Afghan Corruption Got Lots Of Help From US

[I'm just writing notes today.  Consider this jotting down thoughts before other things interfere.]

Lots of commentators are listing corruption in the Afghan government and army as one of the major causes for the rapid collapse of the government.  

Westerners seem to wear one-way glasses when it come seeing to corruption.  "Poor" "third world" countries are seen as rife with corruption compared to Western countries.  

I would argue it's like alcoholism among the homeless and poor and among the middle and upper classes.  Homeless alcoholics are drunk in public while people with more money do a better job of hiding their alcoholism.  

I just want to point out that Western corruption in Afghanistan probably dwarfed local corruption.  

Some examples:

From a SIGAR (Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.)

"Gallery of Greed

 U.S. reconstruction activities in Afghanistan, or any other conflict zone, face the constant threat of criminal conspiracies among personnel who rotate in and out of theater, infecting their successors with the virus of corruption.

 Over the past five years, SIGAR’s Investigations Directorate has uncovered and detailed a classic example of this threat—an extended, widespread, and intricate pattern of criminality involving U.S. military personnel and Afghan contractors at the Humanitarian Assistance Yard (the Yard) at Bagram Airfield near Kabul, Afghanistan.

 In June 2012, SIGAR investigators following leads uncovered an unusual pattern of suspect criminal activity at the Yard. They found traces of criminal activity affecting inventories, accounting, issuance of supplies, payments, and contract oversight at the Yard, which serves as a storage-and-distribution facility for millions of dollars’ worth of clothing, food, school supplies, and other items purchased from local Afghan vendors. U.S. military commanders provided those supplies to displaced Afghans as part of the Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP) to meet urgent humanitarian relief needs for the Afghan people."

From The Marketplace:

"At just short of 20 years, the conflict in Afghanistan was America’s longest war. More than 2,000 U.S. service members were killed there. The U.S. spent billions over the years to sustain its troops in Afghanistan and hired military contractors to feed and house them.

Those contractors profited the most from the war, but those systems can lead to fraud and waste. The U.S. military relied on contractors like KBR and DynCorp International for all sorts of things in Afghanistan.

“For cooking, for driving, for delivering supplies — they were used across the board,” said Linda Bilmes, who teaches public policy at Harvard. She said that, sometimes, the Pentagon had so-called no-cost deals with contractors. Whatever a project cost, the government would pay.

“The whole system was set up in a way to enable contractors to rip off the government,” she said."

From the Daily Beast:

"America has spent at least $2.3 trillion in Afghanistan, but very few know that because the U.S. relied upon a complex ecosystem of defense contractors, belt-way banditry, and aid contractors. Of the 10-20 percent of contracts that remained in the country, the U.S. rarely cared about the efficacy of the initiative. While corruption is rife within Afghanistan’s government, the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction repeatedly alleged bewildering corruption by American firms and individuals working in Afghanistan. In many cases, American firms even defrauded Afghans. A military member of the International Security Assistance Force explained to Carlotta Gall: 'Without being too dramatic, American contractors are contributing to fueling the insurgency.'”

Here's a Treasury official, reported in the Washington Post,  questioning an American consultant working with Kabul Bank for three years about the bank:

"A second unnamed Treasury Department official told government interviewers that soon after he arrived in Afghanistan in the summer of 2010, he met with an American who had been working on contract as a consultant to Afghanistan’s central bank for at least three years. The U.S. official wanted to know more about Kabul Bank, which unknown to both of them was on the verge of failure.

“We had an hour-long conversation,”  the official said. 'I asked him, do you think this is a financially sound bank? He said, ‘Yes.’ And literally 30 days afterward, the whole house of cards came down. This was one of the biggest misses in my career. A $1 billion bank collapsed, and the U.S. adviser swore to me it was financially sound.'”

You know this consultant was making a ton of money plus expenses that probably were well above the average US income.   His job, it would seem, was a scam itself.  

This shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.  No giant expenditures happen in Washington unless there are lobbyists pushing hard for it.  And war lobbyists are among the most effective.

Afghan citizens had to choose a path that would keep them safe from the Taliban and from the US backed government.  Supporting the government made them targets for the Taliban.  Supporting the Taliban made the targets for the government and the US.  For many of them, their petty acts of what we would call corruption, was how they managed to feed their families and stay alive.  

For American contractors it was a way to make huge profits.  

And is there anything more corrupt than the Sackler family working a deal in Bankruptcy Court to make it impossible for them or many other individuals or companies to be prosecuted for all the opioid deaths they caused?  Just because they can pay $4 billion and still have more than that left over?  That's the same kind of deal Jeffrey Epstein worked out with the Alexander Acosta, who then became Trump's Secretary of Labor.

Turns Out Evictions Are More Complicated and Venal Than I Realized

 

This On the Media segment on Eviction is worth listening to.  The issue of housing segregation and evictions is not about how hard people work, but techniques designed to keep people unhoused.  

"It isn't as much about poverty as it is about extracting wealth from the poorest people."

Around 12:30 in the audio, Matt Desmond — Pulitzer Prize–winning author of Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City, and founder of the Eviction Lab at Princeton University - begins.  Be sure to listen to him.  

Some things I learned in this episode. 

• Rents in poor neighborhoods are not that much lower than rents in much nicer neighborhoods, but for poor people, especially people of color, they can't rent a place in those areas. 
• Landlords renting in poor neighborhoods have a higher profit margin than those in better neighborhoods
• All of this traces back to the great migration of Blacks from the South to the North.  
• Presence of children increases the odds of eviction.  

I recommend you listen while your doing some mindless task, like cleaning the bathroom, kneading bread, shredding old paperwork, etc.  

What I heard on the radio was apparently taken from several of the segments you can find them all at the link at the beginning of the post.  

"Don’t call them “at-risk.” They’re “at-promise" And 3 Other Articles Of Interest

Let's start off with some good news.  If you're only going to link to one of these articles, I recommend this one.   There are better ways to do things.  For one things, being smaller and close to your people helps.   I also want to disclose that the head of Fledge is a close relative.

Novel Holding Company Africa Eats Has Raised $1.8M For Its Impact Startups (Forbes)

About a year ago, Fledge, which operates about 10 impact accelerators around the world, launched Africa Eats, a holding company with 27 agriculture and food-focused Africa-based graduates of the networks’ programs. The goal: supporting entrepreneurs on-the-ground with an intimate understanding of how best to address hunger and poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa. Since then, the company has raised close to $2 million—and, despite the pandemic, the portfolio companies are doing fine.

Another good news story, where calling attention to labels can make a difference.  Not 'at risk.'  'At promise.'  Most kids want to be good people, they just need support for those dreams.

Caring for the environment helps South King County kids recovering from trauma or hardship find a sense of purpose  (From the Seattle Times)

"This summer, Park, Amine and Tracy are among two dozen mostly South King County youth learning to be stewards of the environment. 

They clean urban lakes during kayak patrols, plant trees, learn field mapping skills and test water quality in streams and rivers on state parks and public lands. They’re on water or trails several days each month. They’re paid $15 an hour for the work — enough to keep most of them from having to take other part- or full-time jobs that would otherwise consume their days — and they’re getting leadership training so they can help lead conservation and pollution prevention efforts in the future. . .

Many of the youth involved in Unleash the Brilliance have faced early adverse experiences “on steroids,” says Dorsey. Amine was peer pressured into regularly using drugs in middle school; his grades and relationship with his parents tanked. Park’s family faced bankruptcy. Other youth bore witness to their parents’ addictions, moved around a lot or lived in extreme poverty. Some have a history of being incarcerated, skipping class or facing delays graduating from high school. 

Dorsey sees them for their potential. Don’t call them “at-risk.” They’re “at-promise,” he says."

How much do your peers impact your behavior?  This Atlantic article addresess peer pressure and vaccination.  

The Anti-vaccine Con Job Is Becoming Untenable:  Why targets of deliberate deception often hesitate to admit they’ve been deceived

"Something very strange has been happening in Missouri: A hospital in the state, Ozarks Healthcare, had to create a “private setting” for patients afraid of being seen getting vaccinated against COVID-19. In a video produced by the hospital, the physician Priscilla Frase says, “Several people come in to get vaccinated who have tried to sort of disguise their appearance and even went so far as to say, ‘Please, please, please don’t let anybody know that I got this vaccine.’” Although they want to protect themselves from the coronavirus and its variants, these patients are desperate to ensure that their vaccine-skeptical friends and family never find out what they have done. . .

Shifting from an individual to a relational perspective helps us understand why people are seeking vaccination in disguise. They want to save face within the very specific set of social ties that sociologists call “reference groups”—the neighborhoods, churches, workplaces, and friendship networks that help people obtain the income, information, companionship, mutual aid, and other resources they need to live. The price of access to those resources is conformity to group norms. That’s why nobody strives for the good opinion of everyone; most people primarily seek the approval of people in their own reference groups."

Do you know whether your insurance company is insuring coal companies?

U.S. INSURERS FAIL ON CLIMATE ACTION:   Global insurers make coal increasingly “uninsurable”; whole industry fails to act on oil & gas  

LONDON (December 2, 2020)—U.S. insurance companies lag behind their global peers and play a key role in enabling the fossil fuel industry, the Insure Our Future campaign revealed today in its fourth annual scorecard on insurers’ climate policies. 

Insuring Our Future: The 2020 Scorecard on Insurance, Fossil Fuels and Climate Change finds that most European and Australian insurers no longer provide coverage for new coal projects, which has made it harder and costlier to secure the insurance that coal projects need to operate. Coal companies face rate increases of up to 40%. Controversial projects—like the Adani Group’s Carmichael coal mine in Australia—are finding it hard to obtain insurance at all. This demonstrates the insurance industry’s unique power to accelerate the shift away from fossil fuels.  

 More useful for most folks is the scorecard here.  

Unfortunately, smaller companies like All State and State Farm aren't listed here.  They are both independent companies.  But Geico is owned by Berkshire Hathaway which is one of the worst offenders.

 

Supreme Court Conservatives Seem Ready To Break NCAA Control Over Student Athlete Pay. Why?

 Background 

If the conservatives on the Supreme Court have been consistent about anything, it's been in support of big business.   Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, at the Amy Barrett confirmation hearings, argued that while everyone focused on abortion and LGBT issues before the court, the real impact of packing of the court with conservative judges was to set up a court that unabashedly sided with big business.  Whitehouse cited 80 cases that were decided by 5-4 rulings along partisan lines.  These cases had four themes important to large corporations:

• Unlimited Dark Money - that allows the wealthy and corporations (yes those do overlap) to control legislatures that make the rules and even to get people appointed as head of federal agencies that regulate them.  Citizen United is the key decision here, but there are many others
• Knock the Civil Jury Down - The powerful can't control civil juries like they can control Congress.
• Weaken Regulatory Agencies - particularly pollutors to weaken their independence and strength
• Voter Suppression and Gerrymandering - making it harder for citizens  to vote for candidates who might vote against big business' interests - Shelby County decision on no factual record against overwhelming support on the other side, that knocked out voter suppression protections and a bunch of states started suppressing the vote.  Same on gerrymandering.  

*You can see the Whitehouse presentation in the Senate below and I recommend that you listen to it.  Whitehouse puts a lot of puzzle pieces together that help us understand the conservative goals of getting Heritage Foundation trained judges onto the court.  Here's another Whitehouse report on partisan decisions at the Supreme Court which divides the cases a little differently.  

Conservatives Question NCAA Lawyers

So I was surprised to see that in the Supreme Court case National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston**, the conservative judges were asking the NCAA lawyers some tough questions.  After all this is about a large monopolistic organization exploiting student athletes for big money.  It would seem a natural for the Supreme Court's conservatives to be protecting the NCAA.  But no.  From the LA Times:

"Justice Clarence Thomas said it was “odd” that the salaries of college coaches have “ballooned,” but that did not destroy the aura of amateur competition between colleges and universities.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the case showed “colleges with powerhouse football and basketball programs are really exploiting the students that they recruit.” Most athletes work very hard on their sports, have little time for studies and often do not graduate. “They are recruited, used and cast aside,” he said.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said he, too, was concerned about the “exploitation of athletes.” This looks like a system “where schools are conspiring with their competitors to pay their workers nothing,” he said, likening the situation to a classic antitrust violation in the business world."

But on further consideration, the NCAA is not exactly a for-profit corporation like Pepsi.  On its home page it tells us:

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a membership-driven organization dedicated to safeguarding the well-being of student-athletes and equipping them with the skills to succeed on the playing field, in the classroom and throughout life.

We support learning through sports by integrating athletics and higher education to enrich the college experience of student-athletes. NCAA members – mostly colleges and universities, but also conferences and affiliated groups – work together to create the framework of rules for fair and safe competition.

Those rules are administered by NCAA national office staff, which also organizes national championships and provides other resources to support student-athletes and the schools they attend. The NCAA membership and national office work together to help nearly half a million student-athletes develop their leadership, confidence, discipline and teamwork through college sports.

NCAA Core Values    [bold added]

I've left the link to the Core Values there, because it goes to a page that doesn't really mention core values other than being dedicated to to "the well-being and life-long success of student athletes."  Most of it is about who all the members are.  

Also, notice that their sole emphasis is on the welfare of student athletes.  Absolutely no mention of money.

So Why Are The Conservatives Asking the NCAA Hard Questions  

My initial guess - and that's all it is - stems from one of the themes conservatives keep repeating about how universities and colleges are elite institutions full of socialist professors that indoctrinate students in liberal ideology.  (Of course the only colleges that fit that sort of ideological laboratory stereotype are the far right Christian colleges like Liberty University.]   

The NCAA generated close to a billion dollars just from the NCAA basketball playoffs.  They claim that most of that goes to the colleges and universities  From CBS Sports:

"The NCAA Tournament remains the lifeblood of the association's 1,268 members. It is the primary source of the NCAA's income. That $800 million in annual tournament revenue is 72% of the NCAA's $1.1 billion annual total. Last year, $600 million of that $800 million was scheduled to flow back to the schools.

That revenue fills athletic department coffers, provides operating capital for conference offices and provides funds directly to athletes in need."

But does this money help support universities or even cover the costs of college sports?  Best Colleges says no.

"By any measure, college sports are a big business — but that doesn't mean universities are getting rich off athletics. The reality is that most sports programs operate in the red. If the time comes when colleges have to pay athletes to participate, then the financial picture will change even more dramatically."

Some of the largest college sports programs, the ones that get the most back from the NCAA - see the Best Colleges link above for the top 20 and how much they make - might make a profit.  Or maybe not.  It's not clear.  My quick search for information on this leads me to believe that most of the stories are based on information from the NCAA.  I didn't find any in-depth independent studies. But I also didn't look too hard.

So maybe my hypothesis about the conservatives on the Supreme Court is wrong.  Maybe they're big sports fans and so they have more empathy for college athletes than they do for average employees.  Maybe they see the NCAA not as a corporation (it isn't one) but as a cooperative of universities.  Then my hypothesis may be right.  Or maybe they think the universities make more money from sports than they actually do.  That sports help pay for political science programs and affirmative action scholarships.  

Just raising a possibility.  I really don't know what paying college athletes would mean.  The biggest winners, probably, would be the majority of college athletes who will never go on to be highly paid professional players.  

But it's clear that monopolies concentrate power and concentrated power attracts those who want power.  Breaking things up will bring change and quite probably good change.  When they broke up ATT in 1984, we got a revolution in telephone technology.  (I bet some readers don't even know about ATT being a giant phone monopoly that merely leased black dial up phones to every home.)

And if the Supreme Court finds this monopoly problematic, maybe they'll have to take a fresh look at other concentrations of power.  That would be the best consequence.

* Here's the video of Sen. Whitehouse at the Barrett hearings.  He really does a great job of bringing together a number of threads.  

**Shawne Alston was a running back for West Virginia University.

The Amount Of Oppression And Hate In The World Is Overwhelming - Makes It Hard To Blog Because There Is Too Much To Protest

When I was a grad student I wrote, in my head, what I called at the time, a 'social science fiction' novel.  That was back in the mid 1970s.  I should have written it - it was prescient in a number of things.  A basic part of the social structure in the book was a set of television connections that allowed people to connect with others all around the world.  I was back in LA after three years as a Peace Corps volunteer in Thailand.  Lots of ideas swirling in my head.  I was reading all sorts of social science and writing papers and substitute teaching elementary school to help pay for tuition.  There were a couple of days where I taught a Kindergarten class in the morning and a graduate class in the evening.  So my novel still only exists in my head. 

One of the key moments in the history of humanity in my book, was when a group of Tibetan monks, in an isolated monastery, through intensive years of meditation, discovered that forces far out in space were using earth as a 'farm.'  The product they were harvesting every 30 to 60 years, was 'goodness.' It turned out to be a rare commodity found in few places in the universe.  After such a harvest, people fought each other, more people became criminals, wars broke out.  It took 30 to 60 years for 'goodness' to gain a foothold among humanity again.  And then the aliens would return to harvest their crop.  The monks in my story teamed with scientist to block the space powers from harvesting the earth's 'goodness.'  

I've been thinking about this metaphor a lot during the Trump administration.  It seems like there was a massive harvest of goodness prior to his administration.  And now we have to nurture a new crop.  

That's prelude to a couple of things I've been reading and/or watching.

Here's a Tweet video from Al Jazeera on Uighurs incarcerated in China (not far from that fictional Tibetan monastery.)

Last year, Merdan Ghappar posted video from inside one of China's internment camps, where over 1 million Uighur Muslims have been held. He was handcuffed to his bed.

China calls them "re-education" camps.pic.twitter.com/LnufUxFg1i

— AJ+ (@ajplus) February 23, 2021

I Care A Lot

We watched this Netflix film last night in mild horror.  Marla Grayson (character) is a Guardian for seniors who can't take care of their affairs.  She works with a doctor who refers patients to her, then goes to a friendly judge who, because it's an "emergency," gives her guardianship of the patients.  Then she goes to the patient's house - in this case Jennifer Peterson, who is wealthy and living a great independent life in an upscale neighborhood.  Grayson shows her the court order, and gets the incredulous victim to the Berkshire Oaks facility.  I haven't givien much away - because Jennifer Peterson in essentially imprisoned within the first 20 minutes of the movie.  How it happens is what's so scary.  Grayson is truly evil. 

"Writer/director J Blakeson was partially inspired by real-life news stories about shady guardians like Marla Grayson. In an interview for the film’s press notes, Blakeson said, “It started when I saw news stories about real-life predatory guardians who game the system and exploit their wards. And I was horrified. Imagine opening your door one day and there is a person standing there holding a piece of paper that gives them total legal power over you. That idea terrified me—and seemed very relevant right now. It plugged into themes that I am interested in exploring —themes about the power of authority, about people vs profit, control vs freedom, humanity vs bureaucracy. It reminded me of Kafka’s The Trial​. I knew I had to explore it.”

If you want to go down a similar rabbit hole that Blakeson did, check out New Yorker reporter Rachel Aviv’s excellent 2017 essay on the guardianship phenomenon, “How the Elderly Lose Their Rights.” It’s a great read, and no doubt inspired many elements of Blakeson’s script. "  (From  Decider.)

I'm so glad I was able to let my mom stay in her own house.  In hindsight hiring a full time caregiver wasn't necessarily more expensive than a nursing home would have been, and far less disruptive.  But Jennifer Peterson never even had a choice.  The legal work was done behind her back by a series of corrupt transactions.  

I also think about a similar phenomenon in Alaska - payees.  These are people hired to take care of the money of people who are mentally or otherwise deemed unfit to take care of their own finances.  I have a mentee who has been scammed by a couple of payees.  There's really almost no oversight for these people who manage the money of people seen as unfit.  How can they possibly keep their payee accountable?  

One last story - Police Violence, Race-Based Trauma, and Mental Health among Filipina/x/o Americans.  This one is all too familiar, but it's is about a Filipino-American, not an African-American. It's co-authored by University of Alaska Anchorage's faculty member Dr. EJR David.  Here's an excerpt:

. . . Mr. Quinto experienced what seems like a mental health-related episode. Not knowing how to handle the situation, his sister and mother called 911 for help.

Police officers and emergency medical technicians were dispatched to the scene, but police officers arrived first. His mother and sister reported that Mr. Quinto had already calmed down when the police arrived and that he laid on the floor in his mother’s embrace. Nevertheless, the police still grabbed him off his mother, pinned him face down to the floor, and handcuffed him. One of the officers kneeled on his neck and back, while another officer held down his legs. Mr. Quinto’s sister and mother said he was not resisting or fighting back, but instead twice uttered: “Please don’t kill me”. After several minutes, he spat up blood from his mouth and lost consciousness. A cell phone video taken by his sister captured his limp body being taken away. Mr. Quinto died 3 days later. . .

The article goes on to put this into a larger context of the lack of mental health treatment, race, and police in the United States.   

NPR: Is Business More Nimble And More Effective Than Government?

How did we get to this point, where NPR asks a "capitalism expert" this question?  The intro was that corporations were cutting off campaign contributions to legislators who supported Trump's big lie about the election and the insurrection. 

"SACHA PFEIFFER, BYLINE: I want to reel off some of the ways that the corporate hammer has been coming down recently. We saw Dominion and Smartmatic sue former President Trump's allies for lying about their voting machines. We saw companies, including American Express and Morgan Stanley, suspending their donations to key Republican lawmakers. The PGA pulled its tournament from a Trump golf resort. I see this happen, and it makes me think that the corporate response to political controversy has been more nimble and possibly more effective than the government one - effective if you disagree with what these politicians were doing. Am I fair to view it that way?"

Here's a link to the whole piece. 

Let's start with the most obvious thing that Sacha Pfeiffer missed here.   The very fact that she points to corporations withdrawing campaign funding from politicians who supported the lies, should have tipped her off to the answer:   politicians aren't independent of their corporate funders.  

Maybe a better question would have been, "Why didn't the corporations let the politicians know they disapproved of the ex-president's lies and fomenting an insurrection before the impeachment votes?"

Sacha Pfeiffer also conflated elected federal officials with government.  They are just one, small, if powerful, part of the vast  federal government. But these are elected officials, not the people who actually carry out government functions.  These corporations got most of the Republican House and Senate members AND the president elected in the first place.  But the career employees of the government - whether in the CDC or other health agencies, or in the State Department, or in the military, or the post office  have been doing their best to keep serving the people of the United States, despite the corporate funded politicians.

And, as I've pointed out here before, there are many, many governments in the US.  From Wikipedia:

Governments in the United States[1] (not including insular areas)
Type	Number
Federal	1
State	50
County	3,034
Municipal (city, town, village...) *	19,429
Township (in some states called Town) **	16,504
School district	13,506
Special purpose (utility, fire, police, library, etc.)	35,052
Total	87,576

For NPR to seriously pose the basic question "Is business more effective than government?' shows us how far to the Right NPR has moved.  This is the argument conservatives have been making for years. It's their argument for making government as small as possible. And yes, corporations can be more nimble than governments at many decisions, simply because one person has the power to decide:  a CEO supported by a Board of Directors who picked him (I use the male pronoun because that's still the vast majority and yes it can be more complicated than that).  The US House has 435 people and the Senate 100 who all have an equal vote in every decision.  And businesses and governments have very different goals.  One goal of government is to provide those things that corporate America can't - like take care of the people who don't have the money to purchase corporate America's products, from food, to health care, to housing.  

There's lots and lots of things to discuss on this topic, but trying to focus directly on this particular segment, my last issue is that Sacha Pfeiffer turned to a person she described as a 'capitalism expert."  Why?  Why not have a different kind of economist?  Why not ask a 'government expert?" Why not have more than one person to respond?   I don't know what else her expert said that got cut out, but I would reiterate the most glaring omission:

The corporations can make these decisions faster than the politicians because corporations own most if not all of the Republican Senators and House members (and at least a part of many Democrats.)  

The fact that they can have an effect by withdrawing their campaign funding should make this point obvious.  

The real question should have been: why didn't they tell their political shills what they wanted before the politicians voted on Saturday? 

The 'capitalism expert' probably hinted at the answer to this unasked question when he said, they act on profits, not principles.  I'd guess they didn't know how all this was going to play out.  So they didn't know until it was pretty much over how it all might affect their profits.  It wasn't until they saw for themselves the House Impeachment Team's case.  

So, in fact, they didn't actually respond much faster themselves.  Otherwise they could have leaned on their bought politicians to vote for conviction.  

AK Redistricting Board: January 26 - Approving Their Own Pay And Per Diem, Public Hearing Notice & Public Records Policies

 The Board met and passed the policies recommended by the staff.  The main change they made was to combine the meals ($60) and incidentals ($25) into on $85 which, it seems bumps up their meal allowance when traveling.  There was no mention or discussion of whether it was appropriate for that to cover alcohol.  Board member Melanie Bahnke, the President and CEO of Kawerak,  a Native non-profit Corporation of the Bering Straits Native Association, asked that her pay go to Kawerak because that's the corporation's policy when employees do this sort of work on corporation time.  Staff thought that could be arranged but will check.  

One item was added to the published agenda - an update on the progress of the website. The staff is working on it, but no dates were given for when it goes up.

Chair Binkely reiterated several times that these policies could be revisited and amended if that seemed necessary.  

I posted the other day saying I didn't think a board like this should be asked to set its own compensation.  I further raised various ethical and socio-economic questions about the role of public boards like this.  My personal sense is that in many cases per diem and travel allowances are often abused by both private and public sector employees.  I agree fully that members of such boards shouldn't have to spend out-of-pocket to serve on boards, but I also feel that given Alaska's severe cutting of public programs because of the drop in oil revenues, that members of public boards, particularly when they have other well paid jobs besides their board appointments, should be very conscious that many people, many children in Alaska today eat on much less than $60 a day, let alone $85.  

Again, this is something I feel is important and not really aimed at the Board itself, but more at the contradictions between some politicians who vigorously promote cutting the budget and then want to be generously compensated by a government agency.

Below is my rough transcript of the meeting as I listened in by phone.  Occasionally I had trouble identifying who was speaking and I try to indicate that with a question mark.  This is not verbatim, but it's enough to get the gist of the discussion.  Audio tape will eventually be up at this link (and later on their own website when they get that up. 

[I've included some of the staff recommendations from the Documents for the meeting which were online as well.]

Alaska Redistricting Board January 26, 2021

Present:  Board members: Nicole Borromeo, Melanie Bahnke,  Bethany Marcum, Budd Simpson, John Binkley, 

Staff:  Peter Torkelson and TJ TJ Presley 

Open meeting at 2:34

Approval of Agenda - Simpson - amend to add # 6 Webpage

Adopted

Agenda

1. Call to order

2. Establish a quorum

3. Adoption of agenda

4. Board Policy Review and Discussion

a. Public Meeting and Notice Policy

b. Public Records Policy

c. Member Compensation Policy

d. Member & Staff Travel Per Diem Policy

5. Adoption of One or More Board Policies 

Added new 6 -Website progress -  and made Adjournment 7

6. Adjournment

1. Board Policy Review and Discussion

Turn it to Peter

Peter:  Worked through this.  TJ drafted the first two. (Hard to understand)

Public Meetings and Notices Policy:  

Melanie - about screens on Zoom

Dept Director TJ Presley:  

Public Meeting - how the board communicates to public about when there’s a meeting.  Executive and Legislative branch policies.  Executive Branch uses public meetings - all bodies, pretty broad.  

Notice given reasonable time, but no definition.  (Reviewing info in documents covered in earlier post on the Board.)

Banke:  It’s hard to understand, very muffled.

Move to Second Policy Public Records Policy

Hoping to procure a minutes taker as well.  How to keep records varies.  AIDEA - has statutory requirements.  Legislature has uniform rules - court proceedings electronically.  

In this case Board could adopt Legislative or Administrative. 

Staff recommendation - electronic recordings and minutes provided.  (Again see previous post )  

More discussion about TJs audio.  

Peter doing quick summary.  Here’s the official written staff rec:

Meetings and Notice

“Staff Recommendation: Redistricting Board should adopt Alaska Open Meetings law, AS 44.62.310, as its public notice requirements. This action directs staff to ensure notice of themeeting, its location, attachments, and teleconference options, would be posted to the Alaska Public Notice System website within a “reasonable time”. Staff will further make notice of its meetings available on the legislative website.

It is the policy of the Alaska Redistricting Board that the board comply with the Alaska Open Meetings act and seek to provide 72 hours of public notice prior to board meetings with 24 hours notice being allowable. Notices shall be posted to the State of Alaska Public Notice System.

Advance public notice can be difficult if you aren't organized or if things come up at the last minute, but it's important for the public to be able figure out when the board is meeting.  Furthermore, while the State Public Notice System is there, it's not something that most people regularly use.”

Public Meetings 

"Staff Recommendation: Adopt a policy that includes recording and maintaining electronic copies of the audio recording of each meeting and keeping minutes that capture votes, motions, and a “brief statement of the position of any Board Members who makes a statement on the issue before the board” (This is modeled on legislative committee minute recording language). This could be a simple summary like, “Member A expressed concern that the proposed House District 12 did not take into account the city boundary”

It is the policy of the Alaska Redistricting Board that meetings be electronically recorded and made available to the public and that written minutes be kept of each meeting which identify motion makers, seconds, vote tallies and a brief summary of the concerns of any Board member who states a position on the issue under consideration.

Binkley:  Public Notice questions?

Borromeo:  Public Notice.  On Legislature’s website?  Tied to Governor’s office?  I had problems finding us.  

Peter:  We were under umbrella of Legislature because they funded us.  Now on both  Alaska Notice dot Gov [I'd give you a url if I could figure out the right one- Steve] also on http://w3.akleg.gov/index.php#tab4 (?)   So we’d be on both.  

We have our own website being set up and we’ll notice there as well and also have email notification for those who subscribe.  

Binkley:  Compensation Policy.  The Constitution says they should be compensated.  Board members spend a lot of time on Board matters not just on meetings.  We send hundreds of pages to the members.  Done on daily rate, but should also cover hours working on Board issues not at meeting.  

We recommend $477.  Legislators at $486.  We don’t know how many weeks we’ll have before Census Data arrives.  This is our 8th meeting.  Board has been in place about 5 ? months.  

Banke - My company policy says it should be directed back to the organization since I’m doing this on company time.  Otherwise I have to take personal leave each time.

John?:  Check with Leg Legal.

Peter:  Staff will check on how this gets done. I think it’s possible, but we need to check

Borromeo?  - Presume every day a Board meeting being held?  Not per day, right?

Peter:  Per Board Meeting Day.  

Budd:  If 15 minute meeting, say procedural, I wouldn’t feel right about taking a full day meeting rate.  Perhaps a half rate for shorter meetings.  

Binkley?  - in my experience - corporate boards, sometimes preparation is lengthy even if meeting short.  It’s hard to quantify every possibility.  It should balance out with time you spend preparing, meeting with public, but no recognition on that.  Maybe we can proceed and make adjustments.  I don’t see these policies as static.  

Banke:  Hand up?  No, forgot to put it down.

Borromeo:  I have same reaction that Budd did.  I don’t think any of us accepted appointment to this Board to make money.  In another board it’s a sliding scale.  This is a high meeting fee, but it is in line with other Boards and commissions and if we can review it in the future, I’m comfortable moving forward.

Binkley:  Travel and Per Diem Policy

Peter:  Given COVID right now different.  2010 Board did numerous meetings around the state.  We should be able to travel in the future.  We’ve looked at different options.  Using the AK Boards and Commissions policy.

Actual housing costs.  $60 food and incidentals.  We felt $25 for incidentals and $60 for transportation.  

[From the documents:

"Staff Recommendation: Adopt a policy based on the State of Alaska Boards and Commissions Per Diem table with actual lodging and $60 per day for meals. Amend this to include up to $25 for incidentals and $60 per day for ground transportation or car rental to reflect the fact that board members may be sent on road shows to distant communities with little logistical support available on the ground. Provide the Board Chair the ability to waive policy caps if there is documented need (for example, renting a car in Utqiagvik may cost more than the specified daily car rental rate).

“'It is the policy of the Alaska Redistricting Board that members and staff receive per-diem reimbursement for actual lodging, meals to a value of $60, actual incidentals to a value of $25 and ground transportation to a value of $60 per day for board related travel that is authorized by the Board Chair or Executive Director. Reimbursement for actual costs incurred over the maximum amounts may be made at the discretion of the Board Chair.’”]

Banke:  Up to $25 for incidentals.  Is that by request or added to meals?  

Peter:  You can submit receipts for optional - topped at $60 and topped at $25.

Barromeo:  All sounds good except for the meals at $60 per day.  You’d be hard pressed to eat at that price in even Anchorage and Fairbanks.  Can we raise it to $75?  What do others think?

Budd Simpson:  Agree it would be tight.  Either way works for me.  

??? :  I agree with Nicole.  What if we just mix meals and incidentals at $85 and all it good.

Peter:  Board traveled with lots of maps that required skycaps to get them on planes.

Bethany? :  I’m comfortable.  I don’t thinks it’s reasonable to raise the rate, but if we merged with incidentals I’m ok, but otherwise don’t think we should raise it above $60.

Barromeo:  I like the suggestion to merge the meals and incidentals to $85 and above that give receipts and get approval.

Binkley:  Public Notice - Should include meetings AND Hearings   and agree to change the per diem to meals and incidentals together at $85 and other actual expenditures require receipt and approval.

Banke?  - Can we hold off til Peter gets confirmation they can take care of my issue of giving my payment to my corporation?  

Binkley - I don’t think adopting this language would preclude that from happening.  

Motion to adopt these?  Seconded.  Discussion?  Hearing nothing.  Motion adopted.

Web page discussion:  Peter.  We need to have a website so public can be introduced to what we’re doing etc.  Also posting existing districts and maps.  So public will have ready access to maps as they are adopted.  Map section is core to website.  

I can post some mock up examples for public to see.  

Binkley:  appreciate what you’re doing and that you want to get it out to the public so we can get public input.  Any other comments?  

Budd:  Thanks to the staff for putting that together, Like the idea of using the old map as a graphic for this.  Beside being interesting, it doesn’t emphasize urban or rural areas like modern maps do.  

Barromeo?  Thanks for making the changes I sent the other day.  

Adjournment, but anything else first?  

Barromeo? - consider prioritizing with various organizations to say what redistricting is - time to educate public before we get into the details.  

Banke - traveling during quarantine hard from Nome because of quarantines, but things getting better, but next week I get my second shot.  More available for people in rural areas than for Anchorage folks.

Adjourn?  Borromeo, move.  Budd Second.  

Adjourned.  2:35

How Much Does It Cost To Eat Out In Anchorage? The Redistricting Board Thinks $6o A Day Isn't Enough

The staff of the Redistricting Board today recommended a per meeting compensation of $477 a per diem for meals of $60, and incidental costs allowance of $25, and a ground travel allowance of $60. The incidentals were taken from the previous Board that said often they carry lots of maps and other displays for traveling to various communities and that requires extra costs getting those things onto planes.  Hotel allowances were "actual costs." 

I thought, overall, the Board members sounded responsible about this.  While I personally think pay for such service should be more like an honorarium, I also don't think they should have to pay out of pocket to travel to the meetings and spend the night away from home.  Further what was approved was within the general parameters of other Boards and Commissions.  

A couple members of the Alaska Redistricting Board today said the equivalent of "You can't eat three meals in Anchorage for $60."  In the end they combined the meal allowance and the incidentals into a single category of $85, which, for the most part means there's now an $85 a day meal allowance.  Any incidentals above that need receipts and approval to get reimbursed.  So, that also means that if the Board member eats for $50 a day, they'll probably get an extra $35.  (I don't think they need to show actual costs below $85, but I'm not sure.)

I also don't think that the Board should be put in the position to decide how much they should get paid.  The legislature should spell out guidelines for this.  

All that said, I think it's also reasonable to consider that lots of people are eating courtesy of the Food Bank these days.  That lots of Anchorage kids are not eating much at all because schools aren't open and they aren't getting the free meals they normally get there.  And there are lots of people who, when they go out to eat, go to food courts, fast food restaurants, or order pizzas.  

I'd also guess that everyone on the Board has made contributions to charity greater than they'll get back in the $25 per diem they'll get each time they travel.  So, just for appearances, it would be a nice gesture for Board members to accept the $60 limit and if they want to eat fancier than that, or have drinks with their meals, they pay for that out of pocket.  After all, if they stayed home, they would probably spend at least $25 on food anyway.  

I've traveled for work and I know that it's often useful to have meals with colleagues at conferences. But the Board members can't get together in groups of more than two (I think) without it being considered a secret, un-noticed Board Meeting.  And the Board members are all likely folks who know lots of people in Anchorage who will invite them for a meal while they are in town.

But to help them find places to eat for under $60 I here's Trip Advisor's list of place to eat on the cheap in Anchorage.  I suspect they are so refined that they can't eat at these places while they are in town for meetings.  

Here's the menu for one place on the list:  Arctic Road Runner:

"BIGGER, BETTER, MEATY BURGERS

the following are 1/4 pound patties, served on a hamburger bun, unless otherwise roasted. we cook our burgers "medium well" unless you request otherwise.

"All American $4.35

ketchup, mustard, onion.

Alaskan Banquet $5.25

mayo, lett, tom, onion.

Arctic Cheese $5.50

mayo, lett, tom, onion & amer cheese.

Bacon Burger $6.30

mayo, lett, tom, onion, amer cheese & bacon.

Pepper Burger $5.95

mayo, lett, tom, onion, 1/2 mild chile pepper & mozz. cheese.

Kodiak Islander $6.15

mayo, lett, tom, onion, 1/2 mild chile peppers 1/2 slice. each: bologna, salami, ham, amer, mozz, cheese. an onion ring to top it off.

Kenai Whopper $6.50

our biggest meaty burger. two 1/4 pound patties, mayo, lett, tom, onion, 1/2 mild chile pepper & mozz cheese.

Mexican Burger $5.95

mayo, lett, tom, onion, 1/2 mild chile pepper, meat sauce & amer cheese.

Nature Burger $6.15

on a wheat bun. mayo, sprouts tom, onion & mozz, cheese, not this is not veggie burger."

Uncle Joe's Pizzeria has pizzas from $8.99 to $13.99 and a bunch of salads for under $6.  

Most dishes at the Thai Kitchen are $13 and rice comes free.  Three people could have a filling meal sharing, Thai style, a green curry, pad thai, and cashew chicken.

There are pages and pages of places to eat on Trip Advisor's list.  

Campobello Bistro is a little more upscale, with real tablecloths even, but you can get several different pastas for under $20.  Yes, if you add a salad and dessert, you're going to have to keep your breakfast and lunch combined under $20.  [UPDATE Jan 27, 2021:  a reader informed me this restaurant has closed.]

Part of me says, this is small potatoes.  The state spent too many millions buying ANWR drilling leases in (legitimate) fear that no one else would bid.  

Another part of me says, a few dollars here and a few dollars there start to add up.  Assume the five members of the Board all spend $85 for meals when they travel to Anchorage for meetings - if and when it's safe to do that - say for 100 days.  How much does that extra $25 add up to?  (Some may travel more than others, but just to ballpark this let's go with this.  The last Board ended up taking three years to get their work done, so I'm sure there will be more than 100 per diems racked up by the Board.)  

That's $25 X 5 X 100 = $12,500.  Again, not a lot in terms of Alaska's budget. But $12,500 savings here and $10,000 savings there, adds up.  The Governor says that we have to make millions more in cuts to the Alaska budget. Other legislators argue there's fat to be cut. Well, here's a place to do that. It's not so much large expenditures that are they problem.  They get lots of scrutiny.  It's more stuff like this that tends to be invisible in the budget.  

And, while the Board member bios aren't up yet for the Board members, it doesn't appear to me that any of these people are strapped for money.  They don't have to do this to make ends meet.  It's an honor and a public service to be performed.  One Board member today said that when members of her Corporation serve on boards like this on company time, they get the boards to give the money straight to the corporation.  (I'm guessing she makes a lot more on her regular salary anyway.)

And a third part of me thinks about the fact that these Board members are doing this for the people of Alaska.  How connected are they with the people of Alaska if they either can't imagine how to eat out in Anchorage for $60 a day or they can't imagine eating at places that don't have cloth table cloths and where they can't get a few drinks with the meals.  (The Board did not talk about whether the meal allowance will cover drinks too.)  $60 a day is more than many families spend a day on food.  

Final Note

This issue isn't really about the Board.  It's about how people in different income brackets think about what is normal, think about what level of restaurant is suitable. It's about a system that goes well beyond the State, where people get perks with their jobs that allow them to stay in hotels and dine in restaurants that would stretch most people's budgets, because the company or in this case the government is paying.  I'm all for reimbursing legitimate expenses, but when government employees are traveling they should be reimbursed to stay in the least expensive accommodations that are clean and and quiet enough to do work and close enough to places they have to go to minimize extra costs for transportation.  If that doesn't suit the traveler, she is free to stay and eat at better places by paying the difference from their own pockets.  I think most Alaskans would agree. Legislators often go after travel budgets when they want to cut agency costs.  I think a lot of travel is necessary.  Much of it has long term benefits to the organization.  Cuts should be on the edges to allow reasonable, but not extravagant travel. 

There was more to the Board meeting and I'll talk about that in a different post.  Tomorrow I hope.  I would add that for the most part I think the Board members discussion was reasonable.  But I do think the issue about not being able to eat in Anchorage for $60 a day does reflect that at least some on the Board have different standards of acceptable eating than many of the people whose district boundaries they are going to be setting.

Alaska Redistricting Board Meeting Next Tuesday - January 26, 2021 2:30pm - How Much Should They Get Paid? How Easy Should It Be To Follow What They Do? [Updated]

[Updates January 25:  I've added a couple of extra sentences which I've [bracketed].

So many momentous things happening that it's hard to blog meaningfully and not just repeating what readers already know.  Have some things I'm working on, but they aren't ready.  

But at this point it's easy to just offer a heads up about the next redistricting board meeting, with a thank you to EB who alerted me.  

[That's what I wrote yesterday, but when I started looking at the agenda, questions came up.  So I'll raise them here at the top and then give more details down below.]

How easy should it be to find out when meetings are and are audio tapes enough record or should there be transcripts?  If the Board isn't going to offer transcripts within a week of a meeting, then they should use the kind of system the Anchorage Assembly uses that allows people to search topics on their video tape (in this case audio tape.)

How much should the board get paid?  The recommendation is $477 a day.  100 days would be $47,700 for a 'volunteer' board.  That's twice a week per year.  Last time they met 5 days a week at times.  There is a lot of work, but the Anchorage Municipal Assembly makes $45,000 a year and I'd say they have a lot more work to do.  Aside from Assembly meetings, they have works sessions, Community Council meetings, PLUS they have to raise money and campaign for reelection.  Then there's also a budget for per diem.  Somehow the staff recommends the DOD per diem.  Not sure why other than it was more than the State per diem.  

Should they even be the ones to determine their own pay?  There aren't many government jobs where the incumbent decides her own pay.  This is the Board's fault.  The legislature should make this decision or give it to the State Officers Compensation Commission.

The Agenda

State of Alaska Redistricting Board

Date:  January 26, 2021   Time:  2:30 pm

Place:  Teleconference:

Public Numbers: Anchorage 563-9085, Juneau 586-9085, Other 844-586-9085

[I'd note the State's Public Notice website offers this link as well:  http://akleg.gov]

 Agenda

1. Call to order

2. Establish a quorum

3. Adoption of agenda

4. Board Policy Review and Discussion

a. Public Meeting and Notice Policy

b. Public Records Policy

c. Member Compensation Policy

d. Member & Staff Travel Per Diem Policy

5. Adoption of One or More Board Policies 

6. Adjournment

Here are the staff recommendations for items 4a, 4b, 4c, and 4d:

4a. Staff Recommendation: Redistricting Board should adopt Alaska Open Meetings law, AS 44.62.310, as its public notice requirements. This action directs staff to ensure notice of themeeting, its location, attachments, and teleconference options, would be posted to the Alaska Public Notice System website within a “reasonable time”. Staff will further make notice of its meetings available on the legislative website.

It is the policy of the Alaska Redistricting Board that the board comply with the Alaska Open Meetings act and seek to provide 72 hours of public notice prior to board meetings with 24 hours notice being allowable. Notices shall be posted to the State of Alaska Public Notice System.

Advance public notice can be difficult if you aren't organized or if things come up at the last minute, but it's important for the public to be able figure out when the board is meeting.  Furthermore, while the State Public Notice System is there, it's not something that most people regularly use.  

I'd recommend:

• The Board continue to use the State system.  But most members of the public are not familiar with that system and aren't likely to find it easily.
• The board set up its own website where they include announcements of meetings and documents and access to tapes and transcripts of meetings.  It would also be a place where people could easily get links to listen in to meetings
• They set up a system so that people interested in the Board can get emails alerting them to new meetings.  

4b.  Public Records

"Staff Recommendation: Adopt a policy that includes recording and maintaining electronic copies of the audio recording of each meeting and keeping minutes that capture votes, motions, and a “brief statement of the position of any Board Members who makes a statement on the issue before the board” (This is modeled on legislative committee minute recording language). This could be a simple summary like, “Member A expressed concern that the proposed House District 12 did not take into account the city boundary”

It is the policy of the Alaska Redistricting Board that meetings be electronically recorded and made available to the public and that written minutes be kept of each meeting which identify motion makers, seconds, vote tallies and a brief summary of the concerns of any Board member who states a position on the issue under consideration.

My comments:  The last board had a policy of making transcripts of all meetings.  This was a good policy, but implementation was problematic.  Instead of having transcribers at the meetings, they recorded the meetings and sent them in for transcribing.  This took eight weeks or longer, in part because the transcribers couldn't identify who was talking much of the time.  

Just making an audio tape is MUCH cheaper, but it's difficult for the public to listen to hours of tape.  In a transcript you can search (unless they make it in a format that isn't searchable) and find things you are looking for much easier.  And it is much easier to scan through a written transcript than a tape.  

Now, if they use a system like the Municipality uses, which allows the public to search the video tape for the topic they are looking for, that could be useful.  

Minutes that list the bare minimum are almost useless.  We don't need to know (in most cases) who moves and seconds a motion.  We need to understand the debate and reasoning behind decisions that were made and that can only happen if there are verbatim minutes.  Yes, the tapes are there, but for the reasons mentioned above, most people simple won't have the time to listen to hours of tape.  This gives advantages to organizations that can hire people to do that kind of work.  

[I'd also note that by having virtual meetings, there is no way for the public, so far, to have informal conversations with the board members during breaks and after the meetings as there was previously. Yes, people can send emails, though I haven't found these publicly listed yet.  And that's not the same. For example, there is no process for comments - like these here - to be conveyed to the Board.  In the public meetings I could have raised these issues with members before the meetings and during breaks.  And all the Board members' emails were posted on the Board's website.

I'd also note   

4c.  Member Compensation  

Staff Recommendation: Adopt a compensation policy of $477.20 per day. Legislators are currently compensated at $486.88 per day while the legislature is in session. Staff will assist in documentation and submission of board member days of service.

“It is the policy of the Alaska Redistricting Board that members be compensated at the rate of $477.20 per day. Compensation shall be paid beginning with the Board’s first meeting.”

The $477 figure comes from figuring out the 2010 Board's pay and adding 19% inflation.  If the Board meets 100 times a year, that's $47,700.  [The last meeting took about 30 minutes.  That comes to over $900 per hour.  Of course, later meetings will take longer.  And when comparing to the last redistricting board,  one has to consider that the current board meetings so far have been, and probably for quite a while will be, virtual meetings.  There is absolutely no travel time.  Travel per diem is set for actual costs, but does not consider the members' time getting to and from meetings.]  I checked with an Anchorage Assembly member.  As I mentioned above, they get $45,000 a year, not sure how many actual assembly meetings there are because I don't attend regularly, but probably at least 26, plus they have lots of work meetings, community council meetings, and tons of reading to do for each meeting.  And they have to raise money and campaign for election.  And they are directly accountable to the public.  

Like the Board, the Assembly is not considered a full time job.  I think the Board should consider a cap on how much they get paid per year.  

4d.  Member & Staff Travel Per Diem Policy

 "Staff Recommendation: Adopt a policy based on the State of Alaska Boards and Commissions Per Diem table with actual lodging and $60 per day for meals. Amend this to include up to $25 for incidentals and $60 per day for ground transportation or car rental to reflect the fact that board members may be sent on road shows to distant communities with little logistical support available on the ground. Provide the Board Chair the ability to waive policy caps if there is documented need (for example, renting a car in Utqiagvik may cost more than the specified daily car rental rate).

“'It is the policy of the Alaska Redistricting Board that members and staff receive per-diem reimbursement for actual lodging, meals to a value of $60, actual incidentals to a value of $25 and ground transportation to a value of $60 per day for board related travel that is authorized by the Board Chair or Executive Director. Reimbursement for actual costs incurred over the maximum amounts may be made at the discretion of the Board Chair.'”

I think my issue here is NOT with the staff recommendations, per se, but with the fact that travel expenses for government employees is often a way to travel nicely.  "Actual lodging" means if they choose to stay at a nice room at the Captain Cook it costs the state a lot more than if they stay at a more economical hotel.  I think there should be language like "actual rate up to $150 a night."  If they choose to stay at a more expensive hotel, they can pay the extra.  Or the number might vary if, for example, they stay in a remote area with limited and expensive availability.  And there would be a difference between season and off-season rates.  Again, for meals.  If the Board members stayed home, they would spend a certain amount for food any way.  

At the very least, I think the Board should publish quarterly the expense accounts for each Board member.  The Alaska legislature does this.  The Board should too.  I was never able to get a budget for the last Board - though that wasn't something I put too much effort into.  So, yes, we (the public) ought to be able to see the Board's budget and actual spending.