US Political Accountability Is Badly Broken

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 1. 2. 3.

C.

1. 2. 3.

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

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

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

You can read the complete report here. 

WHAT DO I MEAN BY BROKEN?

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

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

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

Accountability Too Slow

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

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

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

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

Corrupted Officials

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Political Violence Is One Of Those Lines

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

From AP via Anchorage Daily News Nov 19, 2023

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

SO, ARE YOU SAYING DEMOCRACY IS DOOMED?

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

Senate and House Obstacles 

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

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

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

The US Supreme Court Leans Way Right

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

Another Insurrection, but larger

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

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

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

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

IS THERE ANY HOPE?

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

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

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

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

New Speaker, Quick Show Of Bi-Partisanship, But Don't Hold Your Breath

 I try not to write about things getting saturation coverage if I don't think I have some insight no one else has shared.  Furthermore, I've been advised by people who care about me, not to put a target on my back by writing about Israel.  

But the House finally getting a speaker followed by an immediate, overwhelming bi-partisan vote to support Israel is too much to pass up.  [I began this Thursday evening.  Reviewing this draft on Friday, it's clear discussing Johnson AND Israel in one post, while an admirable goal since they are related, is beyond what I can expect any readers to endure.  So let's just focus in this post on Johnson's speech.] [Quotes are from the transcript at REV.com]

Johnson's speech

1.  The amount of time he spoke about religion and how he spoke about it is troubling, but given his background, not surprising.

"I want to thank my dedicated wife of almost 25 years, Kelly. She’s not here, we [is 'we' her preferred pronoun?] couldn’t get a flight in time. This happened sort of suddenly, but we’re going to celebrate soon. She spent the last couple of weeks on her knees in prayer to the Lord and she’s a little worn out, we all are."

Truly, I have no idea if he was being serious about her being literally on her knees in prayer for two weeks or he was just being metaphorical to make his point.  At the time of the speech, I took it literally.  Now I'm not so sure.  I suspect his fellow Baptists didn't even notice anything unusual in this phrasing.

Later in his speech he said, 

"I don’t believe there are any coincidences in a matter like this. I believe that scripture, the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raises up those in authority. He raised up each of you, all of us, and I believe that God has ordained and allowed each one of us to be brought here for this specific moment in this time."

Where to even start?  

A.  Given all the evil leaders the world has seen, this isn't much of a recommendation for God's choices.  But it would help explain why his wife might have been praying so fervently for two weeks - she was trying to get God to promote her husband.  

B.  And, of course, there's the oft pointed out contradiction between the professed beliefs of Christians and their support of the past president's thoroughly un-Christian behavior and life.  I know they would tell us "God works in mysterious ways" but that doesn't cut it for me.  Especially since those folks who display the most Christlike behavior - helping the poor, the outcasts, the strangers etc. -. are so roundly condemned by Evangelical Christians.  

A good portion of the rest of the speech also focused on God - how "In God We Trust" got engraved above the rostrum in the House chambers in 1964.  But that should be a reminder that before 1956, "E Pluribus Unum" was the unofficial motto of the US until "In God We Trust" was made the official motto, in the height of the McCarthy hearings and the demonization of the Communist Soviet Union.  These changes don't just happen on their own, but I couldn't quickly find much detail about who lobbied or who funded that lobbying, to make it happen.  But my point is that God wasn't that intimately part of our official national identity until about 150 years after the US' founding.  It wasn't with us from the beginning.  

2.  His apparent isolation from most United States citizens - isolated from other ideas about religion from his own and isolated from citizens who are not members of Congress. 

Sure, he's a member of Congress.  He talks to people who have different views from his, but despite that exposure, he seems either unaware that others might find his words jarring, or he simply believes he has an inside track on Truth and so he speaks what he thinks.  

Let's reintroduce his comment about his wife being on her knees for two weeks paying here.  

A.  While I understand there are probably millions of US citizens who might relate to this physical demonstration of one's belief in God's intervention in our daily lives, there are just as many of us, probably more,  for whom being on our knees praying for several weeks is not part of our life experience.   

I looked for specific data on this.  The Pew Trust has very detailed data on who prays daily, but it's too detailed for my purposes. I wanted something to compare religious believers who pray daily to others who never pray.  But going through the Pew charts,  I was a bit surprised to see that  Democrats pray daily almost as frequently (40%) as Republicans (42%).  That people who believe homosexuality should be accepted pray daily more (49%) than people who think it shouldn't (42%).  But I couldn't find methodology for that specific survey to find out how  'pray daily' was defined.  Was it left up to the respondents? Did it include a quick "Dear God, help me pass this test"?  Did it mean a daily prayer at dinner? A communal  ritual prayer in a synagogue, or at a Buddhist shrine, or five times a day facing Mecca, or in a church?  Or all of those things?  I couldn't find an answer.

B.  Another brief comment he made, that on the face of it, might seem benign or even a positive sign, was this: 

"I want to thank our children, Michael and Hannah and Abby and Jack and Will. All of our children sacrifice, all of them do and we know that and there’s not a lot of perks to being a member of Congress’ kid, right?"

I think thanking our children for the burdens we put on them is a very important thing to do regularly.  But when you have just become the head of one of the most powerful bodies of the US government (and thus the world)  and you're speaking to the nation, this is really an example of privilege and deafness to the rest of the population.  

"Not a lot of perks to being a member of Congress' kid."  I get it.  Their congressional parent is away a lot and always busy.  And if he were talking privately to other members of Congress, this would make sense.  But this was a speech to the world.

Lots of kids have parents who work long hours.  Have single parents.  Have no parents.  I imagine that Congress members' kids get a hell of a lot more perks than most kids get.  Especially in the current economy in the US where the divide between the very rich and everyone else has become so great.  Especially when conservatives are passing laws to require kids to bear the babies of their (often related) rapists. And when conservatives like Mike Johnson have tried to make being LGBTQ+ a crime.

That Johnson said this in a speech like this, tells me he doesn't understand how the vast majority of people in this country live. 

3.  On a more positive note, he also said this:  

"We stand at a very dangerous time, I’m stating the obvious. We all know that the world is in turmoil, but a strong America is good for the entire world. We are the beacon of freedom and we must preserve this grand experiment in self-governance. It still is. We’re only 247 years into this grand experiment. We don’t know how long it will last, but we do know that the founders told us to take good care of it."

At a time when many of us see the reelection of the former president as the end of US democracy, it's good to hear this.  But hearing it from the lips of an extreme conservative who voted against confirming Biden's election, and who has that ex-president's support, makes me question what he meant by this.  

A.  Does he define democracy the way I do?  He's a conservative Christian, former state legislature, from a state whose legislature was told to fix their gerrymandered voting districts and they refused.  It took the US Supreme Court to compel the changes. [And double checking this now, I see that all the Congressional chaos, plus the Israeli-Hamas war, has pushed to the background new developments in the Lousiana gerrymandering case -  that just last week the 5th Circuit has delayed this action further.

Does he have a different definition of democracy than I have?  Reports on his past statements tell us that belief in God is more important than the US Constitution. A Politico interview today reports: 

"Johnson has said that [David] Barton’s ideas and teachings have been extremely influential on him, and that is essentially rooting him in this longer tradition of Christian nationalism. Christian nationalism essentially posits the idea that America is founded on God’s laws, and that the Constitution is a reflection of God’s laws. Therefore, any interpretation of the Constitution must align with Christian nationalists’ understanding of God’s laws. Freedom for them means freedom to obey God’s law, not freedom to do what you want. So really, Christian supremacy and a particular type of conservative Christianity is at the heart of Johnson’s understanding of the Constitution and an understanding of our government."

B.  Is this all a well rehearsed performance to appear to be the polite new leader who will welcome all to work through our issues?  Or is it just a cover for a far right religious radical who is now the leader of the US House of Representatives?  

I'm inclined to think it is just a cover.  But while Johnson has managed to keep out of the spotlight up until now, all the world's spotlights are shining brightly on him.  And the internet means everything he's ever publicly said in the past will be blown up and examined in detail.  It's already begun.  

And if the Republicans had a rare show of unity Wednesday when they elected Johnson to be Speaker, is it going to last?  The rules that allowed one member to call for ousting the Speaker are still in place.   One objector with four other GOP supporters could overthrow Johnson the way Gaetz overthrew McCarthy.  But for the moment the GOP house thugs appear happy with Johnson.  

The Democrats will clearly make Johnson a poster boy when they campaign to put Democrats back in the majority of the House of Representatives.   

Overall his speech, was just under 20 minutes and you can watch and listen to it here. 

 

Unchecked Reporting From A Source Who Hadn't Yet Figured Things Out

This is a tale about a journalist who writes an article based on what a friend with a new high level job in DC told her.  She pretty much writes what he says.  But it turns out his story is wishful thinking.  I just offer this as an example of bad reporting in case anyone is collecting such stories.

[Aug 31, 2023 - I've made some minor edits that, at most clarify, but don't change anything substantive.]

Miles Taylor writes in  Blowback about having arrived at the Department of Homeland Security to be "John Kelly's top intelligence and counter-threats advisor."  Taylor came into this position having worked as a Congressional staffer and in the W. Bush administration.  He'd been warned against taking a job in the Trump administration, but was pleased that someone like John Kelly would be in a high level position where he could help keep Trump in check.  

And, in fact, he was told early on that Kelly and allies had already kept Trump from doing some crazy shit.  [Sorry, that's not my style, but it seems like the most appropriate way to say it. "Prevented him from taking dangerous actions" just seems too tame.]

So barely a month on the job Taylor meets with a journalist friend.*

"Not long after starting, I caught up with a reporter friend.  We sat outside drinking cocktails not far from the White House, enjoying unseasonably warm April weather.  I confidently told her there was an "Axis of Adults" emerging inside the Trump administration - comprised of Kelly, Mattis, Tillerson, and others - who were keeping it on track.  She pushed back gently.

"They know what they're up against?"  she asked.

"They realize this is a tumultuous White House," I explained, "and they were serving as a leveling influence over fractious personalities . . .protecting the country from enemies both foreign and domestic." (pp.53-54)

Let's be clear here.  Taylor's been there a month or less in April 2017.  

"The reporter ran a story in the Daily Beast --"New Power in Trumpland: The Axis of Adults" - and asked to use the quote.  I agreed, hoping others would take comfort in knowing it wasn't all chaos in Trumpland." (p. 54)

Let me also say that Taylor has turned out to be one of the most consistent Republican voices against Trump.  He was the guy behind the Anonymous letter to the New York Times, while he was still in the government. The letter that alerted the world to how bad things were in the Oval Office.  I give him credit for sharing his early-on-the-job naïveté.  He goes on:

"In hindsight, I was probably sending the message to a few particular people - like the mentor who'd reached out to warn me against going into the administration.  And maybe, I was still trying to convince myself." (p. 54)

He closes that section with:

"I fell asleep easily in the early days knowing I'd made the right decision.  The Trump administration was starting to function, thanks to capable deputies who knew how to run the government. 

Like most bedtime stories, this turned out to be fiction." (p. 54)

So I googled Daily Beast "New Power in Trumpland: The Axis of Adults" and there it was.  As a blogger I have some sense of the dynamics of getting stories.  But since my blog is a hobby, not a job, I don't have the pressure to impress anyone or to get lots of hits.  The times that's happened it was simply because I managed to get an idea or story that took off.  

But I've read criticisms of reporters getting cozy with sources and then being used as conduits to publish an administration's story the way the administration wants it told. Or covering the strategy of the elections instead of the issues. (See for example Jay Rosen's "The savvy turn in political journalism.") I'm guessing this story would fit into savvy, but wrong.  So here's part of that Daily Beast story.

"There’s a new band in town that’s guiding national security by quietly tutoring the most powerful man in America. Never-Trump Republicans who’d been apprehensive about President Donald Trump are celebrating the trio’s influence, calling Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and Homeland Secretary John Kelly the “Axis of Adults.”

Through near daily contact with the trio, as well as Trump’s National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster and CIA director Mike Pompeo, Trump’s world view appears to be morphing more closely to match hawkish conservatives of the Bush administration.

They point to the men’s influence in the Tomahawk strike in Syria—in contrast to Trump’s isolationist slogans on the campaign trail; the outreach to China, compared to Trump’s threats to launch a trade war; a possible escalation of the war in Afghanistan; and Trump’s hardening stance toward Russia.

None of these key national security chiefs were part of the Trump campaign, or movement. They are seen by those who work most closely with them as loyal to the office of the president but still getting to know the man himself, said a senior administration official, speaking anonymously to describe the interactions just 11 weeks into the fledgling presidency."

That's Miles Taylor, the "senior administrative official speaking anonymously." 

So, the reporter meets a friend for drinks (she didn't mention that part) and he relates his early impressions of the new administration.  Things he's been told.  And which he tells us, a few years later in his book. he soon realized were fiction.

But she got her story for the Daily Beast, a story that simply reported Taylor's fantasy about how the adults were taming Trump.  She accepted her friend's (an anonymous senior administrative official) story as true.  And the Daily Beast ran with it as true.  And it was true in the sense that a senior administrative official said it.

I guess I'd also call into question a story that outs those adults - it likely put them on a Trump watchlist as people who thought they were smarter than he was.  

How did this "Axis of Adults" fare?

Wikipedia says that as head of Homeland Security Kelly 

According to the New Yorker, 

Kelly left the DHS with a reputation as one of the most aggressive enforcers of immigration law in recent American history. His record belies the short length of his tenure. In six months, Kelly eliminated guidelines that governed federal immigration agents' work; vastly expanded the categories of immigrants being targeted for deportation; threatened to abandon the Obama-era program that grants legal status to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children; and has even broached the idea of splitting up mothers and children at the border to "deter" people from coming to the U.S.[39]

The DHS under Kelly "became one of the few branches of the federal government that has been both willing and able to execute Trump's policy priorities."[39] Unlike other agency heads, Kelly did not clash with Trump.[38]

Who bent whom to his ways? Seems he was bent enough to be asked to be Trump's Chief of Staff, but that's when things went south..  

"On December 7, 2018, CNN and others reported that Kelly and Trump were no longer on speaking terms and that Kelly was expected to resign in the coming days.[55] On December 8, Trump announced that Kelly would be leaving at the end of the year.[56]"

Tillerson and Mattis tried hard to be the adults, but it didn't work out.  From the Atlantic

"Now [December 2018] Mattis was becoming more and more isolated in the administration, especially since the defenestration of his closest Cabinet ally, the former secretary of state Rex Tillerson, several months earlier. Mattis and Tillerson had together smothered some of Trump’s more extreme and imprudent ideas. But now Mattis was operating without cover. Trump was turning on him publicly; two months earlier, he had speculated that Mattis might be a Democrat and said, in reference to NATO, “I think I know more about it than he does.” (Mattis, as a Marine general, once served as the supreme allied commander in charge of NATO transformation.)"

But then a lot of people thought they could be the adult who could check Trump's impulses.  

That's all.  I just wanted to highlight this one example of an anonymous source who didn't really know what he was talking about getting reported as truth, with apparently no further fact checking.  

*He calls her a 'reporter friend.'  Reporter is probably the better word.  But it's also a bit ambiguous whether she is a friend who is a reporter or a reporter who became a friend.  I'm guessing that she was a friend first, but that's not clear. 

Destroying University Of Alaska Not Just With Huge Budget Cuts - 9 of 11 Regents Now Dunleavy Appointments

An article by Iris Samuels in the ADN highlights the links between Seth Church's far right philosophy and campaign contributions to Dunleavy.

But I want to emphasize a slightly different issue - the drift over the years from the Board of Regents being advocates of higher education to being supposed advocates of running the University like a business, and now to being totally non-academic conservatives who look on higher education with suspicion.  The combination of the recent trends has led to a Board of Regents devoid of people with the highest academic credentials, with serious teaching, or academic experience.  

Samuels quotes newly appointed University of Alaska Board of Regents member Seth Church, "who does not have a university degree":

“The university is a diverse place and diverse opinions and diverse educational backgrounds all can have a positive impact on the university, as long as you have people that are committed to its success,” 

It's not clear whether this statement was a response to a question about his lack of a college degree.  (Samuels hasn't responded to an email sent four days ago.) If it is, I'd point out, that Church does not add any sort of diversity that I can detect to the Board of Regents.  

"The University of Alaska Board of Regents is an 11-member board, appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Alaska Legislature. Members serve an 8-year term, with the exception of the student regent who is nominated from his/her campus and serves a 2-year term. The 8-year term begins on the first Monday in February; student regent term begins on June 1. Regents serve until their successor is appointed." (from UA)

 

The governor's website says that “As a business owner, Seth brings a perspective to the Board of Regents that will ensure the University of Alaska is effectively preparing students for productive careers.”

My sense of what the governor means by "productive careers", based on Church's background and the relentless budget cuts to education over Dunleavy's administration is people who will work in positions that serve employers in construction, oil and gas, mining, and such fields.  He's not interested in people who study liberal arts or science fields that yield experts who might challenge industry on environmental or safety or equity issues.  

Again, what perspective is does Church bring, that isn't already represented?

There are already two Board members who don't list any university degrees - Dennis L. Michel and Ralph Seekins.  (They haven't responded to emails asking if this was an oversight.)

There are already Board members who appear to represent concern for the workforce that requires technical skills but not academic degrees - Dennis L. Michel and Joey Crum.  

If it's ethnic diversity, there's no explanation of how his nomination expands that.  The only Regent whose bio reflects anything beyond white is Michel who notes that he was 'raised by an Athabascan mother."  Obviously there could be others who haven't highlighted their ethnicity in their bios.

It's not gender diversity.  The Board already has six men and four women (one of whom is the student regent, nominated by students and serving only two years.)

It's not geographic diversity.  At this point all the Board members come from places on the road system. A total of eight from Fairbanks (3), Anchorage (3), Matsu. (2), and one from Soldotna, and one from Juneau.  Church makes the fourth from Fairbanks.  

Professional background, expertise?  Five have business degrees and have been involved in large (Conoco Phillips) or small businesses. 

What's conspicuously missing?  People with academic experience.  People with PhD's.  People with teaching experience.  People with science backgrounds and research backgrounds.  

Can you imagine the Board of any organization filled with people who do not have experience and expertise in the field?  One or two members with other experience, sure, but there's no one with academic work experience (Regent Purdue has university administrative experience) on the Board as far as I can tell.    

While the media have focused (rightfully) on the large budget cuts the University has suffered (along with K-12) under Dunleavy, they haven't focused on the elimination of people who understand how universities work.  The stuffing of the Board with people from business began well before Dunleavy.  Dunleavy's contribution seems to be political hacks who are loyal to Dunleavy.  The legislature didn't approve Bethany Marcum, who was a senate aide to Dunleavy and then went to the libertarian and Koch supported Alaska Policy Forum, and was part of the Dunleavy appointed redistricting Board team that tried (unsuccessfully) to gerrymander Eagle River senate seats.  When she was not approved, he appointed another far Right member of his team, Tuckerman Babcock.  You know, the guy who helped the Governor set up a loyalty oath and fired those who wouldn't sign it.  This cost the State high level professionals in law and medicine and eventual court ordered payments. 

And now we get Seth Church (who also worked for the Alaska Policy Forum.)  Babcock and Church were appointed too late for the legislature to approve them, so they become members of the Board, at least until the legislature returns into session in January 2024 and has a chance to vote on their appointments.   

Dunleavy has now appointed nine of the eleven members of the Board of Regents (though one was originally appointed by Governor Parnell and the student Regent was nominated by her campus.  Three of those appointments appear to have no college degrees.   

Nationally, Republicans have worked hard to take over local school boards and taking over the Board of Regents fits with that strategy.  The Board of Regents is easier because the governor appoints those members.  

Below is the list of University of Alaska Board of Regents members from their website.  I've edited the bios to focus on the professional experience and educational background.  You can see all the details here.   [Click on bio and contact links below each picture to get individual board members' details.]  Church's appointment would fill the eleventh seat.  

Dale Anderson

Juneau

Regent Term 2012-2029

appointed in 2012 by Governor Parnell and re-appointed by Governor Dunleavy in 2021.

"He brings to the board extensive life experiences from both the private and public sector. He has owned and operated numerous enterprises as well as served as a member of the City and Borough of Juneau Assembly, legislative aide for the House Finance Committee in the Alaska State Legislature and as com."

Education:  BA in Business Administration from Oral Roberts University,  a certificate of judicial development in administrative law from the University of Nevada

Tuckerman Babcock

Soldotna

Regent Term 2023-2031

Appointed in May 2023 by Governor Mike Dunleavy. Regent Babcock has a B.A. in government from Wesleyan University.

Regent Babcock is retired from public service, where he most recently served as the governor’s chief of staff. His business and professional experience includes being the commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and ten years in management with the Matanuska Electric Association.

Joey Crum

Palmer

Regent Term 2023-2031

Joey Crum was appointed by Governor Dunleavy in 2023. 

As President & CEO of Northern Industrial Training in Palmer, Regent Crum has dedicated his professional life to training and promoting workplace skills. 

 Bachelor of Arts in psychology from the University of Puget Sound, a Juris Doctorate from Gonzaga University School of Law, and a Master of Science in organizational leadership from Columbia Southern University. 

Paula Harrison

Anchorage

Regent Term 2023-2031

Paula Harrison was appointed by Governor Dunleavy in 2023. She has 40 years of experience in human resources and labor relations across the public and private sectors. Regent Harrison is the past chair of the Alaska Labor Relations Board. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in political science/economics from the University of Colorado-Denver and her Master of Arts in management from Webster University.

Mary K. Hughes

Anchorage

Regent Term 2002-2025

Mary K. Hughes of Anchorage, was appointed by Governor Knowles in July 2002, re-appointed by Governor Palin in January 2009 and re-appointed to a third term by Governor Walker in 2017. She graduated from the University of Alaska with a BBA in Management in 1971 and earned her juris doctorate from Willamette University College of Law in 1974.

Scott Jepsen

Anchorage

Regent, Treasurer of the Board  2021-2031

Appointed in March 2021 by Governor Mike Dunleavy, and reappointed in February 2023 by Governor Mike Dunleavy. Regent Jepsen has a B.S. and M.S. in chemical engineering from the University of Texas at Austin.

Regent Jepsen is retired from ConocoPhillips Alaska, where he was Vice President of External Affairs and Transportation. He has nearly 41 years in the oil and gas business with 31 years in Alaska. 

Dennis L. Michel

Fairbanks

Regent Term 2023-2027

Dennis L. Michel was appointed in 2023 by Governor Dunleavy. Regent Michel is a lifelong Alaskan, born and raised in Fairbanks, and is an accomplished businessman with years of experience and knowledge in the construction industry.

His financial prowess has led to numerous successful business developments and multiple active companies that currently serve the Fairbanks community and the State of Alaska. From the influences of being raised by his Army Air Corps father and Athabascan mother, to influential figures in his life, like his Uncle Morris Thompson, and Regent Michel’s business agent experiences in the early days of the pipeline, he understands the complexities and unique opportunities of Alaska.

Regent Michel and his companies have served and given back to the youth of the community for decades through employment, sponsorships, and as a vital leader and coach for youth sports. He believes in developing leaders and the future of his community. Regent Michel embraces new opportunities and ideas with vigor, striving to always adapt and develop to changing environments.

Karen Purdue

Fairbanks

Regent Term 2017-2025

Karen Perdue

Karen Perdue, vice chair of the board, was appointed in 2017 by Governor Walker. She is a lifelong Alaskan with a background in health care, public policy and interests in the history and culture of Alaska.

Regent Perdue is a graduate of Stanford University. She is semi-retired, focusing her work on critical public health issues and serves on the board of the Fairbanks Memorial Hospital Foundation.

Ralph Seekins

Fairbanks

Regent Term 2021-2029

Ralph Seekins, chair of the board, was appointed in 2021 by Governor Dunleavy. Regent Seekins is president and owner of Seekins Ford-Lincoln in Fairbanks. In addition to being elected to the Alaska State Senate from 2003-2006, he has served on the City of Fairbanks Permanent Fund Review Board,

Albiona Selimi

Wasilla 

Student Regent Term 2023-2025

Albiona Selimi was appointed as the Student Regent in 2023 by Governor Dunleavy. Regent Selimi is from Wasilla, Alaska, and has experience representing students as she served as the Chief Activities Officer for the Union of Students at the University of Alaska, Anchorage.

 Regent Selimi is currently pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science with minors in Justice and Women's Studies.

Redistricting Board Meets Thursday, June 22, At 12:30pm To Discuss Plaintiff Legal Reimbursement

I got an email from the Alaska Redistricting Board (I subscribed to the email list long ago) announcing a zoom meeting Thursday to discuss potential settlements regarding attorney's fees and costs.  From the Board:

"Date: Thursday June 22, 2023
Time: 12:30pm
Place: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82969365602?pwd=T2ozcno4dWFFQnc3eFN0WmlDYVFSZz09

Agenda

1. Call to Order and Establish Quorum

2. Adoption of Agenda

3. Adoption of Minutes

4. Executive Session to meet with the Board’s counsel.

   Pursuant to AS 44.62.310(1) and (4), the Board will discuss legal strategy and potential settlement regarding attorney’s fees and costs.

5. Adjournment"

The draft Minutes of the last meeting are also linked.

I've emailed the following suggestions to the Board:

"A couple of suggestions, since there's no public testimony:

1.  Before going into ES, please have the Board announce which plaintiffs still have outstanding legal fee requests, which ones will be discussed, and which have already been finalized or decided by the courts.  Also clarify that there are claims for both the Superior Court and the Supreme Court.

2.  Change adjournment to Item 6 and change item 5 to:  "Return to Public Session:  Vote on any decisions regarding issues discussed in ES."  (My understanding is the Board has to do all the voting in public.) 

"An executive session is not a stand-alone, or secret meeting; it is a part of a public meeting in which the public may be temporarily excluded for certain purposes. Actions are not taken during executive sessions. A decision by a governing body, such as a city council, to conduct any step in the deliberation process outside of the public forum must weigh the public interest in the right-to-know against any potential harm that could result from open deliberation. The governing body may, at its discretion, invite others into its executive session."   https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/dcra/LocalGovernmentResourceDesk/LocalGovernmentElectedOfficials/MeetingsHeldinExecutiveSession.aspx

"Is secret ballot voting allowed under the act?

Almost always, no. In addition to requiring that deliberations of a governing body be open to the public, the act also requires that the vote shall be conducted in such a manner that the public may know the vote of each person entitled to vote, including meetings conducted by teleconference. The one exception is organizational meetings of a governing body to elect members to various offices, which are exempted from the requirement that the vote of each member be made public (AS 44.62. 310(a))."

https://dev.gov.alaska.gov/wp-content/uploads/Open-Meetings-Act.pdf

I understand they will be talking about settlements with at least Girdwood plaintiff attorneys.  That implies they will potentially be discussing a range of dollar amounts the Board is willing pay in settlements.  Revealing that range does somewhat compromise the Board attorney's ability to negotiate.  But I have three thoughts:

1. Plaintiffs who successfully argued before the Superior and Supreme Courts resulting in significant changes should be awarded attorney fees and costs because they've done a service to the Alaska.  The Alaska constitution anticipates the public has such a role to play by giving any Alaskan the right to challenge a Redistrict Board's Proclamation Plan.  
2. Based on the Board's budget as of November 2022, the Board should have enough money left over.  
3. At the very least, in public session, the Board should announce the nature of their decision (ie Should the attorney negotiate with the plaintiffs be authorized to settle within the range the Board discussed in ES?) and then vote.

It's NOT Better To Ask Forgiveness . . . Why The Assembly Shouldn't Settle With Roger Hickel

Roger Hickel's construction company filed suit against the Municipality of Anchorage.

"In its lawsuit, Hickel says it wants to be paid for the nearly $2.5 million of work it did last year, plus damages to be determined."  (From Alaska Public Media)

He claims he had a contract with the Municipality to do the work and now he's not getting paid.  

The problem is that his contract wasn't valid because it had never been approved by the Assembly.

"It started last year when the administration authorized Hickel to begin construction without Assembly authorization. That came to light last fall, and the Anchorage Assembly suspended the project." (same APM article.)

Last September, the Mayor brought a contract amendment to the Assembly.  

"On March 21, 2022, MOA Purchasing approved a Contract with RHC for Pre-

11 Construction Management (CM) services for the MOA Navigation Center as the

12 result of Request for Proposal 2022P007. Of the two proposals received,

13 reviewed, and evaluated, RHC received the highest score. The contract amount

14 was $50,000.00 and the period of performance was through December 31, 2022.

15 M&O is now requesting approval of the addition of General Contractor (GC)

16 construction services at a Not to Exceed (NTE) cost of $4,900,000.00 and a

17 contract extension through June 30, 2023. This will increase the contract amount

18 from $50,000.00 to $4,950,000.00."

But the Assembly rejected the extension of the contract:

"In a 9-3 vote, members rejected the administration’s request for $4.9 million so the city could proceed with the project. Assembly members Randy Sulte, Jamie Allard and Kevin Cross voted to approve it."

Why?  Because the Mayor had earlier secretly approved the contract without getting the Assembly's approval for the contract extension, which is required.  

"The vote came weeks after the revelation that, against city code, Bronson officials authorized millions in construction work over the summer without first getting the required Assembly approval to increase the contract with Roger Hickel Contracting by the $4.9 million. Work had begun weeks before Bronson officials in early September sent a request to the Assembly to change the contract."

“The municipality and the contractor have both been operating in good faith based on no less than three Assembly actions that appropriated to the tune of $9 million towards this project,” Municipal Manager Amy Demboski said. “It was our intent — we thought we were collaboratively working with the Assembly.” 

 About that 'good faith.'  Amy Demboski is the City Manager who a short time later, after she was fired by the Mayor, published a 'scathing letter' with a long list of things the Mayor had done very much in bad faith.

"It's better to ask forgiveness than permission" is a phrase often uttered in large bureaucracies when someone is proposing to skip over the rules.  The most positive spin would be that the complication of such organizations often frustrates folks to the point that they think it's easier to just plow ahead, without jumping through all the hoops to get permission.  But on the negative side, it's interpreted to mean 'since we aren't likely to get permission, let's just do it and it will be too late for them to do anything about it.'

The latter would seem to be what happened here.  There weren't that many hoops at the Municipality.  They just had to get the Assembly's approval.  But the Assembly had serious misgivings about the Mayor's project and there was a good chance they wouldn't approve it.  

We know the Mayor's office had to know they needed the Assembly's approval.  Contract approval is a very important and frequent part of running the Municipality.  The requirements for contract approval are one of the first things a Mayor needs to know.   There were still some pre-Bronson era employees who knew the rules and would have mentioned this.  At the very least, the Municipal Manager, Amy Demboski, a former Assembly member, knew well that the Assembly's approval was required.   

And Hickel?

Roger Hickel's LinkedIn Page says he's been doing construction in Anchorage for 28 years.

His construction company's website identifies over a dozen civil projects done for the MOA and the State of Alaska.  (I couldn't fit them all in one screen shot) And over 28 years he's done many, many such projects.

He also has the MOA and State of Alaska on his list of repeat customers among other government entities like the School District and the University of Alaska Anchorage. 

A FEW OF OUR REPEAT CLIENTS

Walmart

Nordstrom

Home Depot

Lowe’s

United Parcel Service

Federal Express

Army and Air Force Exchange Services

Food Services of America, NC Machinery

Providence Alaska Medical Center

Anchorage School District

Alaska Pacific University

University of Alaska

State of Alaska

the Municipality of Anchorage

Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium

Alaska Regional Hospital

As an Anchorage contractor for over 28 years with numerous contracts with the MOA of various sized projects, there is no way that Hickel didn't know that the contract extensions over a certain amount required the Assembly's approval.  You don't do this many government construction projects without knowing the rules of the Muni and the State, without knowing the cost limits that require additional approval, without experts in your office who do this routinely.  

And he knew the project was controversial.  That it might not get the approval.  He and the mayor may have convinced themselves the project was critical to solve the Anchorage homelessness situation, but they still knew it required the Assembly's permission.  

The Assembly should call their bluff.  Let them go to court.  Let them explain why they went ahead without the Assembly's approval before a judge and a jury.  My guess is that the judge and jury will understand they were taking a calculated risk.  That the project was controversial and not likely to get the Assembly's approval.  That they were betting that moving the project ahead would force the Assembly to approve a project that they had serious questions about.  

I'm not a betting man, but I take the rule of law seriously.  I urge the Assembly to be firm.  To hold the Mayor and the contractor accountable for breaking the Municipal ordinance.  To let a jury decide.  I'm fairly confident that going to court will cause Hickel to settle for a much lower sum from the Muni.  And that a jury would side with the Assembly.  

My Indonesian Yacht Cruise Was A Raft Trip On The Yentna With Ted Turner

[For those who are used to Twitter and need the this to read this in 20 seconds, skip down to the bolded question, What does this have to do with yachts cruising Indonesian islands? For those that want some context (and a little history on how the Anchorage Assembly first got onto cable, start at the beginning.]

 

Michael Shamberg's Guerilla Television had put video literacy into my life goals.  It pointed out that we are taught to read and write at school and given some skills in recognizing when written language is being used to manipulate us. (This was the 70s when schools still did that.  I think many still do, but I'm guessing a lot don't.)  

Shamberg's premise was that we were getting so much news via television that we needed that same sort of training in videography.  The book was a treatise on what was wrong with how news was created and a citizens handbook for how to make people's videos and how citizen created videos would change the world.  This was at a time when video cameras were pretty bulky and pricey, and there weren't any outlets for citizens to show their videos. There weren't even any Blockbusters yet.

I'd say Shamberg was pretty visionary. Eventually cameras on phones gave everyone a pocket video recorder and YouTube offered everyone a people's theater where anyone could show their videos and anyone could watch them.  Social media have extended the audience even further.  

And so when cable television was beginning to show up I was paying attention.  I was reading cable industry journals and even went to a few conferences on cable public access.  I was especially excited about the contracts around the country that required the cable companies to set up public access video studios with cameras and editing equipment so people could make their own videos. They also required public access channels to play those citizen made videos on. Sure, the audience was limited to cable viewers, but it was a step in the right direction. 

Multivision had bid for the contract in Anchorage.  This was 1982 or 83.  I was working on loan from the University to the Municipality of Anchorage for a couple of years.  I read the Multivision proposal and was dismayed that there was no provision for a public access video studio or a channel for people's video.  I kept telling Cathy Allen, Mayor Knowles' chief of staff (I think that was her title) that the Municipality should be demanding that such provisions - modeled from Outside cable agreements - be included in Multivisions' contract.  She kept treating me like I was crazy.  I kept sending her memos (yeah, email was not available yet)  about the Alaska Public Utility  Commission's meetings on cable.  One was coming up soon where there would be public testimony. On the day of the meeting I got a call to come up to Allen's office right away.  She'd just come back from a national conference and a city manager from a big city had sat her down and told her how important it was to have public access in cable contracts. Nothing I hadn't been telling her, but he was more credible to her than I had been.  So yes, I could go to the meeting and represent the Muni that afternoon.  

Fortunately, I'd been reading the proposal and comparing the prices they were proposing for monthly subscriptions and had lots of information about public access in other cities.  

So there I was, at the last minute, running down the street to the meeting.  There weren't a lot of people there and they all seemed to be Multivisions boosters.  Then my turn to talk came.  I nervously compared Multivisions prices to Outside prices and said something like, "I understand it is more expensive to operate in Alaska than it is Outside, but it's NOT three times as expensive!"  I also talked about how most cities were requiring cable companies to have public access studies and a public access channel.  And I sat down.

At the next break, I was mobbed by six or seven people asking me, essentially, "who the hell are you?" did  I really represented the Muni.  

As time went by I was back arguing that Multivisions should be televising the Assembly meetings live.  Not possible they said.  At that time they were meeting in the Muni's Tudor Road buildings and they said it wasn't wired for cable.  It would have to wait until the new Loussac Library opened.  

But for some reason the Assembly  had to move out of the Tudor building and temporarily went to the new Convention Center on 5th Avenue.  And I knew that building was wired.  By that time I'd gotten some others to join me and we had set up a non-profit for this project - something like Anchorage Media Access Group.  I lobbied the Assembly members and they agreed to a six month trial and allotted a paltry sum - maybe $3000 for that.  Our non-profit sent out an RFP to every third video business in the Anchorage media resources book.  We got two bids.  One was way beyond the money the Assembly offered.  The other was a budding videographer who agreed to do it at a ridiculously low price with the help of volunteers (ourselves and a few others) who would staff the cameras for him.  

At first, he balked. He couldn't trust his expensive cameras to volunteers.   But he relented when we pointed out that he couldn't afford to do it any other way.  And so the Assembly began its six months experiment being broadcast live on Anchorage cable.  

While Assembly members had had a number of doubts - it would lead to grandstanding, those without cable wouldn't have access, etc. - after several weeks they were all won over.  They had so many people say they saw them on cable and they had people showing up saying they were watching at home and had to come down to testify.  At the end of the six months they approved a much larger budget and our videographer got the contract and we stopped having to supply volunteers.  We disbanded our non-profit and gave the Assembly back the $500 we still had left and asked them to use it to support televising the Assembly. 

 

What does this have to do with yachts cruising Indonesian islands? 

Somewhere along this cable path, I got an invitation from Multivision to go on a float trip on the Yentna River with Ted Turner whom they were bringing up to Alaska.  That sounded very cool, but unlike a certain US Supreme Court justice, I didn't consider accepting for a second.  

I understood that I hadn't been randomly selected for this honor, but that it had to do with my advocacy for a better deal for Anchorage citizens and my advocacy for getting the Anchorage Assembly live on cable. And that this might be their way to get me to tone it down or who knows?.  I thanked them and said I couldn't accept their offer. 

Clarence Thomas, on the other hand, seems to have had no qualms about accepting annual half-a-million dollar vacations and didn't see it necessary to report these on his annual financial disclosure forms.  

The wealthy Republicans have been smart and have taken a long range planning approach to maintain power. When Bork got turned down for the Court, they apparently realized democracy was no longer enough.  

Lobbying has been a traditional way to get legislators to vote against the interests of their constituents.  This relationship is strengthened by campaign contributions. And secrecy. But even better would be owning a Supreme Court that decided their way if the legislature wouldn't.  

The Democrats have not been as Machiavellian and were not very good as spotting the stealth takeover  of the Supreme Court the Republicans, through the Federalist Society, had worked on for so many years.  

And with Trump as president, they succeeded in taking over the Court.  Justice Kennedy abruptly resigned to make room for Kavanaugh.  I'm still certain there's a cloak and dagger story about how Kennedy was convinced to step down, that would include his son's work for Deutsche Bank, the last major bank still willing to lend money to Trump for his projects. And Justin Kennedy was the man who made those loans happen. 

But since Trump essentially turned the job of picking his court nominees over to the Federalist Society, it's pretty clear that they had something to do with Kennedy's resignation as well.  The first link is to a speech by Sen. Whitehouse - the Senate's most active and vocal observer of how the Federalist Society has managed the sharp lurch to the right of the Supreme Court.  But for those of you who need a different source, here's a report from The Hill.  Speculation?  Sure.  But a lot of clues point in the right direction. And like Thomas' vacations with the Crows, I'm pretty certain there's lots we don't yet know.  At least there are facts and motives pointing in this direction, which is way more than the Republicans have for every major scandal they scream about daily.  

Breakdown of Norms

From Oxford Bibliographies:

"[Norms] are most commonly defined as rules or expectations that are socially enforced. Norms may be prescriptive (encouraging positive behavior; for example, “be honest”) or proscriptive (discouraging negative behavior; for example, “do not cheat”)."

Basically, norms are the rules that are socially, rather than legally, enforced.  When people break the norms, public opinion is the force that 'rules' the consequences.  Politicians lose elections, officials resign their posts.  

But we're in a period where Republicans, particularly, are no longer constrained by norms.  They're no longer constrained by laws. (Sure, politicians on both sides have fudged the law forever, but they did it clandestinely, not flagrantly out in the open.)  While Trump is by far the most egregious example, his Republican colleagues in the House and Senate have gone along.  The Senate had the power to remove him from office after the House voted for impeachment.  Twice.  

They didn't.  Instead, they rammed through the nominations of Kavanaugh and Barrett.  

Not all the Republicans are completely craven, but they are all much more interested in their reelections than they are in maintaining traditional norms of appearing to support the public interest, 

And Fox News, particularly, has worked closely with Trump to make sure their viewers are fed the stories they (the viewers) want to hear, no matter how much they deviate from truth.  Those Republicans who stood up to Trump, even slightly, have either retired (rather than face Trump's cult in the primaries) or they were defeated in the primaries.  Alaska's Senator Murkowski is the only exception I know of.  She used a write-in campaign to overcome a primary defeat in 2012.  In 2022, Alaska's new Ranked ChoiceVoting went into effect, which eliminated closed party primaries and put all candidates for each office into one primary. 

The wealthy Right Wingers know that their ideas are not popular with the voters.  Ending abortion, no restrictions on guns, racial discrimination, election manipulation are all opposed by healthy majorities of the general population. 

To win, Republicans have to rig the game.  Pack the Supreme Court with judges who rule in favor of business most of the time.  Gerrymander state voting districts to get far more Republicans elected even when the actual numbers of both parties are much more even.  Suppress the votes of minorities and the young in as many ways as they can think of.  Oppose all bills to help overcome the disparities in wealth, access to food, housing, education, and health care. In fact oppose all legislation that might be good for the country that Biden could take credit for.  And now we're seeing the truly power obsessed trying to control women's rights to decide their own health care, even banning out of state travel for those seeking abortions.  

With a strong Supreme Court majority, Republican governors are writing laws so far out of the bounds of US social norms and violate decades old Supreme Court precedents.  They are doing this in anticipation of the new Federalist Society judges overturning all those precedents as just as they overturned Roe v. Wade.  Voting rights?  We're back to a post Civil War Supreme Court that used States' Rights to allow disenfranchisement of blacks and lynchings among other terrible practices.  

And when Clarence Thomas says in his brief official statement that he read the rules and consulted with others and they said he didn't have to report transportation, he's telling me that he has NO business being a US Supreme Court Justice.  

• First, this is so extreme an example - half a million dollar vacations for 20 years!  Any reasonable person knows this sort of 'gift' needs to be reported  (I didn't have to go to law school to know accepting a pricey trip with a celebrity was the wrong thing to do.)
• Second, if Thomas has trouble interpreting such obvious and simple disclosure rules for judicial gifts, then he is hardly qualified to interpret the US Constitution. 
• Third, if he is capable of such interpretation, then he's intentionally flouting the rules and the norms for his own advantage.  In this case his perceived best interest was non-disclosure. One would assume that is also how he often interprets the law and the Constitution in his Supreme Court decisions.  
• Fourth, hanging out with the Crows and their yachting friends helps to shape his ideas of his own best interests and appropriate interpretations of the Constitution.

CONCLUSIONS

Like most such issues, this one is entangled in many overlapping contexts of law, of history, of politics, of economics, of ethics, that it is difficult to discuss it without either leaving important points out or without getting so long and complicated people won't finish.  

A key issue I'm leaving out is accountability of career and elected public officials.  Of course Trump and Fox have so violated societal norms of behavior and of truth telling that we seem to be in a completely different place than we were five or six years ago.  Though another part of me believes that the craziness we hear these days has always existed.  But today's technology enables much more of it to be seen and heard by the public.  

If that's true, the good news is that all this ugliness is being exposed - from police brutality to overt racism (OK, those two are probably intertwined), to sexual abuse, etc.  The bad news is those with norm-violating behavior and thoughts have found support for their anti-democracy desires.  

Before the Republicans get ultimate control of the courts and can manipulate all elections, we need to get all the folks who are still within traditional norms, but have given up on voting, to go vote.  There are still tens of millions of people who have come up with excuses not to vote.  (And this is also in part due to the Right's propaganda about how terrible government is, Democrats are, and how corrupt elections are.)  

Those who want Democracy to carry on have an obligation to get everyone who doesn't normally vote, to vote in the next few elections.  And the Republicans' extreme power grabbing - abortions bans, LGBTQ+ baiting, anti-Semitism, book banning, expulsion of duly elected legislators are all helping to get those voters to the polls in the next elections.   

We need enough Democrats in state legislatures and in Congress to overcome Republican attempts to turn the US into an authoritarian regime favoring wealthy white males who distort the Bible to further their interests.  

Governor, Commissioners And Legislative/Administration Pay Raise Process Badly Flawed

Are the Alaska State Officers Compensation Commission pay raise recommendations for the governor, his commissioners, and the legislature reasonable?  My basic response is "No."  First round, the Commission only recommended raises for the administrative branch (governor and department commissioners), but not legislative branch.  The legislature rejected it.  All the members of the Commission then were either removed or resigned and governor appointed a whole new board which came up with new recommendations in a matter of days including a 67% increase for legislators.  

I'm going to take a look at this from human resources perspective.  While this isn't something I've spent my life on, I did teach human resources at the graduate level including compensation and I was involved in a major classification study at the Municipality of Anchorage - from helping write the RFP to working with the consultants - so I know a little more than the average person about how this should work.

Here are the basic issues for me: 

1. Compensation changes in large organizations are usually preceded by a study that gathers relevant data which becomes the basis and justification for the changes.  The final report also would discuss the fiscal implications of increases in compensation.  The report the Commission posted on its website in January is NOT a serious compensation study.
2. Traditionally, commissioners of state departments, like US cabinet officers, serve for a relatively brief time.  It's been considered an honor to serve one's state or country and good commissioners are respected for taking a break in the careers to serve the public.  Those coming from the private sector often take a cut in pay to serve.  Such servicet also makes someone more desirable for jobs after their service because they better understand how government works and they have personal connections that can be helpful.  So prestige and public service, but not a high salary, have been the traditional remuneration for these kinds of jobs.  No one seems to have discussed this. 
3. The Commission did not follow the steps listed in the statutes that establishes the Commission.
4. Given that the first Commission recommendation was no raise for the legislature, and the second Commission's recommendation was a huge raise, there's the appearance that the governor was really offering the legislature a bribe so that he could get his own salary and those of his commissioners raised.  This is obviously speculation.  But it's consistent with the governor's reelection campaign where he basically offered voters a higher Permanent Fund check if they reelected him.

That's the gist of this post.  If you want more details see below.  

[I'm trying to give you some headlines to act as guideposts, but separating out the issues so neatly also hides the interconnectivity of the issues.  I'm doing my best but also mindful if I wait to make this perfect, the issue will no longer be current.]

How to determine fair pay

There is no foolproof way to do this, but human resources experts have come up  two standard, general approaches to calculating salary:

• What is a job worth?  Classification and Pay studies try, in the simplest terms, to examine the duties of each job , the qualifications required  for each job, and the value that work contributes to the organization. You can see more details here.  It's an imperfect system at best as it tries to pin down and quantify many qualities that can't be quantified in a system that is constantly changing.  
• Market analysis looks at what specific jobs get paid in other organizations in order to determine what pay must be given to compete for workers.  This works best for common job types, but less so for more specialized positions.  This system tends to keep high wage jobs high and low wage jobs low.   You can learn more about this process here.

Large organizations often do a combination, trying balance both those strategies.  

Commission Doesn't Seem To Have Done That

The Alaska Compensation Commission proposed significant raises.  There is no evidence they did any serious data gathering or analysis to arrive at their recommendations.  The Compensation Report at the Commission's website basically says it was decided to increase legislative salaries by 2% a year to match inflation, but that hasn't been done.  So let's add up all those years and bingo, here's the number.  (OK, I'm being slightly facetious here.  You can see the study here.  Don't worry.  It's short. Two and a quarter pages, and that includes the cover page.)

This is NOT the serious report one would expect.  The posted one was dated January 24, 2023.  That's the one that didn't recommend any increases for legislators and was quickly voted down by those legislators.  

The new Commission, quickly created after the legislature turned down the original Commission's recommendations, doesn't have a study up on the website, presumably because there was no time to actually do one between their appointment and their recommendation a couple of days later.  

Basically, the January report  reads more like something written by a bunch a guys meeting to play poker one night, but they have to get this recommendation out before they play cards.  

"What do you think guys?  

"Is this fair?" 

"Yeah sure, that sounds good." 

"We're done.  Start dealing."

That is NOT how you run an efficient and effective organization.  This is a good old boys style of operating.   

Do we know what the cumulative costs of 60 legislators (40 house members and 20 Senators) would be?  No. 

What about the impact on the state employees' health system and retirement system?  

What do we compare ourselves to?

Was there any consideration of how much Alaskans get paid compared to other state legislators?  There is in a comment or two that observers made after the proposal went public, but was that part of their discussion?  The Juneau Empire writes very briefly about that:

"Alaska ranked 12th in legislative salaries in 2022, although it also is among 10 states that are classified as full-time legislatures whose members receive an average salary of $82,258, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. The raises would rank Alaska fourth among all states in 2022 (although other states’ salaries may have also changed since then), with California topping the list at $119,702 (plus roughly $210 in per diem)." (emphasis added)

Full time legislatures? 

Is that from discussion among Commission members or research the Juneau Empire did?  But even so, while the Alaska Legislature has exceeded its 90 day limit regularly in the last few years, calling it a full time legislature is something of stretch.  Certainly it's not a full time permanent legislature.  It meets for four or five months full time, then lots of members go back to their regular jobs.  Do we want to continue with part time, amateur legislators?  Do we want professional legislators?  More on this below.

Size of population, land mass?

And how do we compare based on populations of the states?  Alaska is the third smallest state (after Vermont and Wyoming)  How difficult is being an Alaskan legislature compared to legislatures of other states?  Ours is  the smallest legislature in the country. By a lot, compared to most states, though a few - Delaware, Nevada - are close to our size. One could argue that means more work per legislator, or one could argue it means far fewer people to deal with and negotiate with which should make it easier.

Alaskan is also the largest state geographically, with at least one house district larger than many states, yet with few roads.  On the other hand,  manyAnchorage legislators could walk across their districts in an afternoon.  It does seem reasonable evaluate pay of Alaska legislators based on how much it costs 

• to get to and from Juneau
• to meet with their constituents (though electronic meetings are much more common these days, the reliability of internet can be terrible in many remote villages)

Other considerations that were raised in media coverage

Alaska Public Media reports that Senate President Gary Stevens said,

“I think the younger folks that are entering the Legislature, they deserve to have a livable wage,”

Compensation Commission Member Larry LeDoux is  quoted in the Juneau Empire:

“I think if we’re really going to have a citizen legislature we need to have a salary that will allow citizens to maintain their households while they serve in the Legislature.”

  One could argue that a citizen legislature is a more amateur legislature and shouldn't get paid professional salaries.  

Professional or Amateur ("Citizen Legislator")

Do we have a citizen legislature or a professional legislature?  What does 'professional' legislator even mean?  One with many years of experience in the legislature?  Or one with educational training and work experience in a field relevant to understanding the issues facing the state?  

Surely we have a number of legislators who would qualify as 'professional' by those definitions.  But we also have people whose basic qualification is that they are residents of Alaska with a party brand that is in the majority of their districts.  And some sort of name recognition in that district helps.

Amateur suggests this is public service more than a career.  That they just need enough to get by for a term or two.  But people get addicted to the Juneau summer camp atmosphere and to the prestige that comes with being called Representative or Senator.  And after two terms as a Representative or just one term as a Senator - the next term vests them in the State retirement system.   But I appreciate the argument.  I'd note that I did spend a session in Juneau blogging the legislature on my own dime.  It's doable, but my kids were on their own by then.   

Former legislator Adam Wool from Fairbanks wrote in a March 29, 2023  letter to the editor in response    (sorry there's a pay wall) :

"But I feel compelled to counter the narrative I’ve been hearing lately that the current pay is not sufficient to entice legislators with young families to come to Juneau. As a legislator who had a young family, I find this untrue.

The salary of $50,000 per year, although not great is what a beginning teacher makes, and although it isn’t high, it isn’t low for a job that is only full-time for four months per year. The job also includes full medical benefits and a pension plan, another draw for a young family.

The tax-free per diem of $300 per day while in Juneau is much more than adequate. Many of us paid around $1,500 per month in rent; some even had roommates, which made it lower. A few rented bigger houses, some owned condos and one even lived on a boat he owned. Between restaurants, cooking at home, eating in the legislative lounge and the various dinners and receptions we attended, food totaled around another $1,500 per month. Altogether, that leaves about $6,000 per month of untaxed income to send home, making the salary closer to $80,000 per year."

Nat Herz, a reporter who covers the legislature, thinks they should get the salary raise, but cut out the per diem.  That's not an unreasonable suggestion - though it has tax consequences for the legislators.  

These are the kind of things a good compensation study would have looked at in detail instead of making broad generalization about pay and then suggesting a huge increase without any back-up data.

We also heard from the governor and a legislator that the State department commissioners' salaries were too low in an Anchorage Daily News article about the first recommendations that were voted down by the legislature:

"[Senator] Stevens said Dunleavy has told him that he has struggled to hire commissioners on their current $125,000-per-year salaries. Eagle River Rep. Dan Saddler, who worked at Division of Natural Resources between stints serving in the Legislature, said $125,000 may sound like a lot of money, but that it can be an impediment to hiring highly skilled administrators.

“There are more opportunities in the private sector for people with those administrative talents,” he said."

 

In it for the money or to do public service? 

 This, again, gets back to the issue of whether being a commissioner is a regular job that people apply for because of the pay, or a way for a seasoned professional to spend a few years taking a cut in pay to do public service.  

A Brookings Institute study in 2002 which looked at Federal appointee salaries (not just cabinet secretaries) did not put much emphasis on the public service motive, but did say this:

"People who accept top federal appointments derive non-monetary benefits from their service, of course, and these benefits help to explain why government service continues to attract outstanding candidates. Many public-spirited Americans are eager to serve in influential or high-profile positions, even if the financial rewards are far below those obtainable in a private-sector job. Experience in a senior government job allows workers to acquire skills, knowledge, and reputation that may have considerable value outside the government. Few appointees say they are forced to accept a big cut in earnings when they leave federal office. More than one-third of the appointees who served between 1984 and 1999 say they modestly or significantly increased their earning power as a result of holding a senior administration job (Light and Thomas, 2000, p. 35)." (emphasis added)

The Center for Presidential Transition, answering the question "I Was Offered a Political Appointment—How Much Will I Be Paid?" in 2020, writes: 

 "The government does not pay senior officials the kind of money typically found in the private sector. In the government, you may run a multi-billion-dollar program with thousands of employees and make less (sometimes much less) than $200,000 per year. You should also not be surprised if you receive a political appointment and have subordinates who make more than you. Career employee pay is much more controlled by statute and regulations, and is not connected to the pay of political appointees."(emphasis added)

So what's a reasonable pay level for Alaska state commissioners? Chron  lists the salaries of the top appointees in the US federal government:

"Level I Officials [highest Federal level]

Twenty-one federal officials have Level I jobs and earn $210,700 annually, as of 2018. These positions include all cabinet secretaries, such as secretary of state, secretary of defense and secretary of education, as well as the U.S. attorney general, U.S. trade representative, the director of the Office of Management of Budget, the commission of Social Security for the Social Security Administration, the director of the National Drug Control Policy in the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the chairman of the Federal Reserve and the director of national intelligence."

I doubt that any Alaska commissioners have more responsibility than the top people in the US President's staff.  So this is easily a ceiling figure, though one could also argue being a Commissioner in Alaska doesn't carry the prestige of being a Cabinet member in Washington DC.

The Commission's Process Doesn't Follow Statutes

The Alaska Statutes clearly spell out some procedures the Compensation Board is supposed to follow:

(c) The commission shall meet at the call of the chair. Notice of a meeting shall be mailed to each member at least 20 days before the date scheduled for the meeting.

(d) The commission shall meet to discuss its findings and recommendations at least twice before submitting its final report to the presiding officers of each house of the legislature and the governor.

They did not give 20 days notice.  They came up with their recommendations in about two days after being appointed.  

They do not seem to have met twice.  And if their "final report" is just the salary recommendations with no data to support those recommendations, they truly have no defensible basis for their recommendations.  

There is no evidence they met twice.  

What can the Legislature do now? 

I'm not 100% sure.  I can't find the statute that says what the legislature can do with the Commission's recommendation.  I'm not sure one exists.  

I did call Rep. Andy Josephson because he's a lawyer and until the last Redistricting Board changed the boundaries of his district, he has been my representative.  I asked how much leeway the legislature has to change the Commission's recommendation.  He thought they could vote for part but not all, but they couldn't change it.  He said there was a statute, but couldn't immediately find it.  He also said that since the legislature writes the statute, they could also change it.  But, I responded, that defeats the idea of having an independent commission, rather than the legislators themselves, setting the legislative compensation.  He agreed.  

Rep. Josephson also reinforced the idea that this was a pre-arranged deal.  That the Commission was set up to make this proposal.  And since the Governor appoints the members, I understood that this came from the Governor's office.  

Should the legislature approve the recommendations, could a member of the public sue because the Commission didn't follow its procedures?  Anyone can sue, but I'm not sure how the courts would respond.  

Last observation about the work the Commission should have done

Over the last few days, spending maybe 3-5 total hours on this, I'm offering you a lot more information about how to think about appropriate salaries than the State's Compensation Commission offered in their January report.  The second Commission hasn't even posted their report, and given they came up with salary recommendations in about two days, I'm guessing they have no report.  Though, what I've written is hardly a comprehensive salary survey and analysis that would normally be the basis of a professional report, it's way beyond how the Commission considered its recommendations.  

Conclusion

The jobs of governor, state department heads, and legislators are fairly specialized and unique.  Unlike organizations with hundreds of types of jobs, there are only a few types of jobs here and not that many comparables - the 50 states and the federal government.  This sort of study is probably much easier and could be done in less time than such a study for Conoco-Phillips or the Municipality of Anchorage.  It's not that hard, but the Commission didn't even make a symbolic effort to outline the issue and justify their recommendations.

The salary commissioners have let Alaska down. Their work is unprofessional and highly unworthy of the people of Alaska. They didn't even follow the statutory process.   Our legislators need a fair compensation package, not a wholesale giveaway to get them to approve salary increases for the governor and his cabinet officials.  

The legislature should reject these recommendations and ask the governor to commission a serious compensation study.  Or the legislature could commission its own study.  From what I can tell, they don't have the power (and shouldn't) to set their own salaries. Such a study would give them a basis for voting yes or no on the recommendations and/or could form a basis for the Compensation Commission to make new recommendations.  

That's how things should go, from a legal and rational perspective.  But this has become a very political (not partisan that I can tell) decision.