As Someone Who Closely Followed The Live Watergate Hearings, This Is Really Different

 I started this post while I was watching what I thought were the live Jan 6 hearings Thursday.  I was watching on YouTube, but I also followed the Twitter feed on the hearings and people were commenting on things I wasn't seeing.  In the long run, that's good, because what I was watching was not what I would expect after the committee hired a consultant to help them make the hearings more compelling.  

Turns out what I was watching was live in July 2021.  For anyone objecting to the committee getting professional help, just watch the old hearing.  You'll be thankful.  Same sort of thing - four law enforcement officers telling their stories, comments by committee members - but dragged on too long and was repetitive.

Then I found rerun of Thursday's hearing and things made sense.  It was significantly tighter and more compelling that the first one.  

But, it still was a very different experience than the Watergate hearings.  Those hearings had both Democrats and Republicans (a lot more even numbers) who took turns questioning witnesses.  Yes, like most committee hearings, they had already questioned the witnesses in private and pretty much knew what they were going to say.  But Republicans were able to do a sort of cross examination of the witnesses, softening the edges of those testifying against Nixon and bringing out more context in general.  

Also, revelations came out over time.  While the committee knew what was coming each day, often they only learned things a day or two before.  Like when Alexander Butterfield revealed that Nixon had a secret recording system in his office.  That was a blockbuster discovery.  It meant everything that people testified had been said could actually be checked on tapes.  Nixon went to the Supreme Court to prevent the release of the tapes claiming executive privilege.  No one knew what the Court would say.  But when they said the tapes weren't protected, it was pretty much over for Nixon once they started comparing the testimony against the tapes.  Lots of lying about what people knew and when they knew it.   Here's the part where Butterfield reveals the existence of the tapes.

This looks more like Trump impeachment hearings than the Jan 6 hearings, except the Republicans weren't stonewalling the whole event.  The interrogator in the clip is Fred Thompson, on the Republican staff, and later a GOP Senator from Tennessee.  In those days GOP staffers and members of Congress who helped investigate the GOP president weren't shunned by their party. And I don't recall any women or people of color involved.  Lots of Southerners, who were mostly Democrats in those days.  

The event Thursday night seemed more like the prosecution making their opening or closing argument before the jury.  Lots of gushing over the witnesses.  It was a strong, logical, evidence backed argument, but I can understand why GOP viewers might think it was partisan.  The tone of the Watergate hearings was much more formal.  While witnesses were thanked, they weren't fawned over.  

I'd also note the timing of  the events.   

• The break-in occurred May 28, 1972 (50 years ago last month).  
• Nixon was reelected in November 1972
• Alexander Butterfield testified before the Watergate Committee on July 16, 1973.
• Nixon resigned August 9, 1974.

These events just plodded along.  Here's a detailed timeline.  

The break-in didn't happen on national television like the insurrection did, but it took over two years before Nixon left office.  He resigned rather than be impeached.  Had he not resigned, it would have taken much longer. 

Two years for our current scandal will be January 2023.  And while Nixon supporters stayed loyal until the end, when it became clear he had lied to the American public, House and Senate Republicans did NOT rally to support him. (A few did, but most let him know he was going to be impeached if he didn't resign.)  

 [I realize as I write this there could be readers who don't know details beyond the word "Watergate." The Watergate housed a then new luxury hotel and office space and apartments.  The Democratic National Committee had an office there and Nixon operatives broke into those offices to spy on the Democratic campaign headquarters.  Sort of like breaking into the Democratic National Committee's computers in 2016] 

Letters To The Editor, Book Reference Sweeney And Termination

 I generally don't write letters to the editor of the Anchorage Daily News (ADN).  I have a blog where I can say what I need to say.  But we're in the middle of a special election to replace our member of Congress who died recently and an opinion piece the other day disturbed me.  

I wasn't planning on making this into a post, until a reference to Tara Sweeny showed up this morning.  So, first, here's my letter (The ADN picked the title, not me.)

No to Sweeney

"Hugh Ashlock (ADN, June 3) would have us vote for Sweeney for Congress because she will support business. Ashlock, a real estate developer, says he knows what qualities entrepreneurs need for success. He points out she’s been a leader of Arctic Slope Regional Corp., “Alaska’s largest privately owned company.” He also cites her “bipartisan cooperation” using her unanimous confirmation by the U.S. Senate as an example. But that was when the GOP controlled the Senate and Democrats voted for qualified nominees, unlike Republicans, who wouldn’t even let Merrick Garland have a hearing, let alone a vote.

Alaska has never been short of elected officials who support business. We’ve had oil company employees as elected officials. Ashlock says government needs to stand aside and let business do what it does best. The common goal of all businesses is to make a profit. Clean environment? Climate change? Worker health and safety? They see all these as obstacles to profit.

Bipartisanship? Arctic Slope Regional Corporation couldn’t even cooperate with the Alaska Federation of Natives and pulled out of that organization. GOP members of Congress are like the Uvalde police — they fled the insurrectionists and then refused to do their job and hold them accountable.

The age of oil is waning. Even big banks and oil companies are pulling back from Alaska oil. We need realists who see that the future is in a strong Permanent Fund, not in climate-destroying fossil fuels. We don’t need another oil executive (ASRC lives off oil) representing us in any governmental body. We need a candidate who believes health care is a human right and that women should have as much autonomy over their bodies as men, that voting rights and campaign spending limits are critical to democracy; who fights for workers’ rights, not for greater corporate power. Not someone who will join with her party to oppose all of these things in favor of higher profits."

When the letter was published I got a couple of emails from my book club.  One added this note:  

"Yes. Good letter Steve. Louise Erdrich also  lambasts Tara Sweeney in the Epilogue of her latest book “The Night Watchman.”

I got to that part this morning.  The book is a fictional account of how Erdrich's grandfather, in the 1950s learned that their tribal lands were going to be terminated.  Against all odds, he mounts a campaign to lobby Congress to prevent the termination, and succeeds.  I posted about the book recently because, while the fight against termination is the basic story, it's wrapped in the context of reservation life and Turtle Mountain Chippewa culture of the 1950s in North Dakota.  The termination villain in the story is real life Senator Arthur V. Watkins of Utah who believes 'government handouts' kills the initiative of Indians.  

Here's what the Epilogue says: 

"Indeed, the Trump administration and Assistant Secretary of the Interior Tara Sweeney have recently brought back the termination era by seeking to terminate the Wampanoag, the tribe who first welcomed Pilgrims to these shores and invented Thanksgiving."

Mind you, Tara Sweeny is an Alaska Native woman.  

*The ADN added the title.  While I am opposed to Tara Sweeny, my point was more about the fact that we have enough pro-business representatives.   

" . . . his father remembered a time when the dead person was carefully wrapped in birchbark and then fixed high in a tree."

 

I'm going to offer you the chapter "Cradle to Grave" from Louise Erdich's The Night Watchman. As I read it my body absorbed, in a new way, the meaning of the Anglo rulers rooting out the traditions, language, and knowledge of indigenous peoples.  And I realized that the GOP and evangelical Christian advocates of rooting out any mention of LGBTQ realities, women's rights, or the true history of the United States, of slavery, or even scientific truths,  rises from the same need to maintain one's own 'truths' by eliminating any competing 'truths.'

Stamping out other knowledge leads to ignorance which leads to total obedience.  Or so these would be tyrants believe. but the human mind has always  been resistant to these attempts.  Though the technology of modern marketing chips away and there are humans who would like to possess technology that controls what others know and think.  

Not only does such annihilation of ideas create obedience to "the one Truth" it delegitimizes the knowledge of the other culture.  This passage also shows us what we lose when we wipe out other cultural knowledge.  

My apologies to Louise Erdrich for quoting such a long passage.  This blog takes no ads and raises no money.  My hope is to share your wisdom and possibly get more people to read your book.  

"Thomas worked on the grave house while Wood Mountain finished up the cradle board.  They were working in Louie's barn because he had all of the tools - the saws, planes, rasps, the splitter, vise, hammer, and the sanding rocks.  Neither of them spoke.  Thomas was using a sharp chisel to dovetail the ends of the boards.  He didn't like using nails in a grave house.  He made a few rafters for the roof and then planed out the necessary shingles.  He'd seen them made with tar paper or bought shingles, but he felt close to Zhaanat as he worked - she had asked him to make the grave house because she knew he did it the old way.  Except, Thomas wondered, was this the really old way?  Biboon said that his father remembered a time when the dead person was carefully wrapped in birchbark and then fixed high in a tree.  It seemed better.  You were eaten by crows and vultures instead of worms.  Your body went flying over the earth instead of being distributed to the tiny creatures living under the earth. This grave house probably came about after they had been forced to live in one place, on reservations.  Mostly, they had Catholic burials.  He wanted to ask Wood Mountain which he thought was better, tree or dirt.  However, Wood Mountain was finishing the cradle board. 

"I suppose we shouldn't tell Zhaanat we were making the grave house and cradle board at the same time," he said to Wood Mountain.  

"You think it could be bad for the baby?"

"I'm not superstitious," said Thomas, although he certainly was.  Just not as bad as LaBatte with his fear of owls and his reading of random omens in everything.  Wood Mountain said that he'd light some sage and bathe the cradle board in the smoke to take the whammy off.

"That'll work," said Thomas. 

From the top of the cradle board, Wood Mountain was using Zhaanat's finest sanding tool - horsetail plant split and glued onto a piece of wood.  It was bringing out the narrow lines in the white cedar.  He had a jar of tea and a jar of vinegar in which he'd left some pennies for a week.  After he'd sanded the wood smooth, he painted the bottom of the cradle board with the tea, which gave it a soft brown color.  He painted the top of the wood with the penny vinegar, which tinged the wood with pale blue including the head guard.  He tied several pieces of sinew to the head guard.  sometimes he found small ocean shells while working in the fields.  Some were whorled;  others were tiny grooved scallops.  He drilled holes in them and hung them from the lengths of sinew. 

"Barnes was saying there used to be an ocean here," he said to Thomas.

"From the endless way-back times."

"Think of it.  Vera's baby will be playing with these little things from the bottom of the sea that was here.  Who could have known?"

"We are connected to the way-back people, here, in so many ways.  Maybe a way-back person touched these shells.  Maybe the little creatures in them disintegrated into the dirt.  Maybe some tiny piece from that creature is inside us now.  We can't know these things."

"Us being connected here so far back gives me a peaceful feeling," said Wood Mountain.

"That's what it's all about," said Thomas.  "And now we're putting another man in the earth.  Maybe a drunk, but he wasn't always a drunk."

"Sometimes when I'm out and around," said Wood Mountain, "I feel like they're with me, those way-back people.  I never talk about it.  But they're all around us.  I could never leave this place."

The United States would be a much healthier and spiritually  richer society today had it not been for the arrogance of white, Christian conquerors who believed they had the right to dispossess the indigenous people of their land and languages and customs.  Or the right to dispossess African slaves of their freedom and their labor.  

But that need for unquestioned power and obedience still lives among many in this nation and in this world.  I have no issue with spirituality and religions that try to guide people to experience their spirituality.  The Bible or Koran and other religious texts as allegory, as fables, that bring people comfort in times of sorrow and decency in times of opportunity, are fine.  But as literal truth to be thoughtlessly obeyed, a religion becomes the tool of authoritarian tyrants and demagogues.  

Trump, among others, gave permission to many to act on these selfish, evil impulses.  We'll get past this, but at great cost.  For those whose lives have been untouched by gun violence or climate change, or racial hatred, your escape is only temporary. Actually we've all been at least indirectly impacted even if we don't realize it.  If we don't overcome the dominance of oil wealth and drastically cut back our use of carbon based products, life will be unbearable for the vast majority of human beings.  And I worry for my grandchildren.

As the passage from The Night Watchman shows, the indigenous peoples of North America had spiritual beliefs and physical skills that kept connected to each other and to the earth for thousands of years.  Knowledge the immigrants from Europe could have benefited from if they hadn't tried to wipe it out.  

AK Redistricting - What's Next? Court Decisions And . . .?

The Supreme Court upheld the Superior Court's conclusion that the Board majority had gerrymandered once again and lifted the stay on the order for the Board to adopt Option 2 for the 2022 election.  But the Supreme Court did NOT lift the stay on having the Board adopt a permanent map for the rest of the decade.  

So, what's happening next?  There are two key factors:

1. What possible map other than the interim one (Option 2) could the Board come up with that would meet the narrow guidelines of the Superior Court?  
2. When is the Supreme Court going to weigh in?

First let's look at the possible maps, and then I'll share what I learned from the media liaison at the Supreme Court today.   

What possible maps other than option 2 could the Board draw that wouldn't be challenged?

My conclusion here is:  There isn't much wiggle room for the Board majority if they get the maps again.  First, they were told explicitly that the Senate Seat K (ER and South Muldoon) was intentionally gerrymandered and more vaguely that the two ER districts should be together.  They separated Seat K and put South Muldoon with North Muldoon.  But instead of pairing the two ER districts together, they left the Chugiak/ER district paired with JBER/Govt Hill and paired the other ER district with South Anchorage.  

The second time they were told to use Option 2, which also paired the two Muldoon districts, but paired the ER districts.  The Board minority (particularly member Marcum) REALLY wanted to keep Chugiak paired with JBER/Govt Hill.  But pairing the ER districts into one senate seat meant JBER got paired with another district in north downtown.  

I just don't see many choices for the Board now.  One of the instructions was to only make as many changes as necessary to fix the unconstitutional gerrymandering.  So there are a couple of Anchorage Bowl districts bordering JBER that could be played with, but I don't see any big payoff for anyone.  (I could be missing some incumbent pairing possibly.)  

That's a long way of saying the 2022 interim map seems like the only map that makes sense for the rest of the decade.  The Board majority could make a couple of Senate pairing changes just to show they won't be stuck with the Court order completely, but it would really be a waste of time and it would mess up incumbents and voters to change their Senate seats just out of spite.  

For those who want more detail about the changes, I've prepared the table below and the key parts of the 2021 map and the May 2022 map below.

This really isn't too difficult a problem.  But because we've gone through three different maps that caused a number of Anchorage House Districts to change numbers, it's tricky to describe.  So, let's look at the changes in the Anchorage House District numbers.  

NOTE
Senate districts are made by pairing two House Districts No House districts changed boundaries Some did change numbers Some did change Senate Seat pairing partners

I tried to make a chart showing which districts changed numbers, which changed Senate pairings, and which stayed the same.  I've used color to illustrate the changes.  I suggest you look at the chart, then look below the chart for more explanation of the colors.  

[Explanation:  Column 1 is the 2021 Proclamation Plan.  These are the original house districts and Senate pairings (#s are the House designation, Letters are the Senate pairings).  Column one are all aqua. 

If nothing ever changes, like HD 11 F, it stays aqua throughout.  

If the # changes the top half of the cell goes salmon the first time and lime green the second time. (unless  it changes back to the original number,  then it goes back to aqua.).  HD 9 (South Anchorage) kept the same number in the April map, but got paired with ER the second time.  So it stayed aqua on top, but changed to yellow on the bottom.  In May it kept its number and got its old Senate partner back, so it goes back to all aqua.  

If the Senate pairing changes, the bottom goes yellow the first time and blue the second time (unless it goes back to the original pairing, the it goes back to aqua.)]

Yes, I realize this is way too complicated, and if you find a simpler way to show it, please share it with me.  Here's another way to do this:  look at the maps.  But some districts are too big to fit.  I'd note that I'm only looking at the 2021 map and the last map (Option 2, May 2022).  

I've drawn boundaries around the Senate pairings.  Red is JBER/Chugiak/ER;  Black is ER/South Muldoon.  Blue is North Muldoon and U-Med.  Green is Downton and North Mt. View.  That's eight house districts, four Senate seats that are in play.  

Below is the May 2022 Option 2 map being used for the 2022 election.  The two Eagle River districts are paired (black lines.)  JBER/Govt. Hill are together (red).  North and South Muldoon are together (blue).  Then there are two others paired together (the former pairing of North Muldoon with the former pairing of Downtown (lime green.)  

That's pretty much all they can play with.  The Eagle River Senate seat is set.  The Muldoon Senate seat is set.  If you switched JBER/Govt Hill from downtown to North Mountain View, then you'd have to use some other districts.  

That leaves us with what is the court going to do next?  I emailed the Supreme Court's media liaison, Meredith Montgomery.  Below are my questions and her answers.

Q1.  When I look at the appellate court Most Requested Cases page (https://appellate-records.courts.alaska.gov/CMSPublic/Search/Media)  there are two redistricting cases listed.  One says "opinion issued" and the other says "closed."  But the Justices said earlier they'd give us a longer document which explained their April decision.  Is that still coming?

A1. There are two supreme court redistricting cases as you point out.  S-18332 is the one where we had the oral argument in March and issued a short order with the "full opinion to follow" language.  We don't really have a better status than "opinion issued" to reflect what is happening, but the case is still open and we are waiting for the "full opinion" to be issued.  The second case, S-18419 came to us as a petition for review on Judge Matthews's order following remand from our March order, and the supreme court quickly affirmed Judge Matthews ruling on the Board's second map and since we did not retain jurisdiction over that part of the case it is "closed."  

Q2.   What about a further explanation of their May 24, 2022 Order?  Might the two be consolidated?

A2. I have no idea if the "opinion to follow" in S-18332 will discuss anything further in the S-18419 case.  

Q3.  In the May 24 Order, they left the stay on for Judge Matthews' remand for the Board to work on a new plan for post 2022 elections.  Is there another order going to come on that?  There isn't much wiggle room for the Board to make changes to the map for 2022.  Does leaving the stay imply just leaving the 2022 map as the permanent map? (I know you can't answer that, but just to let you know the sense of my questions now, but some better closure than what we have now is necessary.)

A3.  I understand the supreme court May 24 order basically says that the "option 2" map will be used for the 2022 general election, and (this is where we are all guessing) that after the full, explanatory decision is issued in S-18332, the court will lift the stay and allow the Board to get back to work.  Of course, depending on what the order says, any need for additional work by the Board could become moot.  

Q4.  Timing of any further decisions/orders:

     A.  One natural milestone is today's June 1 deadline for candidates to file.

     B.  Another possible milestone is after the November 2022 election

     C.  The urgency of the original decisions isn't as great now, however,

     D.  It would seem unreasonable to leave the Board and its staff dangling for too long.  Staff will look for other jobs and that would cripple the Board moving forward.  And Board members potentially could resign rather than leave their lives on hold that long.  That would raise issues of who would replace them.  The previous legislative appointers and the Supreme Court appointer have all departed those roles.  If the governor is not reelected, there would be protests over him appointing any new Board members.  This seems like a problem the Court could avoid by deciding sooner than later.  

A4.  You raise good points about timing, etc.  I'm sure the supreme court is aware of them as well.  

Conclusion

I like the part where Montgomery writes, "depending on what the order says, any need for additional work by the Board could become moot. "   

My look at the district changes and the maps tells me the Board doesn't have many options left and changing the maps yet again only confuses voters and makes candidates' lives more difficult.  It makes most sense to go with the 2020 interim map.  

I'm guessing the Court is taking advantage of having a little more time to rule.  And they also wanted to see how the Board would react.  The Board did as ordered.  There were a lot of issues raised in the trial and in the second round of challenges.  From whether ANCSA lines can be used as "local borders" when drawing district maps to clarifying how to avoid intentional gerrymandering and perhaps modifying the language the Board's attorney relied heavily on, that "everything within a borough or city boundaries is Socio-economically integrated."  And I personally would like them to make a distinction between contiguity in rural areas where there aren't roads and contiguity in urban areas where there are lots of roads.  

So, trying to craft all that language for future Boards to rely on and getting agreement among the Justices takes time.  But the other issues I raised - maintaining Board staff and the potentially nasty problems that could arise if a Board member resigned - also mean that the Court should get a decision out before too long.  

The first 'natural' deadline - June 1, 2022, when candidates must file to run for office in 2022 - is no past.  (Or will be by the time I get this posted.)  I would guess the next word from the Court will either be a decision with directions on what to do next (including possibly leaving 2022 interim plan in place) or a schedule for the Board so they don't hang in limbo too long and can plan their lives.

Democratic Congressional Candidate Debate Made Me Vote Constant

 I'd narrowed my choices down to Mary Peltola and Christopher Constant in the primary for the special election to replace Don Young.  

With 48 or so people running, followed by our first ever ranked choice general (still special) election, it's confusing.  It would seem that Democrats need to give enough votes to one or two candidates to make sure at least one ends up in the final four.  

But after watching this Tongass Democrats Debate recently, it was clear to me that Constant was clearly the most prepared.  He was well prepared for all questions and had the details of issues at his fingertips and could articulate them clearly and concisely.  Made the decision much easier for me.  

So I invite others to watch and judge for themselves.  

I'd note that the lack of statewide debate forums is a problem in this election.  I realize that public radio/public television or even the private stations can't have a debate with 48 people.  But there's only one race, so they could have eight debates of about six people each.  They could decide if they would be randomly picked, or picked by party, or however.  Having an open primary is great, but it doesn't help unknown candidates if there is no statewide debate forums.  It only helps candidates with lots and lots of money or prior name recognition.  

And another note about the mail in election.  Yesterday J took our ballots to Loussac to put them in the drop box.  They said there was no drop box and to go to the post office.  [Turns out the drop boxes aren't available until May 27.]  Well, today our ballots came back to us.  I read all the instructions carefully and thought I followed them.  But our name and address was on one side and the Election Office address was on the other side, and it got mailed back to us.  Our mail carrier had already noticed it and was going to take it back.  He said it was the only one he'd seen come back like that.  

So, there's a design flaw in the ballots if they can get mailed back to the voter instead of to the election office.  Pay attention when you're mailing your ballot.  Or just wait until the 27th and put them in the drop box.  

AK Redistricting Board Meets And Approves Option 2 Map For 2022 Election As Ordered By Court

 Given this process has been going on since Fall 2020, a lot happened today.  Following Sunday's Board meeting, the Alaska Supreme Court today took off the stay on Judge Matthews' order for the mapping to be remanded to the Board for them to adopt Option 2 maps for the 2022 Election.  

The stay was NOT lifted for the other remand - to adopt a final plan for the rest of the decade.

The Board met.  The attorney explained his understanding of the ruling.  The removal of the stay of the first remand was clear.  The second part was not as clear in terms of the Court's instructions to the Board.  Attorney Matt Singer said that it was a dispositional decision, meaning a fuller explanation would come out in a future order.  

The Board then voted 5-0 to adopt Option 2 as the interim proclamation plan for the 2022 election.  This was the map proposed by the East Anchorage plaintiffs that joined the two Eagle River districts into one Senate seat and combined the JBER/Government Hill district with the downtown district.  

In response to member Bahnke's comment that the Court could instruct the Board to do something else later, attorney Singer said, or they could make this the permanent proclamation plan.  That the Court would probably make its wishes clearer in the future.  

But, in the meantime, the 2022 election map has now been squared away and there's a little breathing room before determining exactly how the permanent map will be decided.  

Finally, Board members had a chance to make comments.  Most thanked others.  Bethany Marcum apologized to the military whose rights, she felt were violated by joining them with downtown.  She called it a travesty.  [Last November I wrote about how the military are hardly unrepresented in our state legislature and are probably the most favored group of people in the State.]  I do believe that member Marcum has convinced herself of the injustice here, but she's just flat out wrong.  

The Board now awaits further word from the Alaska Supreme Court on their next move.  

The map they approved of is in the previous post.  

My Rough Notes of the Meeting

ARB Meeting May 24, 2022  3pm

3pm call to order

Roll call:  Bahnke - here  Borromeo - here   Marcum here  Simpson here  Binkley  -  all hear

Adoption of draft agenda.  Short. 

Melanie:  Hope Matt will explain what the court order is.  

Simpson:  don’t need an amendment, comes under item #3.  

Approved 

Item 3 is adopt 

Singer:   Court issued a ‘dispostional order’  court’s reasoning will follow later in a written opinion.  Affirmed the lower courts ruling Senate District L, required to adopt Senate pairing in Option 2 for 2020 State Elections

Court held also that Matthews order to later comeback and adopt a final plan remains stayed.  I think Bahnke - we have to guess a bit to know what the SC meant.  When the Court issues a full opinion that will explain our next steps.

Board’s task is narrow and doesn’t leave any room but do what was directed:  Adopt Option 2 for 2022 election.

That’s my report.  Thank you.

Binkley:  Questions?  Melanie, does that satisfy your questions.  

Bahnke:  They could tell us to do something further.

Singer??:  Or they could say this will be the final proclamation.  It would nice if the court added another sentence telling us what they intend.  Probably they intend to provide more guidance in the future.  

But now Peter and I recommend making it clear this is for the 2022 Election and will remain in place until we do anything else.  But we really have to wait for further guidance from the court.

Peter Torkelson:  The public notice has been updated with draft version of the language and map.  

Bahnke:  Move to adopt amended proclamation plan as ordered by the Supreme Court

Simpson:  “interim” should be part of it

Bahnke:  No objection

Seconded by Borromeo.  Discussion?

Bahnke:  grateful we finally have clear guidance from the SC and so speak in support of the motion.

Simpson:  Out of respect for the authority of the court I intend to support the motion.  

Binkley:  Peter roll call

Bahnke:  yes  Borromeo  yes.  Marcum yes  Simpson  yes  Binkley  yes

5-0 motion carries

Board member comments:

Bahnke:  Thank all the public who have participated in this process.  The litigant that insisted the Senate pairings are unconstitutional. And the people who have reported on this process as well.  And to Justice Matthews and the Supreme Court thank them for making sure justice prevails.

Marcum:  I would like say on behalf of our military.  Implications for military will be major.  Dominated by downtown voters.  JBER voice will be lost.  Ironic that those who have sacrificed the most

Borromeo:  I want to extend appreciation to fellow Board members, we haven’t agreed all the time, but I appreciate that each of you have given your time and made personal sacrifices.  And thank you to staff who are the best of Alaska.  Three branches of government are important and remain independent and along with the four of you to finish this process.

Binkley:  Also want to extend my gratitutde.  Especially the SC who worked expeditiously so election can go forward on time without interruption.  Whether we meet again to discuss maps or just wrap things up.  

Move to adjourn Nicole

Simpson second

Bahnke:  If we have another meeting can we notice that allows public testimony

Thank you.  Further discussion on motion?  

3:20pm

Supreme Court Removes The Stay On Judge Matthews Order To Use Option 2 for 2022 Election - Board Meeting 3pm Today

 From the end of the Supreme Court's order today:

What does this mean?  

Basically, the Alaska Supreme Court agrees that the Redistricting Board Majority unconstitutionally gerrymandered for a second time in an attempt to give Eagle River residents two seats at the expense of other Anchorage districts.  The removed the stay on Judge Matthews' order which had called for:

•  That map Option 2 be used for the 2022 election (this is the map that was proposed by the East Anchorage plaintiffs.  It combines the two Eagle River house seats into one Senate seat.  It pairs the JBER/Govt Hill house seat with downtown Anchorage - and adjusts a couple other north Anchorage house districts to form other Senate pairings to accommodate the gerrymandered pairings.
• Remand to the Board the job of making a final map for the rest of the decade continues STAYED.  (Not sure what that suggests.  That they don't trust the Board to do the right thing the next time round.  

This is a huge rebuke to the Board majority and vindication for the two minority Board members - Melanie Bahnke and Nicole Borromeo who have be strong advocates for a fair process.  

While I was writing this a saw the notice that the Redistricting Board is meeting TODAY at 3PM

TODAY, 3pm  Alaska Redistricting Board Meeting, 

The Alaska Redistricting Board will meet by teleconference on Tuesday, May 24 at 3:00PM.

The public may listen by calling one of the following phone numbers:

 - Anchorage 563-9085

 - Juneau 586-9085

 - Other 844-586-9085

Presumably, when the Board meets again this afternoon, Matt Singer will attempt to explain to the Board what the Court's Order means.   

Why did the Court stay the remand for the Board to set the map for the rest of the decade?  Because they don't trust them to do it right?  Because they want more specific instructions first?  Because they have something else in mind?  

Whoops!  I forgot to add the maps which you can also find here, larger.  

Option 2 - The map submitted by the East Anchorage plaintiffs and which today the Supreme Court said this is the map to be used for 2022 Election.  Both Eagle River house districts are in one Senate seat.  

Option 3B - Submitted by Randy Ruedrich and chosen by the Redistricting Board and thrown out by the courts.  This map paired the two Eagle River districts with other districts - one with JBER/Govt Hill and the other with South Anchorage/Hillside. 

Actually, I Do Believe There Is A Precedent . . . Response To Girdwood Plaintiff Filing

The following paragraph is the in the Girdwood Plaintiff filing of May 20, 2022 (pp.29-30)

"The Board argues that “since Section 11’s enactment in 1998, no Alaska court has

mandated the Board adopt any specific house or senate district[,]” and, in any event, the

superior court lacked the power to correct the Board’s error.106 The problem with the

Board’s argument is that the Alaska Constitution expressly contemplates in article VI,

section 11 that instances may arise where a court must exercise its mandamus power “to

correct any error in redistricting.”107 The fact that past courts have not needed to   

exercise their mandamus authority does not mean the constitutional remedy is 

unavailable; it merely means that no prior board has been so derelict as to require 

mandamus."

What is this about? 

(This is probably more than the average Alaskan cares or needs to know.)

The Girdwood plaintiffs had argued that given the June 1 deadline for candidates to file to run for the November 2022 election, there isn't time to give this back to the Board in hopes they will fix their error.  And thus it was okay for Judge Thomas Matthews to mandate - as he did in his decision - the the Board's Option 2 map be used for the 2022 election.  

The Board argued that the Court didn't have the authority to substitute its judgment for the Redistricting Board's judgment.  The Girdwood plaintiffs are arguing that, in fact, the judge does have the authority.  

I want to focus on the bolded sentence:

"The fact that past courts have not needed to exercise their mandamus authority . . ."

I want to point out that in 2012, the Courts, did, in fact, decide on what map options would be used in the 2012 election.  The Board had made a new map based on the Court's instructions, but then the Court decided to take part of that map and part of a prior map for use in the 2012 election.

I posted about this earlier.  I had thought that the original, unconstitutional map had been used for 2012 because a better map hadn't yet been approved.  But I went back and looked at my blog posts for the Redistricting Board for that round.  Here's my April 7, 2022 post looking at the old posts on this topic.

That posts lists a bunch of posts from that year regarding the appeals.  There are two that seem most relevant.  The May 7, 2012 post and the May 22, 2012 post which describes the decision.

May 7, 2012 

• The Supreme Court Substitutes Amended Proclamation for Redistricting Board's Interim Plan - Hearing Thursday 10am  

May 22, 2012

• Supreme Court Chooses Amended Proclamation Plan, With Original, Not New, SEast Districts -  Describes the court's decision. 

This May 22, 2012 post includes this paragraph:

"The court has accepted the Southeast districts as configured in the plan of April 5, 2012 rather than the reconfiguration submitted by the Redistricting Board to the court on May 14, 2012 because of the numerous objections to the reconfigured districts that this court has received.  While the reconfigured districts may comply with the redistricting criteria of article VI. section 6 of the Alaska Constitution, there is a risk that the United States Department of Justice would decline to pre-clear them under the Voting Rights Act.  Notice of the failure of the Department of Justice to pre-clear the new districts would come so late in the 2012 election cycle that a great disruption to the election process would result.  In order to avoid this possibility, the court will not require the use of the May 15, 2012 reconfigured districts for the 2012 elections." 

Now, I don't know if they invoked Mandamus here.  If not, then what happened is a little different from what the Girdwood plaintiffs are arguing.  What I do understand from this is that the court picked options from two different maps submitted by the Board at different times and that decision by the court was used for the 2012 election.  And then the Board was given everything back to come up with a better map.

That seems to me a clear example from the last redistricting round of what Judge Matthews has done this round.  He hasn't substituted his judgment for the Board's because what he has done is simply an interim plan for the 2022 election.  Instead, he's said, the Board's map (option 3B) is unconstitutional because of illegal gerrymandering.  So, rather than use an unconstitutional map for the 2022 election, I'm ordering the 2022 Option 2 map to be used.  For this election only, until the Board gives us a constitutional map.   

My Guess Is That The Board Majority Torpedoed Their Case In Today's Meeting

[NOTE:  May 22, 2022 7:45pm:    I cleaned up the worst of my rough notes of the meetings - though there are still gaps that I didn't catch, and made a few changes to the post.  This fits within my blogger equivalent of the 2 second rule for eating food that falls on the floor.]

 Basically, the Board met.  It voted (3-2) to 

1. approve Board response to the Girdwood Appeal (which was already submitted the other day)
2. affirm that the litigation subcommittee, made up of John Binkley and Budd Simpson, were delegated authority to consult with the Board's attorney and approve all legal actions now and into the future

The meeting went from just after 3pm to 4:30

The two minority members repeatedly objected on the grounds that the original delegation of authority to the litigation committee was limited to 'routine decisions' but did not include the final decision whether the Board should file appeals and on what.  They also argued that the litigation committee was supposed to be open to all Board members and they had not been noticed about any meetings,  that essentially the Board decisions were now delegated to two Board members and the attorney.  

The two dissenting Board members said they had repeatedly asked to be included as observers in the litigation committee and had not been responded to.  

There were also allegations about what Simpson had told Bahnke after he voted with Borromeo and Bahnke on the House Districts back in November and things that Singer told Borromeo about his views on Marcum, which Chair Binkley worked hard but in vain to suppress and which Simpson strongly denied.  

My Take On This

If the Board had actually voted to delegate full authority to the litigation committee back in December, then this last minute, Sunday Board meeting wouldn't have been necessary.  They would have already had the authority.  There was no need to vote again first to approve the litigation (which was due Friday) and second to reauthorize the litigation committee's authority, which they seemed to have expanded indefinitely into the future.  If all their rhetoric about this already having been approved were true, there was no need for this meeting.

This subcommittee was given extraordinary power.  Two Board members, meeting in secret, were given the power to determine legal strategies and to approve whether the Board was going to appeal challenges and what aspect of the challenges they would appeal.  Two Board members complained they were blocked from all information from this committee.  And that all actual decisions needed to be made publicly - by the Board as a whole.  From the Governor's memo of the Open Meetings Act:

"Is secret ballot voting allowed under the act?

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

Subcommittees in the State legislature and on the Anchorage Assembly are required to notice their meetings and make them public.  While this issue didn't explicitly come up, I suspect that these were all illegal meetings.  They can argue that they were discussing litigation and that that can be covered in Executive Session.  But these subcommittee meetings were, de facto Executive Session meetings without any notice to the public, as required, on why they were going into ES.  And the final vote is required to be taken in public.  

I'm guessing that the Board majority members got together and decided that they did not want to share their discussions about legal strategy with the minority members.  They strongly disagree with the minority members.  Minority members have publicly disagreed with the Board and charged them on several occasions with partisan political gerrymandering.  I'm guessing the majority Board members were afraid the minority members would spill their strategies to opposing counsel and hurt the Board's case - I understand the logic, but there are some problems this action would have created.  They didn't declare this publicly.  They didn't confront the minority members with their concerns.  But it goes beyond that.  

The exemptions for Executive Session for legal discussions are not open ended.  They are quite limited.  

From the Governor's Guide to the Public Meetings Acy [page 3]:

"(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."  [page 6]

Only option 1 here is a possibility.  But exactly how would the Board majority show that what they discuss would "clearly have an adverse effect upon the finances of the public entity"?  In this situation the minority Board members pointed out that the Board has already spent about $1 million in attorney fees.  The Superior Court has twice concluded that the Board had engaged in partisan gerrymandering. The Supreme Court has already determined that once and will decide on that allegation a second time soon. The Board minority could argue that the majority  decisions have already had an adverse effect on the finances of a public entity.  Had they followed the minority's recommendations, this would have all been over already.  But there is really no cost to the Board majority to push their cause.  The Board pays the attorney fees, and there is no personal cost to the members for going in this direction.  Even if the court finds against them again.  

I would note that I have pointed out several times on this blog that I didn't think the Board had gone into Executive Session properly and that the Superior Court also cited that as a problem.  

My sense is that this meeting clearly shows that two Board members held regular secret meetings with the Board attorney to decide how to proceed with the legal case.  These meetings were not noticed to the public or to all the Board members.  They were essentially meeting in Executive Session without ever explaining why they were in ES (and it would be hard for them to demonstrate any legitimate reason to be in ES), AND they then voted outside the public view.  Even outside the view of other Board members.  

This meeting seems to be an attempt to:

1. Get a majority vote in public to proceed with litigation, though the Court could, potentially find that the decision to respond was not properly voted on, but I'm guessing they'll overlook that and simply vote against the Board on the merits, not on a technicality.  
2. To delegate authority to the Litigation Subcommittee so that it clearly allows them to meet and vote in secret.  

I don't see how the members of the Supreme Court can't see this as more evidence of political gerrymandering through secret meetings of the Board.  This time the meetings were even secret from two of the Board members.  

If the Board had a chance of winning their case before the Supreme Court before today, I'm pretty sure they've completely ruined it with today's actions.  They demonstrated in plain sight, to everyone, that they are willing to ignore the law to continue fighting for two Senate seats for Eagle River.  And to spend $1 million of public money to do that.  

I would note that Board Chair John Binkley said that the previous Board spent over $3 million in legal fees.  (Though they were still in court in 2014, and we're only in the first round this time.)  Further, Board member Borromeo said at the meeting that her and member Bahnke' legal fees are NOT being paid by the state.  The two are paying for it and hoping to raise money to cover it all.  Just that alone - their willingness to spend their own money on this - should give some evidence of their sincerity.  

I realize this post reveals that I've made a judgment on this issue.  I usually try to articulate the various sides of any situation objectively and fairly.  I've been covering the Redistricting Board since December 2020.  I do believe that I am still covering it objectively.  I've been an eyewitness to all this.  I'm just telling you what I've seen publicly and what I see as the reasonable conclusions about what happened behind the scenes.  And the Supreme Court decision will determine if I was right or wrong.  

My Rough Meeting Notes

Below are my rough notes of the meeting.  I haven't gone through to edit them yet.  But I'll put them up now - this time there is no video of the meeting. There will probably be an audio recording.  I'll try to go through and clean up the typos.  BUT REMEMBER these are my amateur attempts to record what I heard and there are gaps, typos, missing moments, but it's as reasonable a written record as is probably available now.  [I have since edited some of this.]

ARB Meeting May 22, 2022 

3pm Board Meeting to approve appeal to Supreme Court.  

John Binkley, Nicole Borromeo, Bethany Marcum,  Melanie Bahnke, 

Peter Torkelson, staff, working to get Budd Simpson

Apparently they are all just dialing in - no Zoom, no video??

Talking to each other with exaggerated politeness - at least Binkley and Borromeo are.  Bahnke is recovering from COVID.

3:06pm still waiting for Simpson to be hooked in

3:07 - Budd’s on

Binkley:  calling to order 3:06 pm 

Calling roll - all present

Binkley:  move to adopt agenda.

So moved

Borromeo:  point 

Marcum:  Second

Borromeo:  I would like to add public testimony to the agenda  We have long standing custom of accepting public testimony at meetings.  

Bahnke also has another amendment.

Binkley:  Motion to amend:  Nicole?  

Bahnke:  Can’t video or let public testify because a last minute meeting, even though we’ve been calling for a meeting since appeals.  We have always had public testimony.  Support

Simpson:  I agree there’s a role for public testimony, but probably not at this meeting.  But we have rulings from the court that gives us guidance but don’t need start this meeting.

Marcum:  I see this as procedural matter.  We haven’t taken public testimony at all meetings, if we were mapping, different.  Meeting is open to the public and have not given public notice about testimony, so not fair.  

Borromeo:  Checked with Peter yesterday because couldn’t get the streaming.  This is the only time we haven’t had public testimony.  

Bahnke:  Decision we make here could be important to final map.  That this will have consequences for the state for the next ten years.  Could impact state elections for ten years.

Simpson:  As I understand it, the website remains open for written public testimony all along and can continue to take that 24/7 and people can use that.

Bahnke:  Roll call vote please

Binkley:  We can have a roll call vote.  Motion to amend agenda to add public participation.

Peter:  Bahnke: yes  Borromeo:  yes, Marcum, Simpson, Binkley all three no

Bahnke:  Add, add Board member comments and 

Marcum:  Two or one amendment?

Bahnke:  Something about legislation committee.  Want opportunity to make closing comment as you’ve allowed.  Scope of litigation committee’s authority.  Need to discuss before 

Binkley:  I thought we would talk about litigation committee in #4, and no problem with comments at the end.

Objections:  

Simpson:  Assumed it was covered in number 4, so no problem.

Marcum:  same

Bahnke:  

Binkley:  I see there is only one issue, member comment.  

Unanimous consent.

 Item one - ok, adopt the agenda which has been amended

Add litigation committee authority in 4 and add member comments at end

Matt, I assume you’re on the line.

Singer:  There were two more recent legal challenges 

 East Anchorage said violated Superior court’s prior order

Girdwood moved to intervene, said violated VI and Equal Rep.

Judge dealt with that quickly 

Found Senate District E violated Equal Protection clause.  All aware of filing deadline for candidates.  Board appointed a litigation committee in December and has been supervision Board council and directed me to file a petition for review which we did, May 17, one day after Court decision and then at SC direction submitted a substantive brief on the 18th.  Girdwood Plaintiffs filed opposition 20th.  That matter is probably fully briefed.  This weekend the SC is probably working hard.

Two Board members argued that Board acted without authority.  I want to address that and make recommendation.

December committee gave the committee full authority, but changes to maps was held for whole Board.  Acknowledged that courts would be fast moving and that was the case.  Fastest pace of my career.  

I understood if settlement to be made or day to day made by the Board, management were decisions delegated to the committee.

Constitution requires 3 votes, but aware of Alaska case that would preclude a delegation of authority to staff.  We hired an Ex Dir, he’s performing an action of the Board.  Been a public entity attorney my entire career.  I find no problem.  10 years ago a single member was responsible.  

Understand the litigation committee only set up for a prior lawsuit, but now we are doing a different case.  But incorrect.  Girdwood moved to intervene, same case, judge, same case number.  

No respect to alternative points of view.  One Board member said they would not abide by the litigation committee.  But just as one member cannot adopt a new district without the colleagues.  As your lawyer.  I have to follow directions to me by the Board.  Any collection of at least three of you.  And if three of you delegate authority to a committee, then I do that.

Two Board members disagreed and hired a separate lawyer.  It’s appropriate the Board met today in respect to those concerns and to address them.

Consider and vote and ratify the decision and that the litigation committee will continue with authority.  While I disagree the committee acted inappropriate , I have no issue with raising this today.  

Also institutional issues.  Constitution gives us very little guidance about Senate district.  I have looked at past SC decisions for guidance.  We may not like this process, but final direction and clarity for people sitting in my seat ten years from now.

Judge Matthews also telegraphing it would help him too.  He’s asking for guidance from the SC.  

Last note, everyone involved is mindful of June 1 candidate filing deadline.  By all indicators the SC appreciates that deadline.  I think they are working over the weekend so I guess they are working today too.  I expect that will decide.  Either we are done or more work.  

Thank all the Board.  I know you are all very good people.  May need another public meeting if Court directs.

Marcum:  Note for the record, I’m prepared to make a motion.

Bahnke:  Request that we discuss this before motions made

Bahnke:  Thank you Matt for the update.  Unfortunately we had to go that route because we have been continually ignored when requested meeting to review the claims.  No chance to review.  Didn’t even vote. Back in February we did that process.  We were outvoted then.  And probably will again today.  We did not abrogate our authority to litigation committee.  When ordered to make final map, that map was voided.  Any action we take that can impact the final map needs to be voted on by the whole Board.  Thought we could discuss those final.  I asked to be able to observe litigation committee.  That was ignored.  Never notified about litigation meetings.  Appeal pretty weak.  Doesn’t address superior court findings.  It did not allow litigation committee to usurp the Board decision.  We may be outvoted again, but process matters.  Sounds like we won’t even vote on whether there was an appeal.  Filings unauthorized.  CAn’t retroactively do it today. 

Marcum:  Roberts Rules - no notion so far.

Bahnke:  It’s part of the issue

Binkley:  That’s ok, no further discussion?

Borromeo:  Address Matt’s comments, but first back to Matt’s motion.  I’m talking about the Dec. 15 motion.  I’ll read it:  Came from Matt Singer:  reading:  In coordination with staff will be responsible for day to day, but any final decisions that affect our proclamation plan will be voted on by the whole Board.  Just the pending litigation.  Qualifier here.  “routine, day to day strategy”  nothing 

Hardly any decisions came before the whole Board.  As the drafter, Matt should have known that litigation committee usurps the whole Board’s authority.  

As really as 11 April, I started messaging you about concerns about the Board abdicating to committee.  I challenged you at least ten times.  It wasn’t just something out of the blue.  I asked who gave this authority.  You said you see nothing about delegation.  If go that way, what would have prevented us from a mapping subcommittee.

3.  Factually incorrect that this is not a new lawsuit.  Girdwood was not involved in early part.  You yourself say “  Any party agreed by a new, should be entitled to judicial review.  Your assertion that you are the Board’s lawyer, that needed when you became the litigation committee’s lawyer.  

You have exercised your duty to litigation committee.  Thank you very much.

Simpson:  I’ll keep short.  I agree with Mr. Singer’s analysis and interpretation of powers delegated to litigation committee.

Marcum:  can I make a motion?

Binkley:  go ahead

Marcum:  I move to approve and ratify the decision of the litigation committee to appeal theGirdwood appeal and affirm the delegation to the litigation committee until all appeals are final.  

Simpson:  Second

Marcum:  

Borromeo:  ???  

Marcum:  I believe the committee had full power for litigation, not map making.  We should ask for court’s guidance for this and important for future Boards.  Agree with what the committee has done and their authority to do so.

Bahnke:  If that were the case we wouldn’t have had the February meeting.  In Feb we took a vote to appeal to supreme court.  We haven’t had a chance to review the court’s findings and whether we should proceed.  

He told me his wife was angry and would go to the Governor when he voted for the House map.

We don’t have the power to delegate authority to member committee of the Board that will make decisions that will impact the elections for the set of Alaska

Simpson:  Once again, my wife has been brought into the discussion.  Melanie made a factual comment that is inaccurate.  My wife was not angry.  No one in the governor’s office never said anything.  However I voted was based on my own judge.  No one tried to change that.  No other Republican spoke to me angry about it or objected to it.  ONly negative comments have been the other party that has been extremely angry, personal, that upset the Democrats who are watching this process.  I reject the assertion my wife had any impact or pressured me in any way.

Bahnke:  Caution members to be professional and not question motives

Bahnke:  You told me that I don’t make stuff up.  I have no idea about the governor’s office.  I’m repeating what you told me.  When findings of secretive messages.  I’m not brining up party issues.  

Binkley:  Let’s keep it to the issue before us.  Not relevant

Borromeo:  Friendly amendment.  I would like to amend the motion in one of two ways.  If majority feels so strongly about this appeal that they should pay for it or that Matt’s team does it pro bono.  We are over $1million.  

Binkley:  If you want to make a motion and get a second.  

Your motion is an amendment to the motion on the floor.

Melanie:  I second the motion to amend.

Borromeo:  Back in Dec.  we were incurring a legal debt of $80,000.  Now we are near $1million.   We are abusing  the public trust and treasury.  If you don’t want to pay for it then Schawbe [Singer’s law firm] should do it pro bono.

Roll all:  Bahnke Borromeo:  yes  Marcum, Simpson, Binkley: no

Binkley:  We have the original message before.

Bahnke:  Clarity from Matt.  Read aloud about the Board having to vote to take action of the whole Board.

Singer:  Let me find it.  Section 9 concurrence of 3 members is required for actions of the Board, but 2 to conduct hearings.  

Simpson:  Any member who thinks it’s unconstitutional should vote against it.  There’s a filing about this from dissenting Board members.  The court can decide on that.  I think we should continue to vote on the motion.

Marcum:  Appeal and delegate to the litigation committee until there is final court approval.  

Borromeo:  I thought the motion had to be one topic only in Robert’s Rules of Order.  Would she be amenable to first vote to approve the appeal,  

Binkley:  I understand that.  Legitimate motion and the chair accepts it as such.  

Bahnke:  Seems we are taking several actions on one motion.  Just as Simpson wanted to separate SE issues into two motions.  And I think we separate them into two motions.  

Marcum:  I would note that it was mischaracterized.  Not treading new allowances for the litigation committee.  It’s just confirming what we already gave the committee.  Nothing has changed and they can continue operating.  So I’ll  vote against.

Simpson:  My understanding that this is affirmation.

Borromeo:  Then why are we holding this meeting?  If the majority’s opinion is right, there is no need for this meeting.  

Binkley:  The filing by the dissenters caused some confusion and hope this clarifies it for the SC.

Bahnke:  Yes, Borromeo Yes - Others all no

Motion to amend fails.

Discussion on main motion.

Borromeo:  Want to know what litigation committee is being advised.  It was agreed back then  that others could listen in and we have never been noticed of meetings.  Singer has characterized Marcum as nuts but goes along with the splitting of ER.

Binkley:  Not relevant

Borromeo:  It is relevant

Bahnke:  I think we’re asking something new.  Expanding it to allow for continued secrecy that excludes member of the Board from being privy to strategy.  Creating a mechanism to cloak the secrecy and outcome based work Board was accused of.  Hiding it by keeping it secret and exclude other Board members.

Binkley:  Call the roll

Bahnke no Borromeo no  Marcum  yes  Simpson yes   Binkley yes.  

3-2 motion carries

4:19  Board member comments

Bahnke:  Glad we are finally having a meeting.  Even if outvoted, it at least happened open to the public.  We took proper procedural actions in February to appeal the case.  That didn’t happen this time.  Appeal not properly sanctioned, we missed the deadline.  The Courts will maki a decision we will have to abide by.  Board process has silenced those of us against the Supreme Court.  Baffled by lack of respect of the process.  Probably last time.  $1million later.  

We did not have a vote to appeal.  The appeal is not valid.

Borromeo:  I do want to thank the Board for noticing and holding a board.  While we don’t have the votes to stop the appeal,  But not about that, about having our meetings in public.  If we could have met as a Board, two of us wouldn’t have had to hire counsel to have a public meeting.  Hopefully the next Board will do it better.

I noticed the Board two days before filing, but Board ignored us.  We filed - we are paying for that attorney ourselves, not the public.  I’m ready to work with the Board, but won’t rubber stamp the Board and wait to find out the decisions when the public does.

Marcum:  Note for the record we are not silencing the public.  They can still use the portal and I welcome comments the public and encourage them to comment.  

Bahnke:  Once again request that we be kept informed of the litigation committee.  We’ve been completely cut out by the litigation committee is going to happen and I have the same info shared with me as with the rest of the board.  

Binkley:  There has been about $1million in litigation so far.  Previous Board spent about $3.5 million.  That went over a number of years.  That went over a couple of years.  This may too.  Not unusual.  Sometimes adversarial.  No secrete that two Board members differed and that’s the situation we find ourselves in.  It makes sense to confirm the authority of the litigation committee.

4:28  -  Adjourned 

McHugh Creek And Potter March Beat Out Computer Screen

 

I remember as a kid, in the city in LA, there were so many more butterflies than I see nowadays.

Spruce tips.

This robin led me along the trail, presumably away from the nest.  It kept look back to see if I was following.

The nasty thorns of the devil's club shining in the sun, the leaves just opening.

The Arctic Terns are back at Potter Marsh and on high alert when a gull strays into their territory. 

And the swans are passing through.  

And while geese are all around in town, I don't get good opportunities to catch them flying.

Meanwhile. . .

I did check the Supreme Court docket.  There are two new filings today.  Scott Kendall informs the Board he's representing minority Board Members Nicole Borromeo and Melanie Bahnke.  He also asks if the Court won't allow them in as Board members, then they'd like to be  Amicus Curiae.  

Yesterday, Nicole Borromeo file a notice to the Court that the Board's motion asking for a stay and the brief explaining why was illegitimate because the Board never voted to approve it as was their procedure.  She included the vote to have the Board as a whole needed to approve such actions.  

This is starting to seem like the plot of new Netflix drama.