of an animosity to Natives and I will mention my reason when that time comes.
Gatto: Are we trying to make our state, our country 100% race proof? Or are we willing to say, listen it will never go away. It will simply reach a platform. Some level where it is acceptable. We know that 10% or 20% of the people will forever be racist. And we will never stop it. So are we after the 80% or are we striving for the 100% which we will never get?
This last question really struck me because it echoes a well-known exchange between a legislator and an Alaska Native woman 65 years ago. It's an exchange one would hope that all of our representatives would know. It was just over a month ago that we celebrated Elizabeth Peratrovich Day marking the passage of Alaska's first civil rights legislation.
Asked by Senator Shattuck if she thought the proposed bill would eliminate discrimination, Elizabeth Peratrovich queried in rebuttal, "Do your laws against larceny and even murder prevent those crimes? No law will eliminate crimes but at least you as legislators can assert to the world that you recognize the evil of the present situation and speak your intent to help us overcome discrimination."[The quote above comes from Alaskool.org's long biography of Elizabeth Peratrovich which covers in detail the debate that day in the legislature in February 1945. It's fascinating and I highly recommend it. You might want to start at "The Battle."]
From my perspective, it doesn't seem unreasonable that the people whose families have lived in Alaska for as long as ten thousand years might be recognized with a nod in the state song. But I can also understand that some people might not want any group of people singled out in the state song. I think that is a bit mean spirited, but I could understand the logic. EXCEPT that the first verse does mention a group of people. A group of mostly white, and definitely not Native people.
The gold of the early sourdough's dreamsIf white fortune hunters, many of whom quickly left, are recognized in verse one of the song, I don't understand why people would object to verse two recognizing the people who have occupied this land for millennia. I don't get it. When people in Anchorage objected to renaming 9th Avenue Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, they argued it would mess up the "numerical integrity" of our street system. But this would actually put some balance from one verse to the other.
Rep. Gatto said he will explain his objection when the time comes. The hearing on the bill will continue today, Tuesday March 30, 2010 at 8 am in the House State Affairs committee.
8:00 am | House State Affairs Committee Capitol 106 Audio stream will be available when the meeting starts. Overview: Division of Elections
|
By the way, Rep. Gatto is the sponsor of the Iran Divestiture bill.
Other posts mentioning the second verse of the flag song.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)