Alaska Redistricting Board Goes Into Executive Session To Interview Legal Advisor Applicant

[These are my rough notes as I first waited, then listened in to meeting.  Most people identified themselves, but sometimes forgot and not sure about all the voices yet.  Some comments, but a follow up post coming concerning how and why they went into executive session.]

 Here's the agenda.  [While I'm waiting for the meeting to begin, I've put some notes on the agenda in [brackets].  My notes on the meeting will be below the agenda and below the Proposed Outreach Directive.

Proposed Agenda: 

Date: Time: Place:

State of Alaska Redistricting Board

February 26, 2021 2:30 pm

Teleconference:

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. Staff Public Outreach Directive - see Proposed Public Outreach Directive  [I've also added most of this below.]

5. Response Protocol for Meeting Requests

6. Software Training Availability [I'm hoping this is for the public, but I suspect it is only for the Board.  We'll see.]

7. Interview with Legal Services RFI Respondents, Executive Session 

8. Adjournment

2:25pm - Much of this meeting will be in Executive Session as the Board interviews law firms that responded to the RFI for legal services for the Board.  The attorney for the Board plays a pretty large role in advising the Board on what they are legally required, permitted, or prohibited from doing.  And often the guidelines are not that clear, so they have to figure out the best possible path.  

2:28pm still waiting for the meeting to begin.  There were some voices a few minutes ago, but it's quiet now.  I'd note that the Public Outreach Directive linked above in the agenda, is pretty broad.

"The staff mission is to:

1. 1)  Facilitate the Redistricting Board’s decision-making process through administrative, technical and logistical support. 

1. 2)  Explain the redistricting process and resulting Board decisions to the public.

2. 3)  Assist legal counsel to defend the Board’s decisions in the courts."

Then there's:

"Direction to Staff  [My guess is the staff wrote this for the Board, a bit ironic]

The Board directs the staff to proactively engage in public outreach using means and technologies which best facilitates the Board’s work.

1) Who is the “Public”? – In this context the public means all Alaskans, their elected local and state representatives, local government bodies, interested parties such as ANSCA Corporations, political parties and other non-governmental organizations and their representatives.

2) What is the message? – Staff should endeavor to be as helpful and specific as possible while educating the public about the Board’s constitutional mission, governing laws, policies and procedures, open meetings guidelines, public notice practices, procurement process, sources for additional information, and Census methodology and timing. The staff should work to educate the public about the various constraints placed on the board: namely the 4 constitutional standards of compactness, contiguity, social- economic integration and population equity (one person, one vote) as well as a general summary of Federal guidelines enacted in the Voting Rights Act. Staff should be prepared to provide a general overview of the most relevant case law as it applies to the Board for the 2020 cycle. (Shelby, Egan etc)

3) Is there anything the staff should not communicate? – Yes. The staff must not divulge specific content of executive sessions, matters subject to attorney-client, deliberative privilege, or details of litigation strategy options. The staff should refrain from making projections about what the board will or won’t do in any specific situation. The staff should not cast negative dispersions on any member of the public or their representative, even during hostile legal proceedings."

2:34pm - my phone line is still quiet.   

2:36pm -"the host has rejoined the conference" 

2:40pm - Guessing that one of the members is either late or having trouble with the zoom connection.

2:44pm - still quiet, but my phone says I'm 25 minutes into the call.  

2:46pm - some voices, sounds like someone is having technical difficulties connecting.  Discussion about groups and people the staff should be reaching out to.  Talking about non-profits - 

Q:  public wants to know "what is redistricting?"  A:  Questions will range from those basic questions to more complicated issues that I still have.  Non-profits are on the list.

Nicole:  something we should be very much engaged in.  Extended time line to our advantage.  . . .

Nonprofits, municipalities, when safe to travel, invite whole community, and as much outreach as we can.

A:  Outline of outreach can have a few more groups, but general consensus is outline.

Melanie:  Good start.  For me, timelines and more concrete plan so we will have information of redistricting process for anyone who needs it.  Leave it for staff, like to see, dates, locations on your websites.  Mechanism for groups that want us to meet with them.  Board, or staff.  I know it's next on our agenda.  Want to be pro-active in our outreach.  Also for groups that want specific meetings.  

A:  Intention, once Board agrees, get down to brass tacks and get going.  Tap into Board members' local knowledge to help figure out best times for different regions.  

John? ;  Segue into #5 - reviewing the archives, as time gets closer, as we're drawing lines, there will be numberouns requests of people who want to meet with Board.  How do we route these?  Forward them on, file them, what do we do?  

???:  When you get personal requests (Members and Staff).  Open discussion on it.  

??:  Thanks.  Mixed feelings about this.  Already had handful out of the blue calls because people heard I was on the Board and they want to talk about some legislative issues.  I say, you're way too early.  Deal with us a lot later.  There will be more of this happening.  Nice to have a policy to say that individual board members won't engage in off-the record side bars.  But a good way to get feedback.  Just thinking out loud here.  Nature of private conversations and how that fits with public meeting rules versus being as available as possible.  thanks.

John:  Agree.  Fine line.  We're open about their ideas, but some boundary to indicate what we might and might not do.

Melanie:  suggestion:  I already got phone call that wants to speak to me as Board member, and I declined until we establish procedure.  Need to be as transparent as possible, that info should be shared with the group and the public:  Melanie Banke has met with Group X in official capacity.  Need these ground rules.  My preference is to let these meetings with individuals, but if we have a formal mechanism, the pressure for individual meetings will lessen.  If I just meet with some groups, but not other groups, looks partisan.  Needs to be transparent with record of meeting.

Bethany:  Like sense of what we mean by a meeting.  Talking to someone about something else altogether and then they start talking about Redistricting.  Telling me what they think.  Gets sticky.  Tough to define and track these conversations.  

John:  May be difficult to quantify all that in a document and policy.  May come down to individual judgment and what we feel comfortable with.  And Melanie's idea about what we've discussed.  But that is that line between individual conversations that strays too Redistricting.

Nicole:  In favor of system where B member and staff can talk to folks, but I don't know every conversation requires a memo.  [hard to understand]

Bethany:  Casual conversations.  Staff will let us know as individual board members.  I'm talking about formal meeting requests.  If we have a plan there won't be individuals lobbying us.  

John:  Ask staff to draft something for us.  Maybe can capture some of this in policy.  Areas that might be sticky.  Circulate to us all and start to work on it.  Later decide what that might be.

Staff:  Certainly we can do that.

??:  For now, all meeting requests go through staff.  I don't want individuals calling me.  I don't feel comfortable having side meetings with groups.  Staff can share we have outreach plan in development.  Until we have something more formal.  

John:  Board like that as an interim policy?  We may have differences of opinion.  

Bethany:  Comfortable with that if we are talking about a group.  But with individuals harder to figure out how to handle that.  

Budd:  Same as Bethany.  Shouldn't restrict ourselves from calls or casual conversations with people who grab you by the collar and ask questions.  But if more formal talks to groups, we need a more formal policy in place.

Nicole:  sounds good.  

Bethany:  Goal to avoid appearance of us taking favorites.  It will be the wealthier groups with lobbyists that will be trying to influence us.  Avoid appearances of impropriety or that we can be influenced by special interests.  Want to be transparent.  

John:  even as legislator being lobbied all the time by people.  We legally can't have a majority of us in meetings like that.  Meanwhile, if formal request, special interest group, defer.

Bethany:  I really mean a group.  General information about redistricting versus formal meetings.  

John:  Item 6.  Software Training.

Peter:  Yes, we saw need for training, and hire people to help with training.  We have a contractor with 12 instructional videos, and links to that training.  And also a corporate virtual training seminar.  After look at your own training, then have a formal training session with the board.  

John:  If we are really going to be utilize software, shouldn't train too early because I'll forget it when we get the data.  Other thoughts?  If people want to get started, they can do that.

Peter:  We'll send out links on Monday.

John:  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.  

[There's an issue here for me about them not announcing who they are interviewing.  Last time round when they interviewed for a new Executive Director, the ADN challenged them because they didn't announce the finalists. 

3:16 - was disconnected.  

1.  Call to order

2.  Establish a Quorum

3. Adoption of Agenda  [If 1-3 happened I did not hear it on the line I was on.]

4. Staff Public Outreach Directive - see Proposed Public Outreach Directive 

     

5. Response Protocol for Meeting Requests 

 [Some members showed concern about:  a) transparency about who they talk to outside of meetings,  b) avoiding being pestered by people who want to lobby them  c) concern about what things they can and can't say  d) want a policy to govern this.]

6. Software Training Availability [I'm hoping this is for the public, but I suspect it is only for the Board.  We'll see.] [Just for the Board, no mention of the public having access to software.]

7. Interview with Legal Services RFI Respondents, Executive Session [follow up post coming on this- why didn't they mention the finalists?  why did they need to go into Executive Session?  

8. Adjournment [They went into ES and didn't mention coming out of ES to do anything else, including adjourn.]

Alaska Redistricting Board To Begin Interviewing Legal Firms To Counsel The Board

I got the following email message today from the Alaska Redistricting Board staff:

"The Redistricting Board will be meeting Friday, Feb 26 at 2:30pm and tentatively again on Tuesday, March 2nd at 3pm.  Please note that the bulk of both meetings will be dedicated to interviewing legal firms who responded to the Board's RFI for legal services. The interviews will be conducted in executive session.  Friday's meeting will have an agenda item or two for discussion prior to going into executive session.

The agenda and board packet will be posted here in the next couple of days:

http://notice.alaska.gov/201511 "

That link gets you this information:

The Alaska Redistricting Board will meet by teleconference on Friday, February 26 at 2:30pm.

The public may listen by audio stream through http://akleg.gov or by calling one of the following phone numbers:

 - Anchorage 563-9085

 - Juneau 586-9085

 - Other 844-586-9085

 

If you want to get email messages about meetings and other redistricting board news, go here.

2020 Alaska Redistricting Board Debuts Its Website

A post-Civil War map of the newly purchased Alaska sets the mood for this decade's Redistricting Board website. This is NOT your typical government agency look.  Especially compared to the site of the last Board.  This is a very user friendly site and offers Alaskans an easy portal to the redistricting process.  And now that the Census data isn't due until late summer, this is a good time to start exploring the site.  

Alaska Redistricting Board To Get Census Data "By Sept. 30, 2021" Along With All The Other States

The following notice comes from a US Census Bureau redistricting blog via an email from the Alaska Redistricting Board Executive Director Peter Torkelson.  (He offered to email a notice of the next Board meeting when I asked if there were an easier way to find out meeting times than the State Public Notice site.  Thanks, Peter.)

FEB. 12, 2021 — The U.S. Census Bureau announced today that it will deliver the Public Law 94-171 redistricting data to all states by Sept. 30, 2021. COVID-19-related delays and prioritizing the delivery of the apportionment results delayed the Census Bureau’s original plan to deliver the redistricting data to the states by March 31, 2021.

Different from previous censuses, the Census Bureau will deliver the data for all states at once, instead of on a flow basis. This change has been made because of COVID-19-related shifts in data collection and in the data processing schedule and it enables the Census Bureau to deliver complete and accurate redistricting data in a more timely fashion overall for the states.

The redistricting data includes counts of population by race, ethnicity (Hispanic or Latino origin), voting age, housing occupancy status, and group quarters population, all at the census block level. This is the information that states need to redraw or “redistrict” their legislative boundaries.

In preparation for the delivery of redistricting data products, the Census Bureau has been in close coordination with each states’ official nonpartisan liaisons to understand the impacts of the delayed delivery on individual states. Since 2019, states have had access to prototype geographic support products and data tabulations from the 2018 Census Test to help them begin to design their redistricting systems. This is one tool states can use to help minimize the impact of schedule delays. In addition, the Census Bureau today completed the release of all states’ 2020 Census geographic products needed for redistricting. This will enable states to redistrict promptly upon receipt of their 2020 Census tabulation data.

I'd note that this is a significant delay (potentially six months if it takes until September 30) from ten years ago when the Alaska Redistricting Board got its data from the US Census Bureau on March 15.  That post explains some of the rules at the time - like having to have the first plan done within 30 days of receiving the data.  (I apologize for the missing photos on that page.  They weren't mine and some are apparently no longer on the original sites.)  I don't know whether any laws have been changed since then.  Back then I learned about the rules because they were explained at the Board Meetings.  There have only been a few meetings this time round and they've all been COVID kosher.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alaska Redistricting Board January 26, 2021

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

Staff:  Peter Torkelson and TJ TJ Presley 

Open meeting at 2:34

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

Adopted

Agenda

1. Call to order

2. Establish a quorum

3. Adoption of agenda

4. Board Policy Review and Discussion

a. Public Meeting and Notice Policy

b. Public Records Policy

c. Member Compensation Policy

d. Member & Staff Travel Per Diem Policy

5. Adoption of One or More Board Policies 

Added new 6 -Website progress -  and made Adjournment 7

6. Adjournment

1. Board Policy Review and Discussion

Turn it to Peter

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

Public Meetings and Notices Policy:  

Melanie - about screens on Zoom

Dept Director TJ Presley:  

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

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

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

Move to Second Policy Public Records Policy

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

In this case Board could adopt Legislative or Administrative. 

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

More discussion about TJs audio.  

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

Meetings and Notice

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

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

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

Public Meetings 

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

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

Binkley:  Public Notice questions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

John?:  Check with Leg Legal.

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

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

Peter:  Per Board Meeting Day.  

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

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

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

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

Binkley:  Travel and Per Diem Policy

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

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

[From the documents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adjournment, but anything else first?  

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

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

Adjourn?  Borromeo, move.  Budd Second.  

Adjourned.  2:35

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"BIGGER, BETTER, MEATY BURGERS

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

"All American $4.35

ketchup, mustard, onion.

Alaskan Banquet $5.25

mayo, lett, tom, onion.

Arctic Cheese $5.50

mayo, lett, tom, onion & amer cheese.

Bacon Burger $6.30

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

Pepper Burger $5.95

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

Kodiak Islander $6.15

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

Kenai Whopper $6.50

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

Mexican Burger $5.95

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

Nature Burger $6.15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Agenda

State of Alaska Redistricting Board

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

Place:  Teleconference:

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

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

 Agenda

1. Call to order

2. Establish a quorum

3. Adoption of agenda

4. Board Policy Review and Discussion

a. Public Meeting and Notice Policy

b. Public Records Policy

c. Member Compensation Policy

d. Member & Staff Travel Per Diem Policy

5. Adoption of One or More Board Policies 

6. Adjournment

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

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

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

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

I'd recommend:

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

4b.  Public Records

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd also note   

4c.  Member Compensation  

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

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

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

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

4d.  Member & Staff Travel Per Diem Policy

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

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

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

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

Alaska Redistricting Board: Approves RFI for Board Legal Services and Procurement Procedures

 The Board met from 1:30pm to 1:55.  They approved the Request for Information (RFI) for legal services.  One Board member asked if they should disqualify firms that had challenged previous Board positions in court.  Other members said it's important to consider conflicts of interest, but that if we disqualified firms that had litigated redistricting issues in the past, there wouldn't be any qualified firms.  If they have a current conflict, they won't submit a proposal.

They approved the RFI.  It should be posted by Monday on the statewide (not just legislative) site and will be circulated via the Alaska Bar Association website.  It will be open until Jan 29.  Members believed those with expertise have been waiting for this and will be looking for it.  

The Board also added approving the Procurement Procedures to the agenda, and they noted minor changes and approved it.  One substantive change was to only allow those who bid on projects to object.  

[NOTE:  My very rough verbatim notes are below.  This is only my second meeting and I'm not yet really familiar with people's voices.  Some members were called on by name, or identified themselves (thank you!), but usually by first name.  So I've used first name just because I was typing as fast as I could.]

Redistricting Board Jan 8, 1:30pm

Members and staff present:

• Peter Torkelson as Executive Director 
• TJ Presley as Deputy Director. 
• John Binkley, Fairbanks, Chair of the Alaska Redistricting Board. 
• Melanie Bahnke of Nome, 
• Nicole Borromeo of Anchorage, 
• Bethany Marcum of Anchorage  
• Budd Simpson of Juneau.   

AGENDA:

State of Alaska Redistricting Board

January 8, 2021

1:30 pm

Teleconference:

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. Discussion: Request for Information for Legal Services

a. Topic:Timeline for RFI closing

b. Topic: Routing of RFI related inquiries

5. Adoption o fRequest for Information for Legal Services 

6. Adjournment

MEETING NOTES:

1:30 roll call - all members here

John - short agenda

Adopt agenda

4.  Request for Info for Legal Services 

Peter - response by January 29, gives people three weeks to respond

Discussion:  Nicole - adequate;

Budd Simpson - adequate, certainly not shorter, compromise , get this thing moving and enough time.  

Melanie Marcum - probably small pool of bidders and are on the lookout for this.  Want people with experience

Routing - how will the RFI’s come to board and how we respond

Peter - should be careful respondents don’t have direct contact with board members.  Single contact - me - if technical I’ll answer.  If other I’ll contact Board.  

Questions for Peter or TJ?

Melanie - makes sense, I don’t want to be contacted.  Peter is good contact for me.

5.  Adoption of RF legal services

John:  Thanks Nicole and Budd for their work on this.  

Move to adopt by Bethany, seconded by???

Discussion?  

Melanie - I emailed yesterday with suggestion to add to quals, there shouldn’t be a conflict of interest if they are currently or previously engaged in litigation trying to affect outcome of prior Board’s decision.  I’m not an attorney.  You can’t represent two opposing clients at the same time.  Maybe not an issue.  

Budd:  Thanks.  I like that Melanie is concerned about conflicts of interest, but in something like this it’s critical to have legal experience with redistricting, so having been involved in the past with redistricting. [ Noise, please repeat.]  Good you thought about conflicts of interest and we should be aware.  But most critical thing is to have most qualified legal rep. and they get that from some kind of litigation on one side or another it doesn’t matter.  If we made a condition that they couldn’t represent one side or the other in the past, there wouldn’t be any one left with experience. 

We shouldn’t put it into RFI, but be aware and take that into consideration when reviewing proposal.  If we think they wouldn’t be objective and represent our interests, we don’t have to choose them.  But we should consider conflicts when we look at them.  

???:  Current conflicts would be important.  Good firms would have had previous experience.

Melanie - Just want the firm to have no conflicts.  

Budd:  If have a current conflict, they won’t apply.  Example:  If retained already by political party to represent them, they won’t apply.

Bethany? - Rules of Professional Conduct are clear and attorneys expected to comply.

John:  Any objection to motion?  If no objection, we can proceed.  [Adopted.]

All we have on the agenda.  Any comments?

Nicole - Peter and TJ did heavy lifting, though Budd and I willing to take credit, but they deserve it.  

John:  Then the two medals we were going to give you two will go to Peter and TJ.

Budd:  Draft on procurement procedures?

Peter:  Thanks.  Got feedback with some changes, I want to review those and I’ll bring that to board at final meeting.  Thought enough to do at this meeting. 

Melanie - I didn’t have issues.  I don’t need more time if others ready

???   - I’m prepared.

John - we could Amed the agenda to add approving procurement policy as presented by staff.  

Add item six:  approval of procurement code.

Budd:  Changes that staff made were largely ministerial and we discussed in last meeting in terms of what we want to see.  They provided the draft in advance so we had chance to look at.  We should thus go ahead and approve it so they can go on.

General State, the other was Legislative code.  Since we were thru the Legislative ??, so we deferred to Legislative and replaced the word “Legislative”  with the Board:

Peter:  one change of substance, “interested parties” people who could protest , limited to only those who had actually submitted a proposal.  

After the meeting I will publish the marked up pages.  That will be available for public as soon as possible.  

John:  Other discussion on motion to adopt?  Objections?  None, it is adopted.  

Other items board members want to bring up

Bethany - there’s another caller on the line ends with 19  - 

Someone from Juneau, member of public.

Peter:  One other item on RFI we will post this on full statewide public notice system.  Will put it up Monday morning (not just Leg site) and also through the Alaska Bar Association to make sure attorneys know.

John:  Motion to adjourn.  Talk about next meeting?  OK,  [they didn't talk about next meeting]

Melanie:  Move to adjourn.  Nicole, seconds

Objections?  Adjourned  1:55pm

Alaska Redistricting Board Chooses The Easy Contracting Process For Hiring Its Attorney

 The Redistricting Board met Tuesday, December 29, 2020, to take two actions:

1. Determine whether to use the Legislative or Administrative procurement process.  
2. Start the process for hiring an independent counsel for the Board

It appeared that the Board members were connected via zoom (someone talked about not being able to turn off the hand raised icon), but people like me using the phone line provided were only listening by phone.

But there was an agenda posted and links to the documents in the Board Members' packets.  Those present were: 

• Peter Torkelson as Executive Director 
• TJ Presley as Deputy Director. 
• John Binkley, Fairbanks, Chair of the Alaska Redistricting Board. 
• Melanie Bahnke of Nome, 
• Nicole Borromeo of Anchorage, 
• Bethany Marcum of Anchorage  
• Budd Simpson of Juneau.   

I'd note that the documents include the 2010 RFP for an attorney and the winning bid by attorney Michael White.

Which Process?  Below is a chart prepared by staff comparing procurement constraints of using the Administrative Code versus the Legislative Code.  

The brief discussion focused on:

• Minimum and Maximum bids
• Who could protest the decision
• How long each process would take

Procurement Code Features

State Procurement Statute is found at AS 36.60

Feature                              Administrative Code              Legislative    Code
No Bid Maximum	$50,000	$35,000
No Bid Max with documented justification	$100,000	No fixed ceiling
No Bid Direct Procurement Exception for State Agencies (UAA/Dept. Labor)	No	Yes
No Bid Direct Hire of Legal Counsel Allowed	No	Yes
RFP Time on the Street	20 days	20 days
RFP total time to complete once published	60 days	45-60 days
Protest Allowed	Yes, bidders only within 10 days	Yes, “interested parties” within 10 days
– Protest freezes contract execution	No	No
– Protest Step 1	Procurement Officer documents findings may implement remedy	Procurement Officer documents findings may implement remedy
– Protest Step 2	Commissioner of Administration who may refer case to an Administrative Law Judge	Appeal to Legislative Council
– Right of Appeal	Superior Court	Superior Court
Inter-branch payment coding required	Yes	No

They had several people available for questions:

• Emily Nauman, Attorney with Legislative Legal Services
• Rachel Witty, Attorney with Department of Law
• JC Kestel, Procurement Officer, Legislative Affairs Agency

The memo to the board discussing the options in more detail (and available as one of the links) was written by Legislative Legal staff member Emily Nauman and is dated December 23, 2019.   It concluded: 

"It is advisable that the Committee abide by competitive procurement rules.  However, the statutes establishing the Committee are silent as to what procurement rules apply.  Therefore, the committee can likely choose which procurement rules to abide by.  There are three options, the state procurement code (AS 36.30), the Legislative Procurement Procedures, or the Court System Procurement Guidelines.  Whatever set of procurement rules the Committee choses, it should abide by them consistently for all of its procurements.:

 In the discussion they also talked about the difference between using an RFP or an RFI.  Here, a key differences was that the RFP had to be "on the street" for 30 days and the RFI only 10 days, plus the RFI was much less 'formal.'  That is it has fewer checks in the process.  Some may see those checks as red-tape, but they were originally put there to make bodies more accountable.  But as long as the Board puts all their documents online, that should compensate for a faster process.  

Board member Budd Simpson of Juneau said that in any case he wanted the bid out on the street the full 30 days to make sure anyone interested had time to find out about and respond to it.  

He and Nicole Borromeo of Anchorage volunteered to work on the draft Request with Executive Director Peter Torkelson.  

Melanie Bahnke larified that the Board would be the evaluation and selection committee.  

Below are my rough notes as the meeting moved to the end:

Melanie Bahnke:  Move Board begins RFI process for Legal Counsel, board needs to approve.

John Binkley:  Discussion?  If no objection, the motion is adopted.  

I think that’s the only two items on the agenda

Let’s get this done as fast as possible.  

John Binkley:  Maybe we can get a time next week when we can all get together.

Budd:  I’ll send out an email notice.

?? - Going to have to be a weekend If next week.  We have other meetings.  

John:  Anything else?

Budd Simpson:  Peter and PJ could you run thru the Request for last time (ten years ago) and make necessary edits for dates and names to give us a first cut at what Nicole and I would take a look at.  When you make changes, do it with red lines so we can see changes easily.  Continue to use that so everyone can see changes.

Peter Torkelson:  OK, you guys should have in your head, how the RFI is going to deal with the Voting Rights Act changes.  Old one has clear language about pre-clearance and Voting Rights Act, not as important as last time since requirements no longer apply.

Melanie Bahnke - that was the main thing I saw about Voting Rights Act and pre-clearance.  Something else, these meetings are being recorded and made available.  Requirements of minutes, are these required?  Court reporter.

Peter:  On our agenda.  Chasing them down.  They are being recorded and posted on website within a week and stay there.  

John Binkley?:  I have name of court reporter and haven’t followed up with them.

JP:  Open meetings and public notice, we’ll have to adopt how we’re going to do that, voted on and all agreed on.  

John:  Anything else?

??:  Thank Peter and PJ for getting documents out well in advance.  

John Binkley:  Motion for adjournment?  Made and seconded.  Adjourned.  

??:  Someone is going to have to figure out who made the motions etc.  plus time adjourned etc.  3:10pm Adjourned.

Here are a few thoughts I have after following most of this process starting in March or so 2011:

Voting Rights Act (VRA) - 1964 law pushed through by President Lyndon Johnson after Kennedy was shot.  It recognized that a number of states had traditionally discriminated against minorities in voting and it identified 16 (I think) that needed to get pre-clearance from the Department of Justice before their redistricting plans could be approved.  Alaska was one of those states because of treatment of Native Alaskan voters. Many of the others were Southern states.  

Last time round the Board had to make sure that they didn't diminish, through redistricting, the voting power of Alaska Natives.  There could not be fewer districts than before in which Alaska Natives were a key block of voters.  Thus, the first plan was carefully worked on to be sure Alaska Native districts would not be diminished in order to get pre-clearance.  This involved a lot of terms like "Minority/Majority district":  Here's a post I wrote on the issue in April 2011.

After the Board got its pre-clearance (which included testimony by a VRA expert who helped the Board,  the first plan was successfully challenged and a second plan had to be undertaken.  Somewhere in this process the US Supreme Court, in Shelby v Holder in 2013  ruled that the section of the VRA that required the pre-clearance was out of date and no longer applied.  But the Board here pretty much kept the Native districts in compliance anyway.  However, since then many of the states that were required to get their plans pre-cleared have done everything they could to suppress black and other minority voters.  

We'll see to what extent Alaska Native districts are preserved this time round.  It isn't easy because in rural Alaska where Natives have a majority, the population is very sparse, resulting in some huge districts geographically.  And while there are enough Alaska Natives to have their own district in Anchorage, they aren' living just on one or two areas.  

Timing -  You may have noticed that the memo I quoted above was dated Dec. 23, 2019.  At the meeting they mentioned that the previous board had gotten their RFP for the independent counsel in October 2010 and so they were a bit behind and thus can't wait the long time period needed for an RFP.   I realize that we're in the middle of a pandemic, but we've all gotten better at distanced meetings and I'm not sure why the Board didn't start this process earlier.  On the other hand, the Bureau of the Census isn't going to be handing over the census data on time and it may arrive later than it did in 2011.  

Virtual Board Meetings -  There were a few times during the last board's tenure that I had to listen in online or by phone.  But by then I'd been to many, many meetings and I could recognize the voices of all the Board members and staff.  Listening in this time was trickier.  If someone didn't call on someone by name, I had to guess at who was speaking.  It appeared that the Board was connected by Zoom.  There's no technical reason why people who want to 'attend' the Board meetings can't do that via Zoom as well.  I've been on a couple of national zoom meetings where the key speakers had their video and sound on and everyone else just listened in, no video, no sound.  

I'd also note that the transcripts of the prior board were many months behind.  I later learned that one of the problems was the stenographers, who were getting audio tapes of the meetings, couldn't figure out who was talking and they needed to have that info on their transcripts.  

The Board has posted  video of three of the six meetings listed at the AKLeg website, including the December 29 meeting I'm reporting here.  And transcripts are so much easier to scroll through and search.  The the video that the Municipality puts up of the Assembly meetings does allow for searches.  

Transparency and Openness - I got to listen in to the last meeting because someone sent me a link to the site.  I'm still looking for the Board's website.  There are a couple of 'redistricting' sites for Alaska, but they look like someone has just bought the names.  They don't have anything to do with the actual Board that I can tell.  

And when the Board does get its website up, I'd like to request that they plan where it is going to be preserved.  There are lots of important Alaska documents there and they shouldn't disappear after the Board closes.  The various links to documents and maps shouldn't just go missing.  Perhaps the legislature needs to require the preservation of the website and all the linked documents.  One of the Alaska history related libraries in the state could be given the funds to maintain the site after the Board concludes its business.  

For those looking for transcripts of what happened ten years ago, the best resource I know are my own posts which are indexed here in chronological order starting March 15, 2011.  I'm hoping that the increase in local and state reporters at the ADN and at Alaska Public Media means that paid journalists will be covering this decade's redistricting board.  And I can just drop in now and then.   

Potential Conflict of Interest

When the Binkley family bought the Alaska Dispatch (formerly and presently the Anchorage Daily News) the ADN noted:"

"The buyer is the Binkley Co. LLC made up of siblings Ryan Binkley, Wade Binkley, James Binkley and Kai Binkley Sims. The group is working with Jason Evans, owner of Alaska Media LLC, though the proposed sale agreement lists only the Binkley Co. as buyer."

From what I can figure out - sorry, I haven't kept close tabs on Fairbanks personalities - these are John Binkley's children.  So there is at least the appearance of a potential conflict-of-interest in how the ADN might cover the Board.  Though it's also possible they allow the editor to run the newspaper independently.  

KTOO reported  that John Binkley took over the opposition to the recall of Governor Dunleavy last March.  Since then that campaign has gotten a huge assist from the Corona Virus.  But it means that Binkley is the third Board member with ties to Dunleavy, who appointed Bethany Marcum of Anchorage and E. Budd Simpson of Juneau to the Board.   I'm merely pointing these things out.  The Board has been pretty partisan in the past and as long as the members are appointed by politicians it will continue that way.