Did The Redistricting Board Violate Alaska Public Meetings Law?

I was writing Part 2 of this post on the Redistricting Board, when, I got sidetracked on the Supreme Court decision the Anchorage Daily News relied on to challenge the Board's decision to withhold the names of the applicants.  Maybe this should be called Part 1.5. 

While reading the case, I began to believe that the Board did not comply fully with the decision's interpretation of the Public Meetings Act.  I'm not a lawyer, but I know that the law is not always straightforward and that there might be other cases that have modified the original decision, though it is regularly cited in situations like this.  But as a blogger I can raise the issue. And if I'm right, it points out a reason why the Board needs a competent Executive Director who knows the Alaska Public Meeting laws. 

City of Kenai v. Kenai Peninsula Newspapers, Inc.  is the 1982 Supreme Court decision referred to in the Anchorage Daily News article about the Alaska Redistricting Board's decision to NOT hire an Executive Director.  This is probably a good time to pull out some of the decision and remind people just how public our government is supposed to be.   And also to consider whether the Redistricting Board fully complied with the law.

The case consolidates a case from Kenai and a case from Anchorage where high level public officials' names and resumes were requested by news agencies and the cities refused to furnish the information.  In both cases the courts favored the media.  

The court summarized the Kenai case this way:

During June of 1979, the City of Kenai began soliciting applications for city manager. Subsequently, the City Council met, without notice to the public and without keeping minutes, to review applications and interview applicants. Max Swearingen, the publisher of the Peninsula Clarion, a daily publication of Kenai Peninsula Newspapers, Inc., asked the City to release a list of names and a summary of credentials of the applicants. This request was considered by the City Council on August 2, 1979, and rejected. In a letter written to Swearingen, the mayor voiced a concern that such disclosures would jeopardize the applicants' personal privacy, deter future applications from qualified people concerned about public exposure, and compromise the council's moral obligation to respect the privacy interests of individual applicants.

Kenai Peninsula Newspapers filed suit to require the City to allow inspection of the applications and to enjoin the City Council from further review and action upon the applications except at a public meeting.

The Court summarized the Anchorage case this way:

In February of 1980, the Municipality of Anchorage began soliciting applications for police chief. The nationwide search was conducted through written advertisements which promised that applications would be held in confidence.

From June 1, 1980, through July 8, 1980, Don G. Hunter, a reporter for the Anchorage Daily News, sought access to the names and qualifications of the applicants. The Municipality refused to honor these requests on the grounds that disclosure was prohibited by municipal ordinance, and because confidentiality had been promised to all applicants. The Anchorage Daily News filed suit on July 9, 1980 alleging that the applications and resumes were public documents subject to disclosure and requesting injunctive relief and a temporary restraining order restraining the Municipality from appointing a police chief until a hearing on the merits. Mayor Sullivan appointed a new police chief the next day before the hearing on the temporary restraining order. After the hearing, the court ordered the Municipality to refrain from any action confirming the appointment until a hearing on the merits. The appointee subsequently declined the appointment after disclosures reflecting adversely on his qualifications were made.  (As I recall, the Anchorage Times discovered that the new appointee had been let go from his previous position for sexual harassment.)

The Court focused on the balance between the public's right to know and the applicants' right to privacy.

They determined that for important policy positions, the public's right to know trumped the applicants' right to privacy.   They noted that since the resumes requested had been submitted by the applicants, there wasn't likely to be any information prejudicial to the candidates.  But they also recognized that some applicants might not want their current employers to know they had applied for a job elsewhere.   So they allowed for the jurisdictions to notify applicants they could withdraw their applications if they didn't want them disclosed. The court also noted

Of the 89 original [Anchorage] applicants, 8 withdrew their names. An additional 19 could not be reached within the time frame prescribed by the stipulation and their names were also considered to have been withdrawn.

The Court cited a couple of sections of AS 44.62.310 which give considerable weight to the presumption of openness:

FN28. AS 44.62.310 provides: Agency meetings public. (a) All meetings of a legislative body, of a board of regents, or of an administrative body, board, commission, committee, subcommittee, authority, council, agency, or other organization, including subordinate units of the above groups, of the state or any of its political subdivisions, including but not limited to municipalities, boroughs, school boards, and all other boards, agencies, assemblies, councils, departments, divisions, bureaus, commissions or organizations, advisory or otherwise, of the state or local government supported in whole or in part by public money or authorized to spend public money, are open to the public except as otherwise provided by this section. Except when voice votes are authorized, the vote shall be conducted in such a manner that the public may know the vote of each person entitled to vote. This section does not apply to any votes required to be taken to organize the afore-mentioned bodies.

(b) If excepted subjects are to be discussed at a meeting, the meeting must first be convened as a public meeting and the question of holding an executive session to discuss matters that come within the exceptions contained in (c) of this section shall be determined by a majority vote of the body. No subjects may be considered at the executive session except those mentioned in the motion calling for the executive session unless auxiliary to the main question. No action may be taken at the executive session.

(c) The following excepted subjects may be discussed in an executive session:

(1) matters, the immediate knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse effect upon the finances of the government unit;

(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.

(d) This section does not apply to

(1) judicial or quasi-judicial bodies when holding a meeting solely to make a decision in an adjudicatory proceeding;

(2) juries;

(3) parole or pardon boards;

(4) meetings of a hospital medical staff; or

(5) meetings of the governing body of any committee of a hospital when holding a meeting solely to act upon matters of professional qualifications, privileges or discipline.

(e) Reasonable public notice shall be given for all meetings required to be open under this section.

(f) Action taken contrary to this section is void. [emphasis added]

And

AS 44.62.312 provides:

State policy regarding meetings. (a) It is the policy of the state that

(1) the governmental units mentioned in AS 44.62.310(a) exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business;

(2) it is the intent of the law that actions of those units be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly;

(3) the people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them;

(4) the people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know;

(5) the people's right to remain informed shall be protected so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

(b) AS 44.62.310(c)(1) shall be construed narrowly in order to effectuate the policy stated in (a) of this section and avoid unnecessary executive sessions.

The Court also ruled that discussions of the applicants' qualifications should be held in public with one caveat.  Kenai argued that discussing applicants in executive session was necessary so they wouldn't "prejudice the reputation and character of any persons" (one of the exceptions allowed.)

But the Court found that discussing the applicants' qualifications relating to experience and education and background shouldn't prejudice people's reputation.  HOWEVER,  discussing personal characteristics or habits might be prejudicial.  So the Court ruled that when discussing personal characteristics or habits the body could go into executive session.    Here's the court's discussion:

In Kenai the court enjoined the City from “any deliberations toward appointment of a city manager unless those deliberations are held in compliance” with the public meetings law, AS 44.62.310-.312.[FN28] The court held that such deliberations “are not within any of the exemptions of AS 44.62.310(c)” relating to subjects which may be discussed in executive session. The City of Kenai appeals from this ruling, contending that s .310(c) (2) which permits the discussion in executive session of “subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of any person” is applicable. . .

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

Appellee's reading of the statute is not without a degree of merit. Ordinarily an applicant's reputation will not be damaged by a public discussion of his or her qualifications relating to experience, education and background or by a comparison of them with those of other candidates. However, a discussion of personal characteristics and habits may well carry a risk that the applicant's reputation will be compromised. Such a risk is especially acute where the qualities of several applicants are being compared. We believe therefore that the City Council was authorized by s .310(c)(2) to meet in executive session while discussing the personal characteristics of the applicants.[FN29] To the extent that the order of the court prohibits this, it must be reversed.[FN30]    [Emphasis added.]

With that in mind, let's look at what the Board did.


When confronted with the ADN's challenge, they:

• notified the applicants and allowed them to withdraw their applications rather than have them made public
• made the remaining people's names and resumes public
• held the interviews in public meetings

So far, so good.   But then they

• held their deliberations on the candidates in private
• made their decision to not fill the positions in private
• did not respond to requests for information about why they made the decision and who voted for the decision

The deliberations, according to the Supreme Court decision, should have been in public to the extent that they were discussing education, background, and experience.  Just based on those topics, without having to discuss personality or habits (which didn't seem to come up in the interviews anyway), it would be clear that Dr. Hummel was the superior candidate.  (I can't imagine there was any debate on that.)

Then they made the decision to not hire anyone.  This was not a decision that should have been made in Executive Session.  The should have come out of Executive Session, had a motion to not hire anyone, had a discussion, and then publicly voted.  They didn't do this.

Finally, at the request of the media - this blog - they should have explained their reasons for not selecting anyone and should have told me how they voted.  

How Could Redistricting Board NOT Hire Laurel Hummel? Political Neutrality Appears Ripped To Shreds - Part 1

In Write Hard, Die Free, Howard Weaver writes of his frustration as a reporter in Juneau constrained by journalistic convention from actually telling what he knew about what was going on:

"Journalists were objective, right?  Just the facts, ma'am.  I wrote a few stories that tried to poke through the public illusion of the legislature as a high-minded, public-spirited institution, but somewhere between the copy desk in Anchorage and my own constipated sense of fairness they often wound up being  'he-said, she-said' stalemates at best."(pp. 56-57)

I've been covering the Redistricting Board since March 2011.  I generally try to present the facts and let the readers come to their own conclusions.  But sometimes, like now, I feel like Weaver.  And so in these two posts, I'm going to try to explain what I think is going on here and why.  I'm going to comment on the visible facts and speculate on what we can't see.

In this post I'll give the background.   In the next post I'll move to speculation about why this has happened.


The Perfect Applicant Gets Rejected


If God herself had wanted to intervene in the Alaska Redistricting process, She could not have created a more perfect candidate to be the Board's Executive Director than Laurel Hummel.

Yet they chose not to hire anyone.  How could that be?

The job requires knowledge of geography and mapping including GIS.  

Laurel Hummel has a PhD in Geography, specifically human geography which would come in particularly handy when the board has to determine things like socio-political [economic] integration of districts.  She was modest about her GIS skills - she hadn't taught a class on GIS.  She'd only used it and only knew the names of various software that was used to do GIS.  And the kind she had used was the kind the Board used.  The previous director had gone to classes to learn GIS as part of his on-the-job training, and she's apologizing for not having taught it!  [GIS is geographic information systems]

This job requires knowledge of Alaska Native culture.  

Laurel Hummel did her doctoral dissertation on the impact of the US military in Alaska on the Alaska Native population. As part of her dissertation she traveled around Alaska meeting Alaska Native leaders to discuss those impacts.  She's a human geographer and talked about how by understanding that different people had different 'truths' one could hope to understand them and find ways to consensus.

The job requires management skills including working with the press and consensus building and understanding confidentiality.   

Laurel Hummel went through a long list of examples of situations in her 30 year military career where she displayed these skills, including the integration of women in Afghan institutions (I didn't quite get the details here - it may have been the Parliament [a reader emailed it was the army]) and the fact that she worked in Army Intelligence had given her lots of understanding of   confidentiality.  She pointed out that in the Board's case, there was certain information that must be made public, other information that should be public, and information that has to be confidential.  She also said that unlike in some of her military situations, here there were no enemies.  That she regarded the public and the media as part of the process.  (Maybe that's what got her in trouble with the Board.)

There were things that she didn't have personal experience actually using - like the Alaska Public Meetings Law, or the Alaska Administrative Procedures Act.  Yet she had read them, discussed them knowledgeably, and had dealt with similar laws at the federal level.  It wouldn't take long to get up to speed.  Like a day maybe.  Compared with the need to get up to speed with the GIS software, which the Board all had to do, but which Hummel already has used.  This is a non-issue.

There was nothing about this candidate not to love for this job.


Chronology of the hiring process

Feb 12  - After the Alaska Supreme Court said, in December, that the Board had to start all over because they hadn't followed the Hickel Process, the Board met to discuss its next steps.   After a lengthy legal discussion about the Alaska Supreme Court decision, the Board's Petition for Reconsideration,  and the Shelby County v. Holder decision still to be heard at the US Supreme Court then, they talked about their time line for finishing up.  This included interviewing for a new Executive Director around March 14.

Feb. 24 - The Alaska Supreme Court rejected the Board's petition for reconsideration.

Feb. 27 - The US Supreme Court heard the Shelby County v. Holder case and court watchers speculated that the conservatives on the court sounded inclined to rule for Shelby County, though it was not clear how sweeping such a ruling might be.

March 8 - The Board posted notice of meetings on March 13-14 to review applications and interview applicants on their website.  There was a link for people who wanted to listen online.

Screen shot from Board's website - click to make it bigger and clearer

March 12 - I contacted the Board to find out if there would be a back up phone-in option if the LIO connection didn't work. (This has happened in the past.)  I was told that the Chair had decided that since the meeting would mostly be in Executive Session and there would only be a brief public opening of the meeting, there wouldn't be a teleconference of the meeting. 

March 13 - I checked back in the morning and talked to the Chair pointing out that the agenda had the attorney talking about legal issues before the Executive Session and the Board member comments after the session.  I also pointed out that the teleconference link had been advertised on their website.  He said he'd think about it and shortly after I got a call saying I would be able to listen via the Legislative tv channel online. 

The Board met.  Board attorney White spoke about the Shelby County case and its possible impacts on the Board's work, then the Board went into Executive Session.

I also had asked how many applicants there were (originally six, but one had dropped out at that point) and was told that they would all be interviewed.  I knew about the 1982 Alaska Supreme Court decision saying that for high level policy making positions, applicants' names and resumes needed to be available to the public.  So I emailed back to get the names and was told that no one had asked that question, they hadn't gotten permission from the applicants to release the information.  So no I couldn't have them.

March 14 - At the meeting, attorney White explained that the Anchorage Daily News requested that the Board release the names of the applicants and referred to the Supreme Court case.  He said they had notified the applicants that their names would be released.  One applicant dropped out rather than be publicly noted.  Another dropped out, not having  realized the job wasn't permanent.  White also said it wasn't clear whether it was required to have the interviews public, but the Board had decided to do that.

So, at the last minute, the Board released the names and the interviews were public.

UPDATES:
In the next post, I'll speculate on why the Board did not choose a new Executive Director.

Actually, the next post turned out to be a look at the Supreme Court case the Anchorage Daily News cited in getting the meeting opened.  Examining it, it's clear that the decision to NOT hire should have been made in public too.  Actually most of the deliberations on the candidates should have been in public.

Two Short Videos - One To Make You Laugh, One to Make You Cry

Let's do our crying first.   Our political debates flounder when the parties do not agree on the facts.  Much of the debate today is over taxing the rich.  The Republicans are refusing to add more taxes.  I believe that part of this is the old Reagan motivation - to simply starve government by cutting taxes.  Some think government is simply bad.  Others know that with less government, business can be free to act with little oversight on treatment of workers, safety of products, impacts on the environment, price fixing, etc.

In any case, here's a short video which graphically shows

• people's perceptions of ideal wealth distribution, 
• believed wealth distribution, and 
• actual wealth distribution.

When a small number of people have huge amounts of money, they can pay to create and disseminate propaganda - like the Koch brothers - to influence millions of people with blatant lies, such as their denial of the human impact on climate change.  

But it's not helpless. Slavery ended.  Women got the vote. The Soviet Union fell.  And gays and lesbians can get married in a number of states.  Things change.  Extreme inequity can't survive - especially when they arm the right-wing poor, who will one day realize they've been duped and it's not the Blacks and Gays who are their enemies, but the filthy rich.  But let's hope that a little enlightenment - like the dissemination of information like this video - will lead just enough people to vote out the reactionaries in Congress and allow us to reestablish some economic equity in the US.  The myth is that people are rich because they work hard.  While that does work to a certain extent, much of the wealth comes from rigging the system.  So that people could borrow money they couldn't afford to pay bankers more.  And then the poor borrowers get screwed and the rich bankers get rewarded.   (But, of course, don't take anything at face value.  Check out these numbers just as you'd check out numbers you disagree with.)


And now it's time for a little laughter.  



Le papier ne sera jamais mort / Paper is not dead on influencia.net !
from INfluencia on Vimeo.

It's not only funny, but it reminds us to think and to get our points across with imagination.

Alaska Redistricting Board Chooses To Not Hire An Executive Director [UPDATED]

I've sent an email to the Chair of the Board asking for some explanation of their decision.  If you read my post yesterday on the benefit of the open meetings law, you'd know that I'm astounded by the decision, but I'll give the Chair 24 hours to respond and explain things that might not have been obvious, before I give my reaction.


[UPDATE 9:00pm:  Here's a link to the Anchorage Daily News article on the decision.]

Why Open Meetings Act Matters

The Redistricting Board met today - and are meeting in Executive Session to select a new Executive Director as I write this - in open session to interview three candidates to be their new Executive Director.

In this case, there was one candidate whose qualifications and performance were so far above and beyond the other two candidates that I can't imagine that the Board, under any circumstances, could not have chosen her.  Dr. Laurel Hummel, retired Army Colonel and PhD in geography simply had the perfect blend of skills for this job plus she was so well prepared for the interview that she demonstrated her abilities to be prepared, to do her research, and her communications skills.

This job requires a lot of work using GIS software to map election districts.  It also helps to understand Alaska and the diverse needs of our population - particularly, because of the Voting Rights Act - Alaskan Natives.

As a geographer, Hummel has worked with GIS software - particularly the type used by the board ARC.  Her doctoral dissertation was on the military's impact on Alaska Natives.  She's traveled the state and met with Native leaders on these issues and other related issues.

The Board shouldn't have a difficult time coming to a decision.  This is one of those situations where the decision is made for the Board.

The Board is a very political body.  It makes the districts for the state House and Senate.  Of the three candidates, only one appeared to have political connections to the Board.  Brian Hove was an aide to Republican State Senator Ralph Seekins and Fairbanks Board Member Holm welcomed Hove and alluded to their acquaintanceship. 

If the interviews hadn't been public, it would not have been as obvious to the public, how significantly better qualified Hummel was than the other two.  The Board could have mumbled something about confidentiality and hinted at something in her record or interview that disqualified her.  Of the three candidates - Hummel and Morse both said they couldn't start for about four weeks.  Hove, on the other hand, said he could start immediately.  That could have been a reason given to hire him.

But after being (electronically) present at the interviews, it's clear that it would take Hove longer than four weeks to catch up with where Hummel already is today.  In fact he could never catch up with her uniquely perfect qualifications for this job.

As I said before, I don't think this Board has any choice but to select Hummel.  Even if the interviews were not public, they still would have no choice.  And I think the Board members know that Hummel will make their jobs much easier and they would select her under any circumstance.

But another body might well, and certainly have in the past, used confidentiality of personnel matters to conduct their interviews in Executive Session and this open interview process shows how important it is to do this publicly.

I applaud Rich Mauer and the Anchorage Daily News for pressing the Board to do this.  And I applaud the Board for deciding to conduct the interviews in public.


[I should mention that I had never even heard of Laurel Hummel until she began her interview with the Board.  I was just that impressed.  Doesn't happen that often.]

[UPDATE:  Board chose not have an Executive Director.]

Third Board Interviewee - Brian Hove, Banker and Legislative Aide

Brian Hove Image from Morris Thompson

The third candidate for the Redistricting Board's Executive Director position was Brian Hove.  He's worked for National Bank of Alaska and Senator Ralph Seekins.  (I'm going by what I heard on the teleconference and don't have access to his resume.)  Compared to the first two candidates, he was unprepared for the interview.  He spoke softly and his responses didn't show much knowledge of the Board or the issues he was asked about, though he seems to be the only one of the three candidates who has attended a board meeting. 

Here are my rough notes.  WARNING:  they are rough notes, typed as fast as I could listening in online with some people not speaking too loudly or near a mic. 


Brian Hove Interview

[It sounds like the members are on break, Torgerson is giving the applicant the intro that was in the last two interviews.]
1:23pm
Torgerson: Could you go over things so people online will know.  Management experience.

Hove:  As you mentioned, resume does indicate my background is financial.  started with National Bank of alaska.  That’s where I met Peggyann.  Then to Delta Junction and was branch manager.  From there, three of us.  When NBA merged with Wells Fargo, we agreed we preferred to work with small bank.  Very happy Fairbanks.  Bankers often asked to volunteer as treasurers.

This opened opportunity when I worked for Ralph’s campaign.  Opened door in different venue.  Worked for Ralph in Juneau.  In first weeks questioned my decision.  Sharp learning curve.  2006 voters had different ideas.  I went back to work for ????  [Hard to hear]  Supervisory specifically work in Delta Junction.  Two of us, Sharon Clark.  I had a lot of experience outside.  Didn’t have a difficult structure in that office.

Torgerson:  Next question - walk us through your knowledge of geographic diversity of state and the people/

Hove:  Been a resident for 30 years.  As a young guy, you start to pick up  . . . for me Fairbanks  Sept. 1980 UAF, different people.  World out there.  Working for NBA opened that quite a bit.  If I hadn’t worked for NBA wouldn’t have spent as much time in SE.  Same is true . . . fortunately called upon.  Barrow ????, month in both places.  Kodiak.  Even a month.  Took advantage of it.

And then of course working in the legislature you get to immerse yourself in issues around the state.  What’s important.

Torgerson:  Next question:  knowledge of travel policy, open meetings policy and administrtive procedures act.

Hove:  Travel policy.  I know the state has one.  Practical matter.  Our office in legislature, Sharon handled all the travel.  I keep track of receipts.  Some limitations what can be expensed.  Open meetings.  Part of  .. .   Course judiciary committee chari, that was an important function for us.  Required to post the committee’s activities well in advance.  Time, date, place, agenda situation.  More?

Torgerson:  No, I don’t think so.  Experience as staff member to state or federal board.  Didn’t see it on resume.  Have you ever been?

Hove:  No I have not.

Torgerson:  Computer skills, mapping software?  Technical skills you bring, excel?

Hove:  ONe thing important to me going to school.  Use of word processor was invaluable for me.  Business school with Lotus 123 which was invaluable.  Transition into Microsoft Word.  I use other products as well.  One application is photoshop.  Now photoshop is pretty robust.  Board’s mapping software I imagine is also robust.  I don’t have direct experience using it.

Torgerson:  Do you consider yourself a fast learner?  Capable of being taught?  We all learned it so I don’t expect . . rather user friendly.  Example of how you might build consensus with members of the board and staff.

Hove:  One of the things, you know, I know everyone around table understands this.  One think I learned in Juneau was how to work with people.  You have to.  I think that’s one of the things our office was able to do.  evidence by success.  One way to measure success is number of bills you can get through the system.

Torgerson:  How about drafting press releases?  I assume you have.

Hove:  We had occasion to draft press releases.  The media is not something.  My father was a broadcaster [hard to hear]  my wife  . . .  comes with specific items. . .press releases.

Torgerson:  I’m going to open it up to the Board. But if you are chosen, how soon can you start?

Hove:  I could start right away.

Torgerson: Great

Greene:  [Can’t hear. Something about Kodiak and Juneau]

Hove:  Requires you to have an understanding of . . . beyond Barrow and Kodiak I’ve been all over the state - Adak . . . 

Torgerson:  REsume, in Delta, you talk about developing business in Eagle and Tok.  Your own business?

Hove:  No, bank business.  Federal requirement bank managers to describe the outreach efforts.  At Delta, large geo area responsible for, so I been to Eagle several times.  Up and down . . .

Torgerson:  Other questions?

Holm:  Thank you for coming.  Used to seeing you somewhat frequently, but not as much as we used to.  What do you see as your end product.  Most of the folks
Hove:  Well ED obviously is improtant.  As I mentioned in cover letter.  The few times I did attend meetings my impression . . . lot there.  Members of the board, [hard to hear]  vast responsibility.  Did I get at your question?

Holm:  That’s fine.  You understand, you’re going to be drawing plans, with certain criteria from the Constitution.  We all had to learn how to draw.  You’d realize they have to comport with strictures put on us by the legal profession.

Holm:  Do you work with the legal folks ok?

PeggyAnn McConnochie:  People asked my questions.  Mine had to do with all the people who learned how to draw, would you be willing to learn the software?

Hove:  I anticipate that would be required.

Torgerson:  Do you have any questions for us?

Hove:  I tried to keep up with what the board is doing. I don’t have specific questions.  i understand there are pressures.  I believe I can assist..?????

Torgerson:  Thank you very much for putting up with our issues and coming today.  I’ll call you today or tomorrow and let you know.  Have to call some references.  With that, I’ll disconnect on teleconference and entertain a motion to go into Executive Session.

PeggyAnn McConnochie:  move to go into Executive Session to ???  and deliberate on applicants.

WHite:  Advise and counsel only relates to litigation strategy.  Brief recess.  Off teleconference and may come back later.

1:47 pm off connection

Second Applicant Incredible: Laurel Hummel, Vet and Geographer

Here are my very rough notes, no time to clean them up a bit before the next candidate.  But I can't image them finding a better qualified person for this job.  Familiarity with Alaska, GIS, and on and on.

Warning:  Very rough notes:

12:30  - Laurel Hummel

Torgerson: All board members present.  Another Executive Director applicant. 
Hi, thanks for joining us today, taking time, how do we address you.  Dr. ? 
Hummel:  Gloria [Laurel] is just fine.
Torgerson:  First want to clarify terms of the job.  State position, but once maps approved by court, the board will dissovle and everything go away.  We expect to be done about Feb. or March 2014, lots of ifs, could go on more.  Have election plan in place for 1014 elections and filing deadline is June 1.  We want complete and approved plan at least 30 days prior to election itself.  Then job would consist of closing down the office, archiving records.  Might be a year and two months.  Whatever.  Not a full time position
Hummel:  I recognize the irony  the better you do your job the sooner you’re out of the job.
Torgerson: ------ some folks thought it was a full time position.  Just want to make it clear.  Broadcasting and people listening on line don’t have info.
Walk us through your managerial
Hummel:  30 years of mgt and leadership experience.  Retired last summer from career in US army.  20 years intelligence office.  Tenure track position in geography.  Switched tracks became educator and leader in education.  Wide variety of leadership AND staff positions.  Stints in operations, intelligence and security.  Here in Alaska. Company command positions manged ??? people through two levels of command.  13 occupations.  I’m a geographer, human geographer.  One who understands culture and people’s connection to place.  My doctoral study focused on alaska.  How did US military figure into alaska particularly in Cold War era, particularly politically.  How did Alaska of today affected by US military.  When I became a doctoral candidate and completed work at University of Colorado in Boulder.  We moved back to Alaska and looked at the 400+ installation and categorized them.  Complicated relationship the military had with Alaska Native population.  Looked at the environmental spoiling the military was responsible for and the medical experiements and how that colored the relationship, territorial guard and National Guard.  I wouldn’t call myself an Alaskan scholar, but a small piece of Alaska I studied with vigor.  Geography community and opened people’s eyes of complexity.
Also worked in advisory capacity.  Done a lot of staff work - hr, intelligence, - giving advice and opinion with discretion when asked for.  Being in intelligence requires some deft movement becuase always trying to predict the future in chaotic circumstances.
Internal consultatn to translate geographic knowledge in ??  Consultant to LA Times? 
Secretary of Defense.  A lot of high stress situations - Iraq, Afghanistan.  doesn’t faze me.  I believe this positions requires some leadership, but more supervisory, putting a great staff together.  Come to appreciate, if choice of 100% mission, but late or 90% on time. . .  Oral communication.  Legislative advocacy at national level.  Board member of Geographers group 10,000 members, on specific projects involved with legislative advocacy.  Haiti earthquake information center???  Project to bring mroe regions of the world into the geographic community.  Persuasive written communicator, know that’s important to this job, to take complex things and write them persuasively  I brought two books I co-edited.  Markers mark a couple of items I wrote at beginning - intro and prologue.  Tried to take something complex to make it not only understandable, but also interesting.  If I failed, don’t hire me, if I succeeded, please consider me.
Good at inspiring staff. Hire for energy, intelligence, and can train for skill. 
I believe in treating teams very well.  Both people working for me and others.
A lot of coalition building in my career.  Difficult in some environments.  Everyone has a different version of the truth.  From that person’s perspective, that is the truth.  But there all these facets of the truth.
Also believe that I have emotional intelligence - understanding what other people value, how they look at the world, and what they’re thinking, even if they aren’t really saying what they are thinking.  Example of coalition building - in Afghanistand I was in charge of all the programs bringing the first women into ????  Extremely difficult. 95% involved didn’t believe it should happen.  But it did.  I was able to cajole people with this is what is in it for you.  Or this is the big picture.
Discreiton and judgment.  Classified environments.  What you can share and not share.  In this position.  Category - what you have to share, should share, can’t.  things that have to be shared with the public and that’s how it should be.
Come from climate that values ethics.  I hold the highest ethical standards.
I see a big difference - where there’s an enemy.  Here I see no enemies.  Press and people are not enemies.  Educational background not just in geography, but also systmes engineering.  You mentioned shutting things down at the end.  ED really needs to be assessing what needs to be  .. . . happens every ten years.  a shame if we reinvent the wheel every ten years. 
Masters Degree in Strategic Leadership - all about astutely lead and manage public organization.  Feel very qualified for the position.  Exciting.  Natural position for a geographer.  I understand the better you do the job, the sooner you’re out of work.
Torgerson:  Thanks for your service.  An incredible resume in keeping us safe.
Hummel:  That was my honor. 
Torgerson:  Need to call back to LIO there’s a terrible echo.  Stand by. 
We’re back.  Can you tell us your experience with Alaska geographer and Alaska Natives.
Hummel:  Got to travel a lot around state and meet with Alaska Native leaders and Anchorage community and people interested in military history.  Don’t know if this is a quiz and want me to tell you what I know or whether I do have knowledge.
Torgerson: Member Greene will ask more questions.  You’ve answered a lot, go to the next one.  Knowledge of state’s travel policy, open meetings act, and administrative procedures act.
Hummel:  I know what I’ve seen on-line, I’ve read them, pretty clear cut.  We have counsel to bounce question on so we are operating properly.  Never worked in the environment of these specific rules.
Torgerson:  And we have a lot of help.
Next question on your staff work you’ve already answered well.
Next deals with numbers, excel spreadsheets, mapping.
Hummel:  Taught quantitative reserarch methods.  Now stats well.  Qualitative research research as well.  I’ve taken GIS courses, but haven’t taught them.  Have used them in work ARC and other…  At one time with ??? And Geo Express.  Worked on prject we did laser imaging detection and ranging.  Radar with ???   Familiar with GIS software which compresses  . . . Not sure what Alaska uses and I’d have to get refamiliar.  Would take me a bit to get back.
Torgerson:  Our plan is our new director would hire a GIS person to be part of the staff and we have one we’ve used in the past at the D of Labor and he will be available too.  One part time when actually drawing and one on staff.
Hummel:  These skills are very perishable.  Either someone currently working with this or just out of school.
Torgerson:  You sound like you have good skills here. 
Hummel:  Do you use ARC products.
Torgerson:  Yes, exactly.
Website design?
Hummel:  To be honest in DoD by the time we were invested in web technology I was at a rank where others took care of it.  Ancillary teaching products  - power point , spread sheets - I’m a whiz.  But websites?  Not so much.
Torgerson:  One mroe:  Any constraints on when you might start?  Just an idea.
Hummel:  I have a commitment to Lower 48 ???? aside from that.
I have to check the dates ???
Torgerson:  Close to four weeks from now? 
Hummel:  I understand you’re on a tight time line.
Holm:  Thank you for your sevice.  You were an officer?  I’m curious what a human geographer is compared to a demographer.
Hummel:  Thanks for the question.  Population geographer is one type.  Medical, ???,
Demographer studies hatching, matching, and dispatching - birth rates, mortality, death rates.  Population geographer studies all that in the context of a specifc place.  For example.  I worked in Africa, trying to use the fertility rates.  How many children per women, does that have impact on civil wars, acssesiblity of water, availability of land, and whether that predicts stability, falling apart and making war.   Demographer cares about the stats, Population geographer takes the numbers further to see how the numbers affect a place and how secure and stable theya re, their economy.  That’s one type fo human geographer.
Holm:  My question from your understanding of what we do, how does that impact what you want.  You mentioned not reinveting the whell.  What do you expect to accomplish in the job.
Hummel:  The mission of the board is to draw the fairest, legal and defensible maps of the state.  Part of that has to do with socio-economic integration - how people make their living and all these are factors that go into where these boundaries should move. 
If you apply one factor, maybe you violate another.  Determine the best fit.  Not all the categories the same importance.  I know some questions about federal or state mandates.  Have to weight this.  ????  …. population, geography, social, economic weigh all that data to come up with the best fit boundary line. 
Greene:  Thank you for joining us.  Very interesting.  I notice relationships with Alaska during Cold War, 2001 AFN, this tells me you’ve gone out to Rural Alaska, can you elaborate which regions.
Hummel:  Barrow, Nome, Shemiya, Bethel, SE, Hoonah, Sitka,
Greene:  Did you meet with local leadership in those communites.
Hummel:  I was there with back pack, camera, note taking.  I had to ask permission, I was on private property.  Place like Anderson near Clear Air base.  [missed a bunch here]  person who wanted to focus on Native ways of knowing and I picked up on that idea because it is a wondeful one.  I did a project on how the curriculum in public schools could be done better.  If you could use the concept of the fishwheel - you could teach math and art and reading and  . . = keeps kids interested.  Learning community, you learn synergistically.  Very gratified that a lot of people thought it was good idea.  Wasn’t rocket science but it was well received.
Torgerson:  Interesting
PeggyAnn McConnochie:  You already answered my question about mapping software.  I’m a software junkie.  You have no problem going back and becoming good at ARC again.
Hummel:  I’d go back and get the cobwebs off. 
Torgerson:  Other questions?  Do you have any questions for us.
Hummel:  I had a few but they’ve been answered.  I want to thank you for your service because you are volunteers in service to the public.
Torgerson:  I will call when the board makes a decision.  Probably do that subject ot reference checks.  Thanks for coming in.
Stand at ease until 1:20.  We’ll continue right on through.

Rachel Morse, Interim UAA Alumni Board Director, First Redistricting Board Executive Director Interview

Image from UAA

The first candidate to be interviewed by the Board was Rachel Morse.  She's worked with Rural Cap, Alaska Soil and Water Conservation, and currently at the UAA Alumni Board.

The interview was changed to an open meeting after a request from the Anchorage Daily News.

WARNING:  These are my very rough notes - they get the gist, but not the exact wording and there are gaps.  Plus I'm doing this through the online connection from Los Angeles. 

Redistricting Board - March 14, 2013  Executive Director Interviews

10:54 am
Roll Call:  Brodie, Greene, Holm, PeggyAnn McConnochie, Torgerson
all here
approval of agenda

PeggyAnn McConnochie: adopt with changed interview schedule

Torgerson: Item 5 legal review, just a moment for Mr. White, people who withdrew their names.
We had open meeting request.  People who apply for high public official job open for public disclosure act.  Had from ADN, contacted all people who submitted applications and advised them that had to be disclosed unless they withdrew their applications. One withdrew. Another, from Fairbanks, withdrew because didn’t know it was temporary.  Unclear if interviews are open to the public, interpreting rules, we determined in public interest to have interviews open, but when board discusses the individuals we will do that in Executive Session.  Some had issues with personal issues like phone numbers being public.  Mr. Mauer didn’t have problem redacting personal information.  Mr. Mauer has redacted copies.  Other copies of resumes available for others. 

Torgerson:  We will interview 3 people today instead of five.

The first will be Rachel Morse  and expect to be through around 2pm

We have a few prepared questions, then I’ll ask a few then the board can ask.

1.  Aware job is temporary in nature, we need a director until the work is done.  Time line based on Court system.  Everything undetermined at this point.  Need approved plan for election by June 2014.  Hopefully wrap up Board’s work by then, but additional issues for Executive Director.  Not full time position that lasts forever.  Are you familiar with what the Board’s doing?  Followed in media, online? 

Morse:  I’ve followed it. 
Torgerson;  Walk us thru your managerial experience . . .staff here was 3-5, part time GIS guy and an assistant director and Mary out front.  Not a large staff.  Supervising and working with the Board and press.
Morse:  Managed 4-5 people. Now Alumni relations has 1 person under me, going to expand.  Design positions, job performance, putting people on and off probation.  Gamut of working with staff.
Torgerson: Consensus builder?  Story of difficult situation you managed yourself out of?
Could have some conflict here.
Morse:  Any time there’s conflict, putting all the info out is good, direct and diplomatic, when dealing with personalities and emotions, part of the equation is important.  First at Rural Cap one person had trouble with getting his contributions out.  Helped design meetings so he could be heard.  He’s been promoted 2x now.  Someone with good skills and just worked hard to give him space. 
Positions where we had to rewrite position descriptions and ended up letting go the original person because he was a match for the original position we thought we needed, but not for what it really was.  We were able to work with him and keep good relations.
Torgerson:  Thanks for the answer, a good description of a dicey situation.  What about dealing with press?
Morse:  Not personal responsibility for press releases, but getting background information for releases.  Controversial nature of a project at Rural Cap had to talk to the press . . .
More aware now because of that.
Torgerson: One concern - knowledge of cultural diversity and geographic regions of the state.  Run us through things you’ve worked on.
Morse:  Alaska Soil and Conservation district employee.  Volunteer board of directors, managed by non-profit.  Lots of complexity, different in Lower 48 - hi ag.  In Alaska, Fairbanks Palmer, Wasilla were similar.  I had the Alaska District, all the rest.  Small staff.  Worked with tribe on Kobuk River, required Fed to Fed to Fed relationships and communities.  Lot of community meetings in those communities.  Cooperative area in Juneau to deal with noxious weeds, taking it to community in Juneau.  Rural Cap 80-90 communities, my job in the office, but well aware of all the different communities.
Torgerson: OK, next series - applicant’s knowledge of state’s travel policy, open meetings act.
Morse:  It’s been a while.  I see there’s training for that and that’s what I would request.  Have to have the policies right there with you as you do it.
Torgerson:  That’s legit.  What about administrative procedures act? [didn’t seem to wait for an answer, just went on] Next series working with the Board, since we’re broadcasting can you explain experience with Boards.
Morse: . . . Bird Treatment Center . . .,  Director of Alumni Relations at UAA work with the Board, Currently on Rural Community Assistance Board.  Joined that Board in Feb.  Been member of local associations - Forestry, Board of my church.  Conducted meetings to support presidents.
Torgerson:  Drafting agendas?
Morse:  Yup, can draft agendas, minutes, etc.  . . .
Torgerson:  Sounds like you have a lot of experience.  Last series, notice not technically proficient with GIS, big part of our job.  What are your computer skills?  Excel?
Morse:  Excel spreadsheets, Microsoft Office, different data bases - donor relationship base.  Putting together results of data base - meeting with different software vendors when leaving Rural Cap.
Torgerson:  Much on Website development?
Morse:  More on putting stuff up on the website.
Torgerson: We have a website, more on putting it up.  You’ve had experience?
Morse:  Yup.
Greene:  You mentioned Kobuk area, what else?
Morse:  Mostly Kobuk - Western Alaska, did a lot with Rural Cap - building youth resiliency, more awareness of issues than hanging out there.
Greene:  How would you rate yourself working. . .?  [Can’t hear clearly. ]
Morse:  Interesting question.  Sometimes Executive Director even with small staff has to make decisions, execute plan.  Can I build a team, lead a team,  build consensus?  Yes.
Holm:  Rachel, thanks for coming in.  Curious.  What do you expect to do with this short term job and why do you want to do it?
Morse:  I was going to ask you guys about first part.
Holm:  But you have a job now, and you want to change the job.  I want someone who can accomplish something.
Morse:  I expect something that gets something done and makes a difference.  I plan to learn a lot, make a lot of contacts, get more exposure than current job.  I’m in an interim position that will end in June, then my job becomes a  full time position at UAA and I’ve also applied for that.  Good to be one of the first employes hired to make things get going.  Opportunity, look at what is out there, and I think it’s interesting, nuts and bolts of how it happens.
Holm:  What would you do if offered the University job full time at first of June, because we won’t be able to do anything until US Supreme Court renders its decision after June 1.
Will you leave in June if you get the UAA job?
Morse:  [long pause] - I need to know more about your time line.
Torgerson:  US Supreme Court will make a decision on the VRA and if it’s unconstitutional, it will change what we do.  Then our main controlling document will be the AK constitution.  What Mr. Holm is referring to.  We have set our meeting in early May and then come back in July or August after the SC rules.  You’ll still be here working. 
Morse:  When are you looking for this position to start?
Torgerson:  We expect you to have to give two weeks notice and as you mentioned need to come up to speed on software, we are interested as soon as possible.
Morse:  You’re expecting a year right?
Torgerson: A year, right.  If SC says you don’t have to do that it could be a couple of months, then back before the trial court.  If everything lines up perfectly, we might have DOJ approval by Feb. 14, if everything goes smoothly.  We have no control.  Trial court back to SC - our best guess, might have approval from DOJ early February.  Then a couple of months closing down the office.  Then be here until end of June.
Morse:  If I were hired for this position, I’d probably drop out of candidacy for the other job.  No way to accommodate both jobs.
Torgerson:  Others?
PeggyAnn McConnochie: Also about learning software - the ARC program - how comfortable are you learning that.
Morse:  I’m comfortable learning new technologies.  What kind of numbers are you talking about?
PeggyAnn McConnochie: ???
Morse:  Let me be clear . . . I’d need training. My question, taking people who don’t use the software already and getting them good enough to make the maps, is that what you’re asking?
PeggyAnn McConnochie:  no we all have learned to use it, just need to work with it.
Torgerson:  It’s complicated, but user friendly.  We all learned it.  I’m not totally proficient on every option.  Other members can.  Our GIS expert and ED were good.  Teachable skill.  Peggy asked if you are a quick learner.
Morse:  ???
Torgerson:  Totally autonomous from the state, state pays our bills and that’s it.  We hae our own legal counsel, software, borrow a GIS expert from DofLabor.
PeggyAnn McConnochie:  You need to learn the software and work with us.
Morse:  Interesting such a technical skill to have all the Board members learn the software.
Torgerson:  we had to, and with the open meetings act - two of us, but not three, can work together outside of meetings.  My experience it’s a good sounding board for all the members and ED to do their own thing.  Then we’d ask for their support on how to do it.
Greene:  Travel . .. ????
Torgerson:  Now, I don’t anticipate travel on moment’s notice, but could be travel to DC, to DoJ presentation and answering questions in person.  Planned well in advance.  Not like tomorrow need to jump on plane. 
Morse:  Love to travel, I don’t mind.  A moment’s notice is tricky.  Either work or not. 
Torgerson:  Possible DC if still required for pre-clearance.  Did you answer when you could start?  Two weeks notice with UAa.
Morse:  Four weeks notice with UAA.  When decide?
Torgerson: We’ll finish interviews and not sure when decide.  Hope to know this afternoon.  Won’t notify until tomorrow, maybe tnight.  Like to see start sooner than later if we find the right candidate.  I hear you say 4 weeks from date of notification.
Morse:  ??
11:33am Torgerson: Other questions?  Other questions?
Morse:  What does day-to-day look like? 
Torgerson:  In current process, daytoday would be working on a map to comply with SC ruling.  Initially, we’ll bring someone in to help you with the software - past ED - first week really big learning curve.  Expect person to work with the board to hire a GIS person so we have three people - Eric Sandberg at Department of Labor.  2nd person would be full time with us.  Familiarize yourself with SC ruling - need to know it in detail.  We want to comply with it.  We’d look to you for advice on how to comply.
Morse:  Good legal counsel on this?
Torgerson:  Not sure how good.   [laughter ]  We’d expect you to ask Mike White - we don’t have a filter on that.  Supreme Court’s mandate.  Daily job to get us a map and plan to get us to that sweet spot to get court approval.  My time line has us doing some work in April or May, could push that.  After SC rules in July or August we’ll come back and stay.  However much time it takes that’s what we’ll do.
Morse:  State or Board employee?
Torgerson:  Board employee.  Paid by state.  No contact with Governor.  Only with his administrative director and payroll person.  They arrange our travel through the governor’s office.  department of Administrative service I think.
Morse:  No benefits? 
Torgerson:  There are benefits.  i don’t know if things you’re doing with alumni board carry over.  But there are state benefits.  We don’t have our own employee manuals.  Their procedures on evaluations.  That would be your job.  OK so far?  We didn’t scare you away? 

Rachel, I guess there are no more questions.  Thank you.  We’ll call you with Board’s decision either late this afternoon or tomorrow.
Mary, our next one is 12:30.  What did you decide?  We’ll go off the record and our next interview with Laurel Hummel at 12:30, so we have an hour until we start up again.  Time is 11:40. 

Disconnected.

Redistricting Board Executive Director Interviews Go Public Momentarily

I learned just now that Rich Mauer of the Anchorage Daily News pressed the Board on the Public Meetings Act and got them to open the interviews with the Executive Director candidates today.  Two have dropped out.  That leaves three and they were planning to interview each for about 50 minutes to an hour. 

It's starts at 10:45 am.  If you want to listen in you can use the Alaska Legislative Link.

The Skinny on Pad Thai

My son sent me a link to a long history of Pad Thai from The Morning News:
It begins:

by Pitchaya Sudbanthad

Pad Thai is the most misunderstood noodle. Its best incarnations are difficult to find outside of Thailand, even as the basic ingredients are now readily available abroad. I think back to the Pad Thais of my childhood, freshly made at a Bangkok street stall and packaged to go in banana leaves and a newspaper outer layer. A good Pad Thai slowly reveals itself: sweetness with bursts of salty and tart, depending on what is being bitten—preserved radishes, dried prawns, and bits of peanut or omelet. Here in the U.S., Pad Thai usually arrives a pile of noodles plated in a puddle of oil. Many taste as sweet as a lollipop and come stained red by ketchup. . .

Banana leaves were the styrofoam of Thailand.  That is, they were what food was 'packed' in to go.  When I was teaching in Thailand in the late 60's it was the transition period between banana leaves and the beginning of plastic.  With banana leaves, you could just toss your packaging on the ground and very quickly the ants would have eaten whatever food was left on them, and the leaves would compost.

The biggest food use of plastic bags was for drinks.  A little baggy would be filled with the drink, a straw put in, and then it would all be tied up with a rubber band and often hung on bicycle handlebars, or just letting them dangle from your fingers.  I can still see the baggies bobbing up and down on the rubber band. 

And many Thais treated the plastic bag like they did the banana leaf - they tossed it.  It was what they'd always done with banana leaves and other biodegradable wrapping.  It was the natural thing to do.  Except that plastic bags aren't natural.

Anyway, the whole Pad Thai piece is interesting.  Here's a bit from later in the piece.

". . . And this is what I believe puts Pad Thai squarely in the realm of all things Thai: the balance of absorbed influences. The ideal Pad Thai sits in tenuous equilibrium between the forces of sweet, salty, and sour in its components; none can dominate any of the other. This very instinct of absorption and balance—so foundational to Thai thinking and, by natural extension, Thai food—allowed old Siam to escape formal colonial rule by yielding just enough privileges to the imperial powers of the time—England, France, Japan, and the U.S.—so that each had an interest in keeping Siam independent of the others’ ambitions. . ."

I think I've written this before, but it bears repeating.  Thais eat two basic kinds of hot food:  1)  "with rice"  and 2) noodles.  "With rice" are meals you eat with rice - curries and stir fries and fish.  In Thailand, these are eaten with a spoon and fork.  The fork is used to push the food onto the spoon.  Noodle dishes and little snack food are eaten with chop sticks.