Redistricting Board Meeting May 26, 2021 - Board Picks VRA Consultant, But All Discussion Of Candidates Was In Executive Session

It was clear from the agenda that most of the meeting would be in Executive Session  to interview candidates for Voting Rights Act consultant.  They carefully explained the legal bases for going into Executive Session.  They estimated they would take 45 minutes per interview which would have been 135 minutes.  The phone was muted for just about two hours.  

They also announced beforehand that after the contract with the VRA consultant was signed, they would let us know who the three applicants were and give their proposals to anyone who requests them.  

My understanding of Executive Session in Alaska is that their discussion about who they were going to choose should have been in public.  But I"m sure they would argue they couldn't have had that discussion without revealing confidential information.  They did vote in public, but it was clear that all the discussion was held in Executive Session.  They'd already agreed before they came out of Executive Session.  

Here are my rough notes of the meeting:

2:35 - Meeting connected but LIO connection can't hear them.  So just hear the LIO person asking if they can hear her.  

2:42pm - starting to hear things - discussing training for computer redistricting program.

2:43pm - opening meeting.  Apologizing for technical problem delay

Establish quorum - taking roll - all there

John:  would like one change, item 5.  Haven't read minutes from past meetings and I'd like to hold off til next meeting so I can read them all carefully.  Modify to eliminate item 5.  

Budd:  Not really amending. Have another suggestion for form - add footer to each page that says ARB p1/x.  That would make it much easier to find a certain page.  

John:  Don't need to make it a motion.  They've got the message and all concur.  Discussion on motion to amend the agenda?  Hearing none, lets move to adopt amended agenda.  Adopted.

First Item:  Public Testimony - anyone want to testify.  One member- Sen Giessel:  Thanks Mr. Chairman.  Good afternoon.  Calling on behalf of myself.  Thank the board about hiring a Voting Rights consultant.  Worried about Census Bureau manipulating the data.  People knowledgable about the state and you should see the distortions.  Thank you.  

John:  

???:  Quick comment:  Thank Sen Giessel.  Concerned that Alaska Native/Aemerican issues with census.  

Giessel:  Glad to hear you're engaged.  Concern that data will be unfairly distorted.  

2:50pm Sound went dead.  

2:54pm  back on - Peter three responses that seem substantially qualified. We will keep the documents confidential until after someone is chosen.  That is to protect the competitive information from the other respondents.  Also to protect confidential information.  So for those reasons go into executive session, to interview voting rights consultants.  Again explaining details of legal reasons for going into ES

???:  Got text message that audio dropped.

Peter:  We paused for that and got it corrected.  Nothing was missed. 

2:50pm John:  Going into ES.  We set aside 45 minutes for each interview.  There are three.  It may not take that long.  Then we'll come out and discuss and possibly take action then.  

So back by 5:15pm maybe earlier.  

First respondent 

4:53 - out of ES

Discussion:  

Rasie hand or go right to motion regarding VRA itself.

Bethany:  I move the Board move into contract with selected responded and set up contract. 

Melanie: 2nd

John:  Discussion?  No discussion?  Adopted.  

Staff and myself will negotiate the contract and get back to public.

Last item on agenda.  If not motion to adjourn?

Melanie:  So moved

John:  Seconded by Budd.  No objection.  Adjourned.  

Redistricting Board Meets Tomorrow (Wednesday) May 26 at 2:30 Mostly Executive Session

 Call-in numbers:  Anchorage 563-9085, Juneau 586-9085, Other 844-586-9085 to listen and/or give testimony.

Here's the agenda for the meeting.  Most of it is minor procedural stuff.  

They will 

1.  Take public testimony

2.  Approve minutes for all the previous meetings - since they only recently hired a transcriptionist who had go through all the old minutes and tapes and do them in the format they approved recently.  All the old minutes up for approval are available here (along with the other documents for the meeting including the RFI that applicants are responding to.)

3.  Interview respondents to the Request For Information (RFI) for a Voting Rights Act consultant.  

4.  They may vote to select a consultant after the Executive Session.  

This is less important than ten years ago, before the Supreme Court struck down the requirement for 16 states (including Alaska) to get pre-clearance of their maps from the Department of Justice before they could adopt their maps.  The current bills - in the Senate the For the People Act, also known as H.R. 1 (Redistricting is covered in Section II) and in the House the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act - may change the rules again, but it's unclear if either will pass and if one does, in time to affect current redistricting.  The Senate bill has an outline which makes it easier to find sections.  But terms to search in both are 'redistricting' and 'preclearance.'

The Voting Rights consultant interviews will be done in executive session. The Board hasn't announced how many applicants there are or who they are.  

Date: Time: Place:

May 26, 2021 2:30 pm

T eleconference:

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

1. Call to Order

2. Establish a Quorum

3. Adoption of Agenda

Agenda

4. PublicTestimony (dial in to one of the phone numbers above and indicate to the operator that you wish to testify)

5. Adoption of Minutes from past meetings

6. Executive Session for the purposes of interviewing Voting Rights Act Consultant RFI Respondents

7. Board Discussion on selection of Voting Rights Act Consultant. Possible action.

8. Adjournment

Alaska Redistricting Board - The Five Board Members [Updated]

The five Alaska Redistricting Board members are chosen by the Governor (2),  Senate President (1), House Chair (1), and the Chief Justice of the Alaska Supreme Court (1).

Since the meetings have been available by audio only so far, I haven't had a chance to see or talk to individual Board members.  So I'm giving you some brief overviews of the Board members based on information  available online.  

[UPDATED July 24, 2021:  The Board has put up their own bios on the Redistricting website this week. Also, the pictures here are ones I found online.  My post on the board training on mapping software has my photos of board members, attorneys, and some staff members.  ]

From KTOO:

"Gov. Mike Dunleavy appointed two members of the powerful board that will draw new boundaries for legislative districts.

"Bethany Marcum of Anchorage and E. Budd Simpson of Juneau are the first of five new members to be named to the board. Marcum was an aide to Dunleavy when he was a state senator. She is the executive director of the Alaska Policy Forum, a conservative think tank. Simpson is a lawyer who has served as outside counsel to the Sealaska Corporation."

From APF website

Bethany Marcum, Anchorage

From the Alaska Policy Forum:

Bethany Marcum is the Chief Executive Officer at Alaska Policy Forum. In this role, she directs the policy priorities and strategic initiatives of the organization. By educating the public and elected officials on Alaskan issues, Bethany works to maximize individual opportunities and freedom for all Alaskans. When she's not at work, Bethany spends her time going on hunting trips all over the country and around the world."

From a State Policy Network interview with Bethany Marcum. 

"In this interview, we chat with Alaska Policy Forum‘s executive director, Bethany Marcum. Prior to joining the Forum, Bethany worked for the Alaska state legislature. Her involvement with the Forum started as a donor and occasional volunteer, then as a part-time writer, and eventually she joined the organization as a full-time team member.

Here are her insights on advancing freedom in America’s “last frontier”:

SPN: How did you first get involved in the freedom movement?

Bethany: I was about as non-political and non-informed as a person can be for most of my life. Exasperation about the 2008 bailouts brought me into the Tea Party movement and from there I gradually found my way to the policy world after seeing that rallies could not accomplish the change I wished to see.

SPN: Was there a moment or a role model that inspired you to choose work that’s dedicated to the cause of freedom and human flourishing?

Bethany: While there was a long delay before I took action, I can remember a moment around 1986. I was a small-town Midwest country girl who was in “the big city” of Boston for a few months, and I found a copy of Reason magazine on the subway.  As I thumbed through it, I thought, “Wow, there are actually people out there who think like I do. Sure didn’t know that!” And that was the end of that for over 20 years. Flash forward to my wake-up in the Tea Party movement in 2009 when I saw a copy of Reason magazine at an event. My first thought: “Holy moly, those people are still at it. And now I’m one of them!”

As a way to get a sense of her values, here the mission and principles of APF,  the organization she heads:

"MISSION

Our mission is to empower and educate Alaskans and policymakers by promoting policies that grow freedom for all.

SEVEN PRINCIPLES OF SOUND PUBLIC POLICY

• Free people are not equal, and equal people are not free.
• What belongs to you, you tend to take care of; what belongs to no one or everyone tends to fall into disrepair.
• Sound policy requires that we consider long-run effects and all people, not simply short-run effects and a few people.
• If you encourage something, you will get more of it; if you discourage something, you will get less of it.
• Nobody spends someone else’s money as carefully as he spends his own.
• Government has nothing to give anybody except what it first takes from somebody, and a government that’s big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.
• Liberty makes all the difference in the world.

Budd Simpson, Juneau

From the Simpson, Tillinghast, Sheehan & Araujo, P.C Law Firm website:

E. Budd Simpson devotes a large portion of his practice to serving as the principal outside legal counsel to Sealaska Corporation (one of the twelve Alaska Native regional corporations formed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act), which has been a client of his since 1978. Mr. Simpson's practice includes the timber, banking, resource development, real estate, subsurface, risk management, personnel, state securities regulations, and litigation activities of the corporation.

He is also General Counsel for The Juneau Empire, the region's largest daily newspaper, and its parent company, Morris Communications Corporation, which has media holdings throughout the state and the Lower 48.

Martindale-Hubbell awarded Mr. Simpson its highest rating, AV. He is a member of the Alaska Bar Disciplinary Board and chairs the Alaska Bar Fee Arbitration Panel in the First Judicial District. He is a former President and served on the Executive Board of the Southeast Alaska Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America from 1985 to 2005. He served as a member of the Alaska State Physical Therapy Board for six years, and was a director of the Port of Juneau, Docks and Harbors Board, from 1996 to 2008, including two terms as Chair."

John Binkley, Fairbanks - Chair of the Alaska Redistricting Board. 

Image from Wikipedia

From Wikipedia:

"John Emerson "Johne" Binkley (born February 4, 1953 in Fairbanks, Alaska)[1] is a riverboat pilot, businessman and Republican politician from the U.S. state of Alaska. Binkley served for one term apiece in the Alaska House of Representatives and the Alaska Senate during the mid and late 1980s, but is perhaps better known for his candidacy for governor of Alaska in the 2006 primary election. In that election, he finished far behind Sarah Palin (who would go on to win the governorship), but also far ahead of one-term incumbent governor Frank Murkowski, by then deeply unpopular amongst Alaskans.

In 2017, the Anchorage Daily News was acquired by Binkley Co., a group run by John's son, Ryan Binkley. [2]

Binkley was elected chair of the non-partisan Alaska Redistricting Board in 2020, following his appointment to the five-member board by Senate President Cathy Giessel."

  Nicole Borromeo, Anchorage

Image from Census site

  "Alaska Speaker of the House Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham,    has named Alaska
Federation of Natives attorney Nicole Borromeo to the board in charge of redrawing the state’s House and Senate districts after the 2020 census."   (From ADN)

From the Census Bureau website:

"Nicole Borromeo serves the Executive Vice President and General Counsel for the Alaska Federation of Natives, the oldest and largest Native organization in Alaska. In addition to providing executive level leadership, Ms. Borromeo advises AFN’s Board and President on a wide array of Alaska Native legislative and litigation matters, including civil and voting rights.

Prior to joining AFN, Ms. Borromeo held positions with the reputable law firms of Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Walker, LLP; Patton Boggs, LLP; and Sonosky, Chambers, Sasche, Miller & Munson, LLP.

Her legal work has included researching policies, regulations, and laws related to federally recognized tribes, analyzing matters impacting Alaska Native corporations, and representing tribes and tribal consortia in a wide variety of areas, including governmental affairs, business transactions, and infrastructure development.

Ms. Borromeo’s volunteer civic engagement includes participation on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Indian Country Energy and Infrastructure Workgroup, to which she was appointed in 2017. Additionally, she is a Founding Board Member of Justice Not Politics Alaska, a nonpartisan organization promoting the independence of Alaska’s judiciary.

Since 2008, Ms. Borromeo has also served as a mentor to girls, young women, and minorities of all ages who are considering legal and judicial careers through the Color of Justice Program.

Ms. Borromeo is a shareholder of Doyon, Limited, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) regional corporation for Interior Alaska, and the Board Chairman for MTNT, Ltd., the ANCSA village corporation representing four Interior Alaska villages."

Melanie Bahnke, Nome

"Alaska Chief Justice Joel Bolger has picked Melanie Bahnke of Nome for the final seat on the board that will redraw Alaska’s election boundaries following the 2020 census. Bahnke is the president and CEO of regional nonprofit Kawerak Inc. and is an Alaska Federation of Natives board member.

Bahnke is an undeclared voter, meaning the board will have two undeclared voters and three Republicans."   [From the ADN]  

From the Alaska Federation of Natives website.   

"Melanie is the President and CEO of Kawerak, Inc. and has been employed by Kawerak since 1999. In 2012 she was promoted to the President position. She holds a Master of Arts degree in Rural Development from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and a Bachelor of Education degree in Elementary Education from the University of Alaska Anchorage. Melanie is a tribal member of the Native Village of Savoonga and speaks St. Lawrence Island Yupik as her first language. She is married to Kevin Bahnke, and they have three children."

 

Alaska Officially Has 733,391 People - According To The 2020 Census - UPDATED

Just got his email from Peter Torkelson, executive director of the Alaska Redistricting Board.  (You can subscribe to these email updates from the redistricting board here. 

"Good afternoon subscribers -- A few minutes ago the US Census announced the total population numbers for each state.  Alaska's official 2020 resident population is 733,391. This means the population target for new legislative districts will be 733,391/40 = 18,335."

Let's take that apart a bit.  Nothing more than 3rd grade arithmetic at most, I promise.  Alaska has forty state house seats.  The state senate is made up of pairings of those forty seats - that is two adjacent house seats make up one senate seat. 

Each house seat should have the same number of people in it as every other house seat.  Of course, that would be quite a feat.  So the goal is to make them within 1-2% of each other.  In cases where this just isn't possible, the absolute maximum difference is 10%.  (This is based on my memory from last year.  Once the Board gets these number broken down by census districts, the Board will get a lot busier and we'll get these details refreshed.)

So, if there are 40 districts that have to have equal population, you have to divide the total population by 40.  Which is what Peter has done to get 18,335 residents per district.  Actually, my calculator says it's 18,334.775.  Which does mean that it is truly impossible to get all the districts exactly equal.  And since the time they recorded everybody, people have moved out of the state or into the state and new people have been born and some people have died.  So the number is always in flux.

The magic number for each district based on the 2010 data was 17,755.  So each district this time will have 580 more people.  Theoretically.  

I'd add that this includes all Alaska residents, not just those of voting age, not even just US citizens, but all the people who live here.  

To put that in context, [see below] people have applied for Alaska Permanent Fund this year.  [I thought I was going to get that number from the PFD office in Juneau.  Chris transferred me to Corey, but he didn't answer the phone. (It is after 4pm now, though it wasn't when I started these calls.)  I'll add the number in when I get it]

[UPDATED 5pm:  Corey got back to me.  They are still entering paper applications into the system by hand.  As of this afternoon at 4:30pm, they have 643,117 applications and he expects 25-30,000 more.]

Meanwhile  here are the PFD's numbers for population and applications since 2020.

 Remember the magic number:  18,335

AK Redistricting Board Has Short Meeting. - Approve Voting Rights Act RFI With Longer Time Limit

The agenda, as mentioned previously, was mostly procedural - call to order, adopt the agenda, approve minutes, adjourn.  They also allowed for public testimony, but since it was not broadly announced in advance, there was no one who wanted to testify. (Unless you know how to find the Board meetings on the state public notice website or you have signed up to get notices emailed to you, it's pretty hard to keep track of the Board's meetings.)  

The key thing on the agenda was to approve the Request For Information (RFI) for a Voting Rights Consultant.  They chatted a bit about the RFI and approved it with a change in when it would be due (that added a couple of weeks so respondents would have enough time to see it and write up a proposal.)  And they took out the "Alaska Experience" requirement because not very many people with Voting Rights Act experience also have experience applying it to Alaska.  

They also announced the hiring of Star Assist to do the minutes of the meetings.  

Below are my rough notes on the meeting.  Don't rely on them for complete accuracy, but they should give you a sense of the Board's discussion.  The audio should eventually show up here. [April 20, 2021 - audio is now available at the link]

Alaska Redistricting Board Meeting April 16, 2021 2:30 pm

Agenda Adopted

First, item is public testimony. We're going to do this at meetings, 3 minutes for general comments.  Anyone who has signed up to testify? 

Peter:  We have listeners on line but no one who has signed up for public testimony. 

John:  Were minutes in our packet?

Peter:  Yes, still tracking some down.

Budd:  I have some format issues with the  minues so I'd defer to Mr. Presley to go first.  Want to comment on format of minutes.  

Presley - Hired minutes service, we now have Anmaly as  our minutes contractor.  Owner of Star Assist started her own Minutes taking service.  Lots of clients 

Inmaly:  Thanks so much.  Thanks to the Board to give me the opportunity to work with the Board.  

John:  I haven't had a chance to review all the minutes provided.  I'd like to hold off to the next meeting to approve.  

Budd:  I did see them in the packet and went over them.  I don't object to deferring them, but have comments about way minutes presented in the future.  Three things, minor, 

1.  Under heading under AK Redistricting Board - should be titled Minutes of Such and such a date, to see the date of meeting in bold at top

2. Every agenda and minutes - section about the agenda.  Minutes should have whole agenda at the top, so you don't have to hunt around to find copy of agenda.  Maybe just personal preference.

3.  Whenever someone has made a motion, currently minutes say, Ms. Marcum motion to choose AP proposal.  In my mind 'motion' not the right word - should be the verb 'move' or 'make a motion'.  

John:  All good suggestions and I would agree.  Anyone else?  Maybe good to go back and get them all in that form.  [others agree]

John:  We have RFI, Peter?

Peter:  VRA passed by congress in 1965.  All states must comply.  Very technical..  I've been to various redistricting conferences and the all say to hire a consultant.  First we have to analyze the elections since last time and that can start now.  With our attorney's advice - Mr. Singer.  We're hopeful we can get several bids and bring them before the Board.  Basically using the previous RFI with some changes.  

A few points:  1.  I choose May 3 for responses, that's just two weeks, maybe make it a little longer.

John:  Questions?

Bethany:  Quick Q:  Clarification on the travel.  Understand that Board would be responsible for funding the travel?

Peter:  Yes.  But limited to approval of project director.  Can't just travel willy-nilly.  It's likely the person from out of state and we want them to know they may have to take a red-eye to get here.

John:  Other Qs?  

Budd:  I thought substance fine and appreciate work done by staff and counsel.  As Peter suggested I'd rather see a longer open time.  At least another week or even a month.  

John, you said that rather specialized and not that many people?

Peter:  May 10 or even 14 is reasonable.  Also curious about number of contractors.  Talked to Association of ??? to see if they have a list and they'll send that to me.  

John:  Why not put 14th in but allow for making it possible to lengthen it.  

Budd: Fine

John:  Ok, lets do that  it.  And allow for a possible extension.

Peter:  guidance?  We ask for , see page, we mention Alaska experience in two locations.  That language from RFI ten years ago.  Of course we'd like that, but hope that doesn't imply we want only Alaskan experience.  Last time, wasn't able to officially confirm this, the contractor last time was the only one to apply.  

Matt:  Good suggestion.  Board benefits from casting a wide net.  Anyone who has Alaska experience would be foolish not to highlight it.

Budd:  I agree

???:  I agree.  Should create a pool of contractors instead of just having one.  

John:  Ten years from now hopefully there's someone around with that expertise.

Peter:  With understanding the Board consents, will strike it out.

???:  Mr. Chair I move we adopt the RFI with two amendments - strike Alaska requirement and extend the due date.

???:  Second

John:  Any objections?  

???:  Can we receive the link to RFI once it's posted publicly.  

John:  Motion to adjourn.

Nicole:  I move we adjourn

Bethany:  Seconded

John:  Any objection?  Hearing none, We're adjourned.

Redistricting Board Meeting Friday April 16 (Tomorrow) 2:30 PM - Public Testimony Taken And Voting Rights Act Consultant

 The Board's meeting tomorrow at 2:30.  Here's the agenda:

Date: April 16, 2021

Time: 2:30 pm

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

Agenda

1. Call to Order

2. Establish a Quorum

3. Adoption of Agenda

4. Public Testimony

5. Adoption of Minutes from past meetings

6. Request for Information for Voting Rights Act Consultant

7. Adjournment  (emphasis added)

As you can see, most of the agenda is procedural.  There are only two items, maybe just one, with any substance.  I had to ask if "Public Testimony" meant they were going to talk about how to do it (since they haven't done that publicly yet) or if they were taking public testimony.  The answer was the latter, which, if I had paid closer attention to the notice at the state public notice site, I would have figured out myself.  

But what is there for the public to comment on?  And how does the public know that they can comment?  I dare say the average Alaskan doesn't know how to find the state's public notice page, or if they do, they can't find the Redistricting Board meeting.  

As of right now, I can't find any mention of the meeting or public testimony on the Redistricting Board's website, where it surely should be.  I would note, though, that you can sign up for email notifications of meetings and other key announcements on the website here.

It would appear the only truly substantive item on the agenda is the  Request for Information for Voting Rights Act Consultant.  What is this?  

The 1965 Voting Rights Act and its later renewal sets out the law for acceptable voting practices including redistricting. 

Alaska was one of 16 states required to get pre-clearance from the Department of Justice for their redistricting plans.  It's one of just seven states who were covered in their entirety by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).  The other states only had some jurisdictions that are covered.  

In the 2010 Redistricting process, the Board put Section 5 at the top of their agenda because if the Department of Justice (Obama was president then) didn't approve the redistricting plan, they had to start all over.  But in 2013, after the Board had done everything it could to comply with Section 5, the US Supreme Court invalidated Section 5.  The House passed the renewal of the Voting Rights Act in 2006 with 92% voting for the bill and the Senate voted 98-0 to pass it. I'd note that Alaska's Senators and Representative all voted in favor.  And this shows how messed up Congress has become since then.  

Nevertheless, Supreme Court, only seven years later, said that just because states had problems in1965 that didn't mean they should still be considered problems in 2013 and that Congress needed to reevaluate whether those states still needed pre-clearance.  You can see an extensive history of the bill here from the Congressional Research Service.  

Of course, we seen since then, that many of the 16 states that had required pre-clearance, immediately began finding ways to suppress minority voters.  And many more now are introducing ways to make voting for Blacks and other likely Democratic voters much more difficult.  

Part of getting pre-clearance last time involved a complicated set of formulas for maintaining the power of minorities in certain districts in the State.  In Alaska that meant a number of districts in which Alaska natives had enough population to sway the election. Those requirements are gone now. So the role of the Voting Rights Act consultant is very different, and limited, compared to ten years ago.

Here's a 2011 post called:  Can The Board Keep Nine Native Districts?  to give you a sense of the complexity of what they had to do.  Here's another on the topic:  Boundary Setting And Terminology Around Minority Districts.

And here's a post on the meeting with the Voting Rights Consultant who was calling in from Afghanistan where she was consulting on elections there.  Board Talks to Voting Rights Consultant Lisa Handley Calling from Afghanistan.  My notes say:

One hour meeting talking about

• What data she'll need to do her analysis
• Clarifying how to determine "Native"
• Other issues like whether 35% will be the number still for Native influence districts (not necessarily)
• How does voting age fit in?
• Schedule - her return time (April 24), how long until product (three weeks later)

Oh, yes.  Here's a copy of the draft RFI for the Voting Rights Consultant this time:  (sorry, the formatting is a bit off, but you can see the original here - at the bottom after all the minutes.  

(Again, this is a pretty esoteric expertise, particularly necessary every ten years, though I'm sure different states require experts between reapportionment.  This RFI does mention experience in Alaska redistricting which limits things even more.  But I suspect that requirement is NOT required, but desirable.  I'd also note that the RFI does give notice that the proposals may be subject to public disclosure.  That would be helpful for us all to evaluate the competing proposals.  Certainly seeing that Schwabe - the law firm the Board retained - proposal made it clear that that firm had access to Michael White who was the legal consultant to the previous board.  That removed any questions I had about the selection process.)

 SCHWABE DRAFT Request for Information (RFI) Voting Rights Consultant

Background

The State of Alaska, Alaska Redistricting Board, issues this Request for Information (Request) for a Voting Rights Consultant to assist the Board, and prepare a statistical racial bloc voting analysis of statewide and state legislative elections held in Alaska in 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020.

Scope of Work

The contractor shall provide Consulting Services and Voting Rights Assistance as directed by the Redistricting Board and Project Director.

Services shall include but are not be limited to the following:

1. Preparing a statistical racial bloc voting analysis of the 2012, 2014,2016,2018 and 2020 statewide and state legislative elections in the State of Alaska to determine whether voting in the State of Alaska, or in specific regions of the state, is polarized by race and assist the Board in complying with the Voting Rights Act while creating new legislative districts for the 2022 election cycle. This may include a vote dilution analysis of proposed plans.

This service will include the following tasks:

1. Assisting in the preparation and design of the data base needed to conduct racial bloc voting analyses.

2. Preparing a draft written report and a final written report to the Board outlining the results of the racial bloc voting analysis.

3. Making an oral presentation to the Board of the results of the analysis.

4. Advising the Board on matters pertaining U.S.Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This service may include the following tasks:

1. Assist the Board in determining if one or more proposed redistricting plans may comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

2. Serving as an expert witness for the Redistricting Board on Voting Rights Act issues in any court challenges to the Board’s redistricting plan, including testifying in deposition and/or trial as requested.

3. Performing these tasks and other Redistricting Board Consulting Services/Voting Rights Assistance as required by the Project Director.

4. Travel to the Redistricting Board Office in Anchorage for consulting as requested. Two or more visits may be needed.

Response Requirements

Responses must include the complete name, mailing address, telephone number and email address of the responder(s). Responses must, if applicable, provide notice that the offeror qualifies as an Alaskan bidder. Responses must be signed and dated by the responder.

Offeror must provide:

1. Comprehensive narrative statements that illustrate their understanding of the purpose and scope of this project, any pertinent issues and potential problems, and statements that illustrate their understanding of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the impact of subsequent amendments and court decisions.

2. A description of the offeror’s qualifications and experience in preparing racial bloc voting analyses in Alaska and other jurisdictions.

3. A description of expert witness experience the offeror has provided.

4. A description of the statistical analytical methodology the offeror will employ to perform the required services.

5. A listing of current or past clients similar to the Redistricting Board, a brief description of service provided and a contact name and phone number of each client.

6. A listing of staff experience in advising clients on redistricting/reapportionment in Alaska and other states and jurisdictions.

7. Information on the company ownership,headquarters,branch or affiliate offices, length of time in business,

8. Indicate if the award of this contract would require the acquisition of additional office space, equipment, personnel or any other items. Be as specific as possible, i.e., how much additional space, specific equipment, the number and function of additional employees, etc.

9. Adescription of any distinct and substantive qualifications for undertaking the proposed contract, such as the availability of specialized equipment, awards and recognition received for similar services or special approaches or concepts relevant to the required services under this Request

Costs & Expenses

1. Offeror’s must provide an hourly rate schedule for services provided in order for the proposal to be considered responsive. Proposals received that do not included hourly rate(s) shall be considered non-responsive and shall be rejected.

2. NOTE:Reimbursement for all travel and out-of-pocket expenses shall be limited to the items authorized by the Project Director as set out in a contract resulting from this Request.

Travel to the Redistricting Board Office in Anchorage for consulting as requested. Two or more visits may be needed.

References

Responders are encouraged to provide a list of references the Board may contact to verify the responder’s character, qualifications and experience.

Funding Source

Funding for the Alaska Redistricting Board is subject to Legislative appropriation.

Submission Details, Deadline

Provide one electronic copy of the requested information to the email address below. Responses to this Request must be received by 4:00 p.m. AST, on May 3, 2021.

• Peter.Torkelson@akredistrict.org

This Request in no manner obligates the Board to pursue a contractual relationship with an entity that responds to this Request or limits or restricts the Board to pursue a contractual relationship with an entity that does not respond to this Request.

This Request in no manner obligates the Board to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of any response to this Request. A party responding to this Request is responsible for all costs associated with their response. Responses become the property of the Board and may be subject to public disclosure.

Questions should also be directed to Peter Torkelson at

• Peter.Torkelson@akredistrict.org • 907-406-2894

The Law Firms That Sent In Proposals To The Alaska Redistricting Board [Updated]

Five firms responded to the Alaska Redistricting Board's RFI (Request for Information) for proposals for a legal team to advise the Board.  Two were interviewed and one was selected - contingent on negotiations about fees.  I've also highlighted the key attorneys the proposals identified as Lead and Assistant Lead.  Most firms had several other attorneys listed as well.

• Holmes, Weddle, and Barcott
• Former Attorney General Jahna Lindemuth lead counsel
• Stacey Stone
• Dorsey and Whitney
• Jill McLeod
• Mike Grisham
• Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt
• Matt Singer will serve as Lead Attorney. 
•  Lee Baxter will serve as Second Chair.
• Craig Richards
• Craig Richards, Lead Attorney was Bill Walker's Law Partner and Alaska Attorney General from 2014-2016
• Nicole Corr
• Birch Horton Bittner & Cherot
• Holly Wells, Lead Attorney
• Jennifer Alexander

The Board selected Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt.  I'd note that the Schwabe proposals says they will have retired attorney Michael White as an advisor.  Mike was the attorney for the Board in the 2010 round of redistricting and will be a huge asset to the team.  The Board has not yet released the name of the second firm that was interviewed.  I was hoping to find that out before posting this, but I've only eliminated one firm.  Two to go.  [UPDATE March 22, 2021, 3:43pm:  The other finalist was Dorsey and Whitney.]

The Board is required to give these proposals to people who request them.  I've put them up on SCRIBD  so you can see them here.

Holmes Weddle Barcott Propo... by Steve

 

Dorsey Whitney Proposal to ... by Steve

Schwabe Williamson Wyatt Pr... by Steve

Craig Richards Proposal to ... by Steve

Birch Horton Bittner Cherot... by Steve

I've scanned through these to see what experience each proposal said their attorneys had that was directly related to redistricting.  This is a unique specialty since redistricting only happens every ten years and unless an attorney is working for the Board or an entity that is very interested in redistricting up to the point of suing the Board, there aren't that many attorneys with direct hands-on experience.  I imagine there are other attorneys who have made redistricting a research interest, but probably not in Alaska.

Many of the firms discussed an attorney's experience with state or local government, with boards and commissions, with election law, public meetings and records, etc.  But there was relative little discussing direct experience with redistricting.  

Holmes Weddle Barcott

Jahna Lindemuth was the attorney general in the Walker administration, but as I scanned through proposal I didn't see anything in this firm about direct experience in redistricting.

Craig Richards

"Nicole A Corr: As counsel for the Alaska RedistrictingBoard in 2010, Ms. Corr is intimately familiar with the redistricting process and the specialized knowledge it takes to defend the Board and its plan.  Ms. Corr advised the Board on public hearing protocol and answered questions from the public during public meetings regarding the Board's legal obligations.  She also provided memorandums to the Board on the Alaska Open Meetings Act, interpreting the constitutional provisions applicable to theBoard, and advising compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act.  Ms. Corr served as assistant trial counsel when several entities challenged the Board's final plan, which included a two-week trial, two appeals to the Alaska Supreme Court, and a redraw within a year of adopting the final plan.  Ms. Corr successfully the Board's second plan, defeating the new challenge on summary judgment." 

Schwabe Williamson 

"In 2011, Matt [Singer] was hired by private clients interested in evaluating the Board's redistricting maps.  That work required Matt to develop a close understanding of the body of law that governs the work of the Redistricting Board.  We are well-versed in the constitutional requirements for contiguity, compactness, and socio-economic integration of house districts and will be well prepared to advise the Board about the procedural and substantive steps required by the Alaska Constitution and the Alaska Supreme Court." 

"At no additional expense to the Board, Schwabe has also arranged for retired attorney Michael White to serve as an advisor to this project. Mike was the Redistricting Board’s counsel in the 2010 round of reapportionment, and will bring a wealth of knowledge to the Team."

"For this project, Schwabe has also arranged for Michael White to serve as a senior advisor to its team. Mike represented the Alaska Redistricting Board in the 2010 reapportionment, and was lead challenger’s counsel in the 2000 redistricting litigation. Mike is the most experienced redistricting lawyer in Alaska, and will share his experience as an advisor to the Schwabe team."

Birch Horton Bittner Cherot

"Ms. [Holly] Wells' redistricting law experience includes serving on the Firm legal team representing the Petersburg Borough in connection with the 2010 redistricting plan.  During the course of that representation, Ms. Wells gained an understanding of the redistricting process and procedures, the nature of the challenges and claims that are typical in the redistricting process, and the relevant case law and authority pertaining to such claims and challenges."

Dorsey and Whitney

"Jill McLeod is a lifelong Alaskan. Born in Juneau and raised in Anchorage, Jill is deeply committed to serving the Alaska community and upholding the Alaska Constitution. In this redistricting cycle, Jill was appointed by the Chief Justice of the Alaska Supreme Court, and then elected to lead, the Redistricting Planning Committee, the committee responsible for the initial preparations and arrangements necessary for the Redistricting Board to successfully complete its work implementing Alaska’s decennial redistricting plan. During her year long tenure as the Chair of the Redistricting Planning Committee, Jill became intimately familiar with the redistricting process, voting rights, electoral system design including redistricting software, redistricting and voting rights issues pertaining to redistricting and the redistricting requirements under state and federal law, including the Voting Rights Act. With her understanding of the redistricting requirements, Jill will be able to assist the Board in preparing a defensible redistricting plan. In her role as the Chair, Jill ensured compliance with the Open Meeting Act for all public meetings."

AK Redistricting Board Selects Schwabe, Williamson, and Wyatt For Legal Counsel

I missed the Board Meeting on Saturday afternoon and so I waited until the audio tape was up to report it. I'd note that the recordings are available at a different legislative website than before because the previous meetings were still during the 31st legislative session and now we are in the 32 legislative session. 

They are also up on the Board's own website, but you have to look a bit.  There's a  ≡ symbol in the upper right hand corner of the website and a click there will give you a drop-down menu with some additional pages, including one for "Minutes and Audio."

I'd also note that I used Board Members' first names, because that's how they identify themselves and each other and mentally trying to substitute last names as I listen really slows me down.  No disrespect intended.

Meeting Highlights

1.  Legal services selection - Board had five responses to the Request For Information.  They interviewed two firms and selected Schwabe, Williamson, and Wyatt.  There are still some negotiations to finalize the agreement ahead. 

2.  Protocol for meeting and information requests from public - Board decided to hold off this decision until Schwabe is on board and can help with potential legal issues for deciding this.  Since Census data have been delayed, this shouldn't be a problem.

3.  Time for public testimony at regular meetings - The Board decided to set aside time to do this at meetings.  There was also discussion of using the Anchorage legislative info office for future meetings and that with COVID restrictions loosening in Anchorage, this could be soon.

4.  Next meeting Friday, March 26 at 2:30pm

Below are my notes after listening to the tape.  The numbers are time on the audio tape at:https://www.akredistrict.org/files/9816/1532/4779/2021-03-06-ARB-Audio.mp3

It was much easier taking notes from the tape than it is from a live meeting.  I cleaned things up a bit, but remember this is a rough transcript, but it should let you know what was discussed and where you can find things, more or less, on the tape.

4:18  John - Call the meeting to order and ask Peter to take roll and establish quorum. 

John:  Draft agenda.  Legal services and meeting protocols.  Motion to adopt agenda.  Adopted. 

First item is discussion of legal service RFI and responses - ask Peter to go through the process up to this point

6:05 Peter:  Legal process - Constitution Article 6 Section 9 requires board to contract for  

Alaska Constitution Article  6 § 9. Board Actions
The board shall elect one of its members chairman and may employ temporary assistants. Concurrence of three members of the Redistricting Board is required for actions of the Board, but a lesser number may conduct hearings. The board shall employ or contract for services of independent legal counsel. [Amended 1998]

 

independent counsel.  RFI in January - five responses obtained.  We are required by law to keep them confidential until decision made.  After that we can share with the public who request it.

Board subcommittee picked two.  First firm had multi-slide presentation on how to avoid litigation and if we get sued, perhaps,  how to prevail.  

Second interview also went well - firm offered a question and answer format. Frank  discussion  about litigation strategy.what to expect and how the Board should prepare.

Thanks to both firms for candid advice.  Board has had several days to consider the interviews.  How to proceed.

John:  Did discuss in Executive Session (ES.)  Do we want to go back to ES?

Budd:  I think we want to - hard to understand - we had a total of 5 firms that responded.  All fiver were good, well regarded firms.  Hard to narrow down, but two that had a little more horse power or something going for them that got them to the interviews.  Let them know all were good and hard to get to short list.  Move to ES to discuss legal counsel.  Relying on - involving consideration of public records not allowed by law for public disclose.

Seconded.  

John:  A couple of items we asked the ED to return to law firms to discuss with them financial arrangements  and fee structures etc. and I think that's appropriate to discuss in ES.  We'll be back in public session to make decision.  Don't know how long.  Hope less than 30 minutes.  Back into public session.  Legislative telecom folks to work that out.  

12:26  recording:  "You've been muted"

31 minutes in, unmuted.

John:  Out of ES.  Chance to discuss further nuances of responses:

Budd:  Based on discussion and interviews and five proposals I would make motion that we select Schwabe, Williamson and Wyatt Firm - subject to negotiation and execution of a satisfactory agreement.

2nded - 

John:  Discussion

Melanie - Call the question.

John:  Objection?  Passed by unanimous consent.  Will ask ED, Budd and Nicole to put that agreement together.

Budd:  Along the lines of the quality of the other responding firms, ask that ED prepare nice letters to other respondent firms, thanking them for interest and quality of responses, indicating it was difficult selection, but we have selected Schwabe.  

John:  I know it takes time to put these together and we're genuinely appreciative.

35:  Next is protocol

Peter:  Draft on the website.  We're going to forward to help evaluate.  Board members can assist and ask for assistance.  Record from last cycle says we'll get a lot of these.  Reporting them as they come in is the best way.  

John:  Discussion?

Bethany - this is for private presentations, not public hearings, right?  

Peter:  Yes, if Board member requests and we'll forward to you.  

Bethany - Someone private group requests meeting with Board meeting.  

Melanie - I was going to ask if ever going to open LIO line to let people ask questions of us?

John:  Good idea

Peter:  Anchorage opening up restrictions and reached out to Anchorage LIO and they have big room and people can actually see us.  Happy to allow us to use when not used by other legislative body.  So Public Meetings in the future.

Melanie - Then can I suggest public comments allowed in future meetings.  Nome is relaxing travel regs too for people to travel, so my ability to travel is opening up.

John - hopefully by spring or summer can get back to regular meetings.  Peter and I will review with law firm how we interact with public - both in public and privately - so we don't get challenged on this in future litigation.

???:  I propose we wait then on this until we can hear from the law firm.  

???:  Since data is so delayed, we have plenty of time until we have attorneys on our payroll.

John:  next, unless comments, we are at item 7 - adjournment.

Nicole - want to thank Budd for his leadership on dealing with the law firm selection, a pleasure working with him.

John - Leg teleconferencing crew, we appreciate your help, especially coming in on a Saturday.

???:  Confirm next meeting.

Peter:  Proposed March 26, 2:30pm.  And will try to preload meetings for second Friday.  Anyone can request to be on email alert list.  

John - also lets start taking public testimony at next meeting.  

Nicole second motion to adjourn.  Adjourned  45 min.  

The Board Gets Advice From Legislative Attorney And Decides To Proceed With The Interview In Executive Session

When I worked at the Municipality of Anchorage long ago, I had to write some policy.  I wanted to be sure I wouldn't run afoul of the law, so I went to the legal department and asked what the law was regarding the topic.  

The attorney said what do you want to do?  I said I want to write the policy so it's legal.  He repeated, what exactly do you want to do?  I said I wasn't exactly sure until I understood the law.  He said, tell me what you want to do and I'll find the law that allows you do what you want to do.  

That's my sense of today's decision to go into Executive Session.    

I had suggested that the Board interview with the law office that will represent the Board be public and offered reasons why in the last post. 

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

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

 I cited the Alaska Supreme Court which has ruled that the only likely reason in interviewing an applicant for Police Chief or City Manager in Executive Session was possibly number (2),  The Supreme Court ruled:

"Ordinarily an applicant's reputation will not be damaged by a public discussion of his or her qualifications relating to experience, education and background or by a comparison of them with those of other candidates."

The Supreme Court allowed that it is possible when talking about the personal characteristics of applicants.  But the remedy is to stay public and only go into Executive Session when discussing the allowed exemptions.  

Well, today the Peter Torkelson reported the advice of Legislative Legal.  I didn't catch all the details, but he didn't really talk that long either.  But basically he said that Leg Legal said that they could potentially discuss things that fall under exemption 1, 2, and 4. 

1.  matters, the immediate knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse effect upon the finances of the public entity;

What I understood here was that they might talk about legal strategies to use should the Board be sued.  I agree that legal strategies for pending lawsuits are generally exempted.  

2.  subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of any person, provided the person may request a public discussion;

I already cited the Supreme Court's decision on this - that yes, it could happen, but for the most part people selling their services are not likely to do this.  

4.  matters involving consideration of government records that by law are not subject to public disclosure.  

It wasn't clear to me what records they were talking about.  Possibly they were again talking about legal strategies.  

OK, so these are items that might come up ("prejudice the reputation...") or are likely to come up (legal strategies).  However, the public meetings statute also says:

"Subjects may not be considered at the executive session except those                                         mentioned in the motion calling for the executive session unless auxiliary to the main                                question."

Which means that everything else must be considered in public.  So, they should begin the interview in public.  And when they get near either of those issues, they can go into Executive Session and then come back out of Executive Session.  

Different people can interpret the law differently.  I also understand that it's much more convenient to simply go into Executive Session.  And I suspect that most public bodies in Alaska invoke Executive Session so without seriously considering the intent of the law, or on advice of attorneys who don't tell them what the law is, but how to do what they want legally.  

Further, nothing is technically illegal until ruled so by a judge.  So unless a member of the body objects, or a member of the public sues, various bodies in the state will take the easy way out and just go into Executive Session.  

Today's meeting took about ten minutes to discuss the attorney's advice and then vote to go into Executive Session. (I'd note the attorney did point out that that office does not represent the Board.)

The Board has also not told the public who they are interviewing.  Surely the names of the two law firms is not going to prejudice the reputation of either of them.  Unless we are now at the stage where someone argues that not winning the contract will prejudice their reputation.  

Rich Mauer, then an Anchorage Daily News reporter, challenged the previous Board over this issue in 2013 when they were interviewing applicants for the new Executive Director and the Board agreed to conduct the interviews openly.  Given that the Anchorage Daily News is now owned by part of the Binkley family, and the Board Chair is part of that family, I don't think the ADN is likely to challenge, let alone sue, the Board over this sort of thing.

Below are my rough notes from the meeting:

2:58   Folks chatting   

3:01 John:  We got a little pushback about Executive Session - talked to Legislative attorney because of this.  

Hi Melanie, Hi Budd

Melanie:  How you doing?

Lots of snow in Fairbanks

Think we're all here.  Nicole , Melanie Banke, Budd Simpson, Bethany, John Binkley, Peter Torkelson

John:  One agenda item - legal services  Agenda adopted unanimously

Only item:  Interview for RFI legal services, plan to take care of this in Executive Session.  Ask chair to discuss this

Peter:  Talked to the Legislative counsel if this is the correct form.  Leg attorney said 195 of code.  Open in confidential matter until decision made   Open Meetings act C4  may be used for govt records by law requires it to be confidential.  Two other exceptions - Matters of immediate knowledge - since discussing legal strategy if sued, so it's important someone who might sue us won't know 

If prejudice reputation - we could.  Leg attorney said she doesn't represent us.  Feels we're on solid ground.  

Comments by Board members about doing this in Executive Session.  

Budd:  Moves to go into ES Open meeting act - records not subject to public disclosure.  

Nicole:  Seconded

John:  Opposition?  Passes by unanimous consent.  

3:10  You will now be disconnected.  

AK Redistricting Board Talks About Transparency Then Goes Behind Closed Doors

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

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

"4. Staff Public Outreach Directive

5. Response Protocol for Meeting Requests"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's wrong with that you ask?

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

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

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

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

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




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




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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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