Now, if I had a degree in journalism I'd have gotten her name spelled out and a little more information about the program she's on. But I don't and I didn't. I'm not proud of this, but it's how it is and so I'm posting this as is. She does tell us her name in the video, but I'm sure I'll mangle the spelling. And I didn't see Rena Delbridge, the reporter she was shadowing when I met her, of the Alaska Dispatch today. And I'm trying to get my stuff up reasonably close to when I shot it. But isn't she great?
She'll tell you who she is and what she's doing in Juneau on the video.
[Thursday afternoon: I ran into her again today when I stopped by Gavel to Gavel to check out there place and some questions I had. She's shadowing their producer today. And we decided that she really didn't need to have her name up beyond what is in the video.]
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Senate and House Go Own Ways in Mandated 90 Day Session Review Report
From what I can tell, although a majority of legislators seem to think that the 90 day session has hurt their ability to do work, has tipped the balance of power further to the executive branch, and probably hasn't achieved any real savings, no one wants to be the first to take on a citizens' initiative and propose legislation to go back to a 120 day session.
Before this session began, a report reviewing the 90 day session was due to Legislative Council Chair John Harris.
The report requirement was part of a longish 2007 bill (HB 171) which covered a variety of changes made to accommodate the switch to a 90 day session from 120 days ( Legislative reviews of the budgets were moved up 15 days, for example). A section of the bill called for a report before the session in 2010:
In the end, the House members wrote their own report.
The House committee Report is four pages backed up by lengthy appendices based on a long Survey Monkey survey of their fellow House members and staffers. [The report itself is at the link above. The survey results come in several different pdf files you can get through Rep. Seaton's website - on the right. Here's a link for the survey comments.]
They write:
They used an online survey tool (Survey Monkey) to poll fellow House members and House staff. 31 (of 40) House members responded and 47 non-Juneau and 23 Juneau based staffers also responded.
67% (21) of the legislators preferred the 120 day session. But 85% said the 90 day session had a detrimental effect. The attached survey results give often lengthy examples of the issues people had with the session. Unfortunately the report and survey results are in a pdf format that I cannot cut and paste, but here are a couple of screen shots that show you the kind of comments people made (again, double click to enlarge them):
This was what was happening Tuesday at the State Affairs in an attempt to get the HB 241 out quickly. But in this case, enough members voted no to make sure the issues were dealt with before being sent on to Finance Committee.
This comment is almost the exact sentiment conveyed at the State Affairs committee meeting. The bill sponsor suggested letting the repairs be done in the next committee - Finance. But someone else said, that wasn't Finance's expertise and the substantive changes needed to be taken care of in the State Affairs committee.
Senator Stevens submitted the most extensive letter (one and a half pages) which begins:
"I join with many of my Senate and House colleagues in opposition to the 90-day legislative sessions." (double click the page to enlarge it)
Before this session began, a report reviewing the 90 day session was due to Legislative Council Chair John Harris.
The report requirement was part of a longish 2007 bill (HB 171) which covered a variety of changes made to accommodate the switch to a 90 day session from 120 days ( Legislative reviews of the budgets were moved up 15 days, for example). A section of the bill called for a report before the session in 2010:
REPORT ON 90-DAY REGULAR SESSION. The Alaska Legislative Council shall prepare and deliver a report to each house of the legislature considering issues related to the duration of the regular session and making recommendations regarding the amendment or repeal of any statutes or Uniform Rules implementing the 90-day regular session. The report may be delivered at any time before the regular session is convened in 2010. By July 1, 2008, the Alaska Legislative Council shall notify the chief clerk, the senate secretary, and each of the presiding officers of the date the report will be delivered.A subcommitte was created to do the report. And read the law carefully so you can see what was asked of the committee members. The House members were:
- Chair: Rep. Paul Seaton
- Rep. Max Gruenberg
- Rep. Bryce Edgmon
- Sen. Charlie Huggins
- Sen. Gary Stevens
- Sen. Tom Wagoner
The House committee Report is four pages backed up by lengthy appendices based on a long Survey Monkey survey of their fellow House members and staffers. [The report itself is at the link above. The survey results come in several different pdf files you can get through Rep. Seaton's website - on the right. Here's a link for the survey comments.]
They write:
"House subcommittee members viewed our task as providing Legislative Council with a basis and recommendation for their report. House subcommittee members felt that we needed a baseline information on which to base our recommendations."
They used an online survey tool (Survey Monkey) to poll fellow House members and House staff. 31 (of 40) House members responded and 47 non-Juneau and 23 Juneau based staffers also responded.
67% (21) of the legislators preferred the 120 day session. But 85% said the 90 day session had a detrimental effect. The attached survey results give often lengthy examples of the issues people had with the session. Unfortunately the report and survey results are in a pdf format that I cannot cut and paste, but here are a couple of screen shots that show you the kind of comments people made (again, double click to enlarge them):
This was what was happening Tuesday at the State Affairs in an attempt to get the HB 241 out quickly. But in this case, enough members voted no to make sure the issues were dealt with before being sent on to Finance Committee.
There's a lot of data there and probably would make a good student project to take the data and subject it to more rigorous analysis than it got.
The House Report also says:
"Senate members of the subcommittee determined that they would proceed on a different track and did not participate in the survey."
That is, apparently, why there isn't a single report from the whole subcommittee. The Senate members, for their part, each submitted individual letters to Legislative Council Chair Harris.
"I join with many of my Senate and House colleagues in opposition to the 90-day legislative sessions." (double click the page to enlarge it)
The other two Senators turned in letters which spelled out how many people in their districts voted for and against the 90 limit initiative. Probably not quite what HB 171 intended.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
HB 115 - Permanent Absentee Voting Option
Here's Rep. Buch's sponsor statement. The bill comes up before the House State Affairs Committee tomorrow. Here's a link to the Gavel to Gavel schedule for tomorrow (Thursday.) At least you can go there and find the House State Affairs meeting. And you can link to the bills from there as well. I'm still trying to figure out what gets broadcast live and what after the fact. I'm working on a post about the relationship between the Legislative Affairs Agency recordings and Gavel to Gavel. As I understand it LAA does the audio and G2G does the video. But their websites are linked. It does say it will be teleconferenced. The G2G schedule doesn't show it yet, so you'll have to check in the morning.
See, I'm trying to get ahead a bit so some of you can actually find something you're interested in and listen in yourselves. I've been wondering how long I could go out of town and how much I could cover via the internet before any one figured it out. Probably because I use so many photos and videos you'd catch on pretty quick.
Anyway, here's the Sponsor statement on HB 115: (By now you should know what HB stands for, if not, check the end of the post.)
HB = House Bill
See, I'm trying to get ahead a bit so some of you can actually find something you're interested in and listen in yourselves. I've been wondering how long I could go out of town and how much I could cover via the internet before any one figured it out. Probably because I use so many photos and videos you'd catch on pretty quick.
Anyway, here's the Sponsor statement on HB 115: (By now you should know what HB stands for, if not, check the end of the post.)
HB 115 An Act establishing a permanent absentee voting option for qualified voters
HB 115 will streamline the absentee voting process for Alaskans by giving voters the option to register for permanent absentee voting status for state elections. Once a voter is on the permanent absentee voter roll, they won’t have to fill out an absentee request form for each election cycle. Instead, an absentee ballot will be automatically sent to them by the Division of Elections.
HB 115 does not change anyone’s voting rights. Voters can still request a one-time absentee ballot, just as they can now. Voters can still vote at their regular voting places if they so choose. HB 115 makes voting more convenient for voters. It also streamlines the administrative process for the Division of Elections.
HB 115 does not change any of the security or evaluation procedures that are already in place in Alaska statutes for handling absentee ballots; all of the provisions currently in place for absentee ballots would apply to permanent absentee ballots. HB 115 includes a provision for removal from the permanent absentee roll if the Division of Elections receives notice that mail sent to the voter’s address is undeliverable.
HB 115 does not apply to local elections. It only applies only to primary, general and special elections, and any election for which the state has the responsibility for the conduct of the election.
HB 115 has an effective date of January 1, 2010 due to the implementation of a new voter registration system in May of 2010. The new system will be able to handle permanent absentee voting, according to the director of the Division of Elections.
Thank you for your consideration. Representative Bob Buch
HB = House Bill
It Does Rain in Juneau After All
I'm stalling. Yesterday I did too much and stayed up too late. I've got stuff to post, but it's not quite ready. Also trying to take care of day to day stuff. Fortunately I have an incredible wife. She got me a new cell phone today after I put mine through the washer and drier over the weekend. It did light up and I did make some calls, but the battery was dead and they said they didn't have that kind of battery any more. I can't fight them any more, so just said ok. And we have a friend in Anchorage who just underwent serious surgey and trying to get J some tickets to spend some time with her, but also have a relative in LA who is also awaiting surgery and was hoping J would come down. But that keeps being postponed since end of November. Our daughter left for her six month fellowship in Berlin today and we've been looking for tickets to visit her. So, you get some rain pictures. But I'm working on several posts.
Mandatory Winter Tire Bill
Rep. John Harris (R) Valdez spoke for his bill HB 322 before the House Transportation Committee. The bill would require vehicles above 60˚ North latitude (Someone said this would make it above Yakutat) and connected to the main Anchorage/Fairbanks road system to have US government designated winter tires. Such tires have a snowflake symbol on them. Below is an excerpt from Tirerack's history of such tires which are required now in Quebec.In 1999, The U.S. Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) and the Rubber Association of Canada (RAC) agreed on a performance based standard to identify passenger and light truck tires that attain a traction index equal to, or greater than 110 (compared to a reference tire which is rated 100) during the specified American Society for Testing and Materials traction tests on packed snow. The new standard helps ensure that drivers can easily identify tires that provide a higher level of snow traction.
Severe Winter LogoA mountain/snowflake symbol branded on the tire's sidewall identifies tires that met the required performance in snow testing. The mountain/snowflake symbol is expected to be fully implemented on new tires by now, however there still may be a few winter/snow tires in the marketplace that meet the requirements but were produced in molds manufactured before the symbol was developed. [more on this at the Tirerack link]
(Photo: Kelly Gaede at hearing]
Rep. Tammie Wilson (R) Fairbanks aggressively challenged Gaede on different points. How were poorer families who could barely afford a car going to be able to buy a new set of winter tires? What about soldiers stationed in Alaska? Would they be required to change tires when they crossed the border in the winter? How did their research know that tires were the cause of winter crashes? Gaede explained that in 1972 the concept of all weather tires began to take over the winter tire business. However, all weather tires, he continued, really have no traction in the cold.
This slide was about Finland I believe.
Department of Transportation employees also testified. By the end of the hearing there were suggestions to push back the starting date until 2014 and several other changes I can't recall. It was also conceded that people could drive on winter tires all year, but not with studs.
The committee wanted to hear from experts other than the state's largest tire dealer. As part of the benefit to the state, they said that Johnson Tire would grow from about 125 employees to 800. Chair Peggy Wilson noted that they needed to hear about the tires from someone who didn't stand to profit from the passage of such a bill. It was also noted that if the bill passed, Alaska would be the first state in the US to have such a bill. However, it was pointed out that Quebec has passed a law requiring winter tires.
Here's a copy of the bill. I can't see it all on my monitor. If you have the same problem, you can get the bill here.
00 HOUSE BILL NO. 322 01 "An Act relating to winter tires; and providing for an effective date." 02 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA: 03 * Section 1. AS 28.35 is amended by adding a new section to read: 04 Sec. 28.35.158. Winter tires required. (a) A person may not operate a motor 05 vehicle registered in this state on a highway from December 15 to March 15 unless 06 that vehicle is equipped with tires designed for winter driving. 07 (b) In this section, "tires designed for winter driving" means tires 08 (1) that bear the mountain snowflake symbol as certified by the Rubber 09 Manufacturers Association or a comparable symbol as approved by the department; 10 (2) that are approved by the department for winter driving; or 11 (3) equipped with studs. 12 * Sec. 2. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to 13 read: 14 PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN. The Department of Transportation and Public 15 Facilities shall undertake a public education campaign to notify the public about the 01 requirements of AS 28.35.158, added by sec. 1 of this Act, before the effective date of that 02 section to ensure that the public is aware and has notice of the requirements of that section 03 before the requirements become effective. 04 * Sec. 3. Section 1 of this Act takes effect December 15, 2011. 05 * Sec. 4. Except as provided in sec. 3 of this Act, this Act takes effect immediately under 06 AS 01.10.070(c).
State Affairs Does NOT Pass HB 241 Iran Divestiture Out of Committee
This hearing picked up House Bill (HB) 421 where things left off last week.
The vote on Rep. Gatto's (R) (Wasilla) bill to have the state funds divest companies that do business in Iran was 3-3.
Yes: Gatto; Lynn (R) Anchorage; Gruenberg (D) Anchorage
No: Seaton (R) Homer; P. Wilson (R) Wrangell, Petersen (D) Anchorage
Rep. C. Johnson (R) Anchorage was out on an excused absence.
What happened? At the last hearing, the Commissioner of Revenue and the Executive Director of the Permanent Fund both said they could handle the bill without too much disruption.
Here are the concerns I heard Tuesday:
1. Minor concerns about how the companies would be identified. The committee made changes so that the language put the Alaska bill in line with Federal standards and so the Department of Revenue could utilize the lists created by other states rather than do the investigation based on slightly different Alaska standards. It sounded like these weren't problems, but the language wasn't totally resolved.
2. Concerns of inconsistent message sent by the bill because the bill requires the various state funds - the Permanent Fund, the retirement funds, the State of Alaska Supplemental Annuity Plan, and the deferred compensation program for state employees - to divest their holdings of companies identified as doing business in Iran. But the bill does not require the state to stop doing business with such companies.
3. Concern over the impact of the notification provision. There is a provision in the bill that requires notification of companies that they are being put on the list so they have a 'due process' right to clear their name if they are on the list in error. Rep. Gruenberg was concerned because there is right to prevent a fund from selling your stock and he didn't want some company lawyer to use this to fight the state's selling his client's company. Others argued this was aimed at giving companies the right to challenge their incusion on the list. Rep. Wilson asked whether the Dept. of Revenue expected companies to reply and Commissioner Galvin said he didn't expect many replies.
4. Impact on investments. Deputy Commissioner Barnett said we have about $900 million invested in stocks and bonds currently on the list. There was a question about whether having to sell these in 90 days would mean we might have to sell at a loss. Rep. Gatto pointed out that with various states getting rid of their investments in these stocks, it was likely the prices would go down, so now is a good time to sell anyway.
5. Too many changes not yet made. From here the bill goes to the Finance Committee. If I understand this right, they will only look at the financial impacts of the bill, not the substantive issues. Four of the members had concerns that there were still significant changes to be made and were reluctant to release the bill to Finance in the condition it was in. Seaton said that substantive changes should be made in this committee and not passed on to Finance. Gatto said you can amend it on the floor of the House if you still have problems then.
5. Finally, at the end, Rep. Seaton raised an objection based on his questioning of the original justification of the bill. Here's the audio of his objection. I've added a rough transcript below because the volume is so low. Just click the black arrow on the yellow square.
HB 241 Iran Divestiture Rep. Seaton Objections by AKRaven
Finally, Rep. Gatto, obviously concerned that there may not be enough votes to pass the bill out of the committee Tuesday, made a last effort to convince the other members.
HB 241 Iran Divestiture Rep. Gatto Supporting by AKRaven
Gatto: This bill has been scrubbed here. There are three conceptual amendments. So much language has been removed. Commissioner said he could deal with it even before the changes. We’ve essentially made it easier for the Commissioner to do what he does best, make decisions on what the substance of the bill is. Not a difficult bill. Sec. of STate Clinton has said Iran is on its way to becoming a military dictatorship. We know what they intend to do. I don’t think anyone is sitting here saying, well, they just want some peaceful nuclear energy. If you’re ok, I’m not ok. I’m not ok with allowing them to go on and then sit by like an idle little object saying boy I hope things go well there. Cause they’re not going well over there. It’s not going to change a lot of behavior, but it makes a stand for us. And if you say the bill’s too difficult to deal with I don’t know what the difficulty is, your going to sell something and maybe make some money, maybe lose some money. Buy something else, maybe make some money maybe lose some money. That’s the net effect of the bill, it doesn’t do anything else. It doesn’t arm soldiers, doesn’t put them on ships and send them overseas. It just says what do you want to do in the invetment portfolio. It’s not a policy of the state. It’s just saying what can we do in our investments in this state to make a statement that we’ll join 20 other states in saying that we object to this country. Because I think If I asked you, you’d admit that you do object to what’s going on in Iran. I do. And I think almost everyone in this room, if not everyone in this room does objects to what’s going on in Iran. And all we’re asking is something pretty simple. We could take this bill and we could hold it in here It’s already been here over a week. We’ve had ample opportunity to look at it and remove bits and pieces, which we’ve done. Goes to the second committee. When it’s on the floor, and if you don’t like the bill, say, you know, I’m going to offer an amendment. I thought we covered this back but it looks like we missed something so I’d like to make an amendment. That’s what we do. If you don’t want to pass the bill out, if you think it oughta stay here two more weeks well fine. That’s your vote, but it’s not my vote.
Rep. Johnson (R) Anchorage, had an excused absence. It's not clear which way he would vote. Last week he raised concerns about alienating companies that do business in Alaska.
The vote on Rep. Gatto's (R) (Wasilla) bill to have the state funds divest companies that do business in Iran was 3-3.
Yes: Gatto; Lynn (R) Anchorage; Gruenberg (D) Anchorage
No: Seaton (R) Homer; P. Wilson (R) Wrangell, Petersen (D) Anchorage
Rep. C. Johnson (R) Anchorage was out on an excused absence.
What happened? At the last hearing, the Commissioner of Revenue and the Executive Director of the Permanent Fund both said they could handle the bill without too much disruption.
[From left to right: Rep. Lynn; Rep. Gruenberg; Rep. Peggy Wilson; Rep. Petersen]
Here are the concerns I heard Tuesday:
1. Minor concerns about how the companies would be identified. The committee made changes so that the language put the Alaska bill in line with Federal standards and so the Department of Revenue could utilize the lists created by other states rather than do the investigation based on slightly different Alaska standards. It sounded like these weren't problems, but the language wasn't totally resolved.
2. Concerns of inconsistent message sent by the bill because the bill requires the various state funds - the Permanent Fund, the retirement funds, the State of Alaska Supplemental Annuity Plan, and the deferred compensation program for state employees - to divest their holdings of companies identified as doing business in Iran. But the bill does not require the state to stop doing business with such companies.
3. Concern over the impact of the notification provision. There is a provision in the bill that requires notification of companies that they are being put on the list so they have a 'due process' right to clear their name if they are on the list in error. Rep. Gruenberg was concerned because there is right to prevent a fund from selling your stock and he didn't want some company lawyer to use this to fight the state's selling his client's company. Others argued this was aimed at giving companies the right to challenge their incusion on the list. Rep. Wilson asked whether the Dept. of Revenue expected companies to reply and Commissioner Galvin said he didn't expect many replies.
4. Impact on investments. Deputy Commissioner Barnett said we have about $900 million invested in stocks and bonds currently on the list. There was a question about whether having to sell these in 90 days would mean we might have to sell at a loss. Rep. Gatto pointed out that with various states getting rid of their investments in these stocks, it was likely the prices would go down, so now is a good time to sell anyway.
5. Too many changes not yet made. From here the bill goes to the Finance Committee. If I understand this right, they will only look at the financial impacts of the bill, not the substantive issues. Four of the members had concerns that there were still significant changes to be made and were reluctant to release the bill to Finance in the condition it was in. Seaton said that substantive changes should be made in this committee and not passed on to Finance. Gatto said you can amend it on the floor of the House if you still have problems then.
5. Finally, at the end, Rep. Seaton raised an objection based on his questioning of the original justification of the bill. Here's the audio of his objection. I've added a rough transcript below because the volume is so low. Just click the black arrow on the yellow square.
HB 241 Iran Divestiture Rep. Seaton Objections by Seaton: I want to go back to the public testimony that started this about radical Islam and 911 and all that. We know 911 was the perpetrators of that was Al Qaeda which is affiliated with Sunni Muslim. We know the participants were from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Egypt, none from Iran. We had testimony about Iraq and we had a huge war there, and that’s Sunni, Saddam Hussein was Sunni, not Shiite. Shiite is Iran. There’s a a total mixing of these kinds of metaphors about what's happening. We talked about weapons in Afghanistan suppled by Iran. We have no evidence. Testimony I hear under oath by our Supreme Military Commander before Congress on C-Span is that Iran could be much more unhelpful than they currently are. They’re not really helpful as they could be but we hear all the time about attacks across the border. That border is not the Iranian border. You never hear about us having drone flights over Iran and shooting terrorists on the Iranian side. It’s always the Pakistani side. The Pakistani side is the one that already has nuclear weapons. We’re worried about Iran for other reasons. The basis for this bill is evidence I don’t think we have on the table here. I think I think we have some news reports of what may or may not be hapening in Iran. I’m not really supporting Iran here, I have friends of 15 years ago in Homer who barely escaped Iran in a very torturous process who are Bahai who had extremely difficult time. I don’t know currently if that’s still going on or not. I’m not aware of that. I don’t have the evidence of that so, I’m not meaning that we have a situation where I could make this decison based on the facts that we have in evidence. They are counter to what I hear counter evidence when Admiral Baldwin General Petraes testify before Congress. The western half of Afghanistan is fairly calm. We’re not having big problems there. Part of the reason is because the state is supplied electricity by Iran and it could be turned off at a moment’s notice. We have 500,000 Afghanis or more to a million they were evicted or left the Taliban and are residing in Iran right now who could be deported any moment and be a huge problem for us to try to deal with in Afghanistan. That’s been the testimony that we’ve seen. We have some real problems but I don’t see we have enough factual basis to make decision at this time.
Finally, Rep. Gatto, obviously concerned that there may not be enough votes to pass the bill out of the committee Tuesday, made a last effort to convince the other members.
HB 241 Iran Divestiture Rep. Gatto Supporting by Gatto: This bill has been scrubbed here. There are three conceptual amendments. So much language has been removed. Commissioner said he could deal with it even before the changes. We’ve essentially made it easier for the Commissioner to do what he does best, make decisions on what the substance of the bill is. Not a difficult bill. Sec. of STate Clinton has said Iran is on its way to becoming a military dictatorship. We know what they intend to do. I don’t think anyone is sitting here saying, well, they just want some peaceful nuclear energy. If you’re ok, I’m not ok. I’m not ok with allowing them to go on and then sit by like an idle little object saying boy I hope things go well there. Cause they’re not going well over there. It’s not going to change a lot of behavior, but it makes a stand for us. And if you say the bill’s too difficult to deal with I don’t know what the difficulty is, your going to sell something and maybe make some money, maybe lose some money. Buy something else, maybe make some money maybe lose some money. That’s the net effect of the bill, it doesn’t do anything else. It doesn’t arm soldiers, doesn’t put them on ships and send them overseas. It just says what do you want to do in the invetment portfolio. It’s not a policy of the state. It’s just saying what can we do in our investments in this state to make a statement that we’ll join 20 other states in saying that we object to this country. Because I think If I asked you, you’d admit that you do object to what’s going on in Iran. I do. And I think almost everyone in this room, if not everyone in this room does objects to what’s going on in Iran. And all we’re asking is something pretty simple. We could take this bill and we could hold it in here It’s already been here over a week. We’ve had ample opportunity to look at it and remove bits and pieces, which we’ve done. Goes to the second committee. When it’s on the floor, and if you don’t like the bill, say, you know, I’m going to offer an amendment. I thought we covered this back but it looks like we missed something so I’d like to make an amendment. That’s what we do. If you don’t want to pass the bill out, if you think it oughta stay here two more weeks well fine. That’s your vote, but it’s not my vote.
Rep. Johnson (R) Anchorage, had an excused absence. It's not clear which way he would vote. Last week he raised concerns about alienating companies that do business in Alaska.
Local Food Comes to the Capitol
Ted came by and got me out of the staff/public lounge where I was trying to write up a post on the morning hearing on the Iran Divestiture bill. (It will be up soon) There was a must attend lunch being sponsored by the Alaska Farm Bureau. I didn't know we had one. But I'm always looking for a good photo op, especially one with free food. There were people lined up in the hall to get in. This was not your typical lobbyist lunch and learn sandwiches and chips. The menu had gone around and had done its job. 
People were here for the Alaska grown prime rib and the elk meatloaf. Not exactly vegetarian fare, but surely there was more than that. They promised to hold my place in line while I went in to scout it out with my camera. Here's Rep. Neal Foster learning about Alaska grown food.This is a room in the Thomas Stewart Building connected to the Capitol building by a second floor bridge. The building just opened in January.
Chef Rob Kineen of Orso slicing the elk meatloaf. I think he was on the panel after the movie Ingredients was shown at UAA in December, but I'm not 100% sure.
Bernie Karl of the Alaska Farm Bureau tells me what this is all about. With a little help at the end from Victoria Naegle of Wasilla.
Enjoying lunch.
I'm pretty sure this is squash cake with Alaska whipped cream on top.
I didn't starve - there was a potato salad, an apple slaw, and vegie dessert.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Sen Coghill Helping Reporter Chris Eshleman on Trauma Bill
[The video is taking forever to load, so I'm going to post this and add the video when it's done, probably within the hour. Consider this a preview. The video is ... well I describe it below.]
I've got a whole slew of posts to do, but I was too busy being there to get anything up until now, but there's more on the Iran divestment bill (HB 241) which did NOT pass out of committee today on a 3-3 vote, 4H'ers in town learning about the legislature, the Alaska Farm Bureau's lunch for legislators, Rep. Harris' mandatory winter tire bill (HB 322) and Rep. Doogan's ban on cell phones while driving, plus Hooper Bay student in town for the week shadowing different folks each day. Not sure how many of these I'll get up, but here's an interesting bit of tape.
Fairbanks News-Miner reporter Chris Eshleman invited me into the empty Ramona Barnes Conference room as he went in with Senator John Coghill who was explaining to him the intricacies of Senate Bill (SB) 168. So this video is essentially a behind the scenes recording of a news reporter working on his story with a Senator who wants to get his story out.
Basically the bill is to set up a fund which will help hospital with their
I'd note that after I turned off the video, Sen. Coghill told us that a big motivation for him on this is the fact that his two year old grandson died of a head trauma in part because it took four hours to get the appropriate doctor to the emergency room in Anchorage. He assured us that this is not out of bitterness or anger, he understands that they did all they possibly could, but he doesn't want it to happen to others.
Update Friday: Here's the article Chris wrote from these sessions. It begins this way:
JUNEAU — A House committee Tuesday advanced plans to create a public account to aid trauma care and, supporters hope, steer major emergency rooms toward better funding for trauma services. . . (click on link above for the rest.)
I've got a whole slew of posts to do, but I was too busy being there to get anything up until now, but there's more on the Iran divestment bill (HB 241) which did NOT pass out of committee today on a 3-3 vote, 4H'ers in town learning about the legislature, the Alaska Farm Bureau's lunch for legislators, Rep. Harris' mandatory winter tire bill (HB 322) and Rep. Doogan's ban on cell phones while driving, plus Hooper Bay student in town for the week shadowing different folks each day. Not sure how many of these I'll get up, but here's an interesting bit of tape.
Fairbanks News-Miner reporter Chris Eshleman invited me into the empty Ramona Barnes Conference room as he went in with Senator John Coghill who was explaining to him the intricacies of Senate Bill (SB) 168. So this video is essentially a behind the scenes recording of a news reporter working on his story with a Senator who wants to get his story out.
Basically the bill is to set up a fund which will help hospital with their
I'd note that after I turned off the video, Sen. Coghill told us that a big motivation for him on this is the fact that his two year old grandson died of a head trauma in part because it took four hours to get the appropriate doctor to the emergency room in Anchorage. He assured us that this is not out of bitterness or anger, he understands that they did all they possibly could, but he doesn't want it to happen to others.
Update Friday: Here's the article Chris wrote from these sessions. It begins this way:
Alaska bill to aid trauma care moves ahead
There Can Be Civil Disagreements
Last week I chided fellow blogger Phil Munger because I thought his name calling and language choices seemed to do more harm than good in his quest to interpret events through his vast experiences in different field.
It's not the first time I've suggested the left needn't copy the tactics of rightwing talk radio. I think the left needs to stand up and challenge every distortion and error, but you can be firm and polite at the same time.
Phil reposted my post and one by another Anchorage blogger Mel. And while we offered criticism of what he was doing (not of him), he took our comments graciously and has responded with a new post. While some of the comments over there did not rise to the same level, many were thoughtful as well.
Phil has every right to post what and how he wants. But as I said last week, what someone can do and what they should do are not necessarily the same thing. While I think Phil came to the right conclusion, I'd feel the same whatever decision he came to. My real concern is that he handled the criticism with grace. Thanks Phil.
It's not the first time I've suggested the left needn't copy the tactics of rightwing talk radio. I think the left needs to stand up and challenge every distortion and error, but you can be firm and polite at the same time.
Phil reposted my post and one by another Anchorage blogger Mel. And while we offered criticism of what he was doing (not of him), he took our comments graciously and has responded with a new post. While some of the comments over there did not rise to the same level, many were thoughtful as well.
Phil has every right to post what and how he wants. But as I said last week, what someone can do and what they should do are not necessarily the same thing. While I think Phil came to the right conclusion, I'd feel the same whatever decision he came to. My real concern is that he handled the criticism with grace. Thanks Phil.
Reconoitering
I've been here a month and it's time to take stock of what I'm doing and how. So far, I've been getting the lay of the land, figuring out where things were, who was who, how things worked. What have I learned?
1. There's a lot going on. The legislature is supposed to do a lot of things. Article 2 of the Alaska Constitution which is titled Legislature, is pretty technical and talks about 'how' more than 'what' the legislature is supposed to do or 'why.' For example:
2. Things go at a pretty frenetic pace. There is no peace and quiet and I suspect few people ever spend more than ten minutes without some sort of interruption. Staff print out calendars each day for the legislators that have the various committee meetings they're supposed to attend plus whatever meetings and receptions they have. But walking the halls and sticking heads into offices is a constant activity leading to three minute trips becoming an hour of interactions with a lot of different people.
3. Things and people aren't always what they seem. As I start to form opinions about people and bills, I have to work hard not close off my assessments too early. People I respect sometimes point out aspects about people that are contrary to opinions I've already formed, and people can surprise me. One legislator did when I saw him coming down the Capitol steps wearing jeans and polo shirt. It was a side of him I'd never seen and I had to start rewriting my mental assessment of him.
4. The State has done a lot to make the legislature accessible. The online meeting schedules that legislative staffers consult are available to anyone with internet. Committee meetings are available online and in some cases on television and at legislative information offices around the state. People could have a lot of information about what's happening if they wanted to and took the time to acquaint themselves with the legislative website.
Up to now, I've just been bouncing around and everywhere I go there is something to write about. But there's no long term objective, except the vague - show people what it is like down here. Maybe that's fine. Maybe there's a better way. I'd characterize my posts, so far as:
A. This is what Juneau and the legislature are like.
B. This how you can access what is happening via the internet if you aren't in Juneau.
C. Here's what happened in this committee meeting.
D. Here are some of the folks down here lobbying.
I've already decided I need a team, a big team. But I can only afford myself. This also raises questions about how the media cover the legislature. Ideally there would be a team on each of four or five key issue areas such as natural resources, education, health, revenues, etc.
So how should I spend my time? Should I focus on a few bills and follow them through the process? One topic area? Should I try to dig up dirt? That's not exactly my style. But I could take on some longer term projects and dig a little deeper. Maybe I'll feel more confident to do something like that when I feel more sure of my knowledge of the place. But 90 days isn't long to really know. It is long enough to think you know. Highlighting things that are being done well is also important. Should I focus on a few legislators and what they do? Or should I focus on people behind the scenes - legislative staff, the full time staff of Legislative Affairs Agency, the lobbyists? Or should I just take things as they come?
My style up to know has been basically light with some heavier, more substantive pieces. Overall, I've consciously been the opposite of sensational. Where I've had information that I thought was of interest, I've made the reader work to find it. I don't know if that's a good approach. But I've also tried to make some things more accessible with pictures and videos.
So, I'm at a point of reassessment.
If anyone has any thoughts, I'm in a receptive mood. It is clear that whatever I do it will be a tiny, tiny nibble at what is happening simply because so very much is happening.
1. There's a lot going on. The legislature is supposed to do a lot of things. Article 2 of the Alaska Constitution which is titled Legislature, is pretty technical and talks about 'how' more than 'what' the legislature is supposed to do or 'why.' For example:
Section 2.14 - Passage of Bills.You have to get to the parts of the Constitution that deal with specific areas to be governed, such as:
The legislature shall establish the procedure for enactment of bills into law. No bill may become law unless it has passed three readings in each house on three separate days, except that any bill may be advanced from second to third reading on the same day by concurrence of three-fourths of the house considering it. No bill may become law without an affirmative vote of a majority of the membership of each house. The yeas and nays on final passage shall be entered in the journal.
Section 7.1 - Public Education. (This version of the Constitution isn't Article by Article, so you have to scroll down the page a bit.)And
The legislature shall by general law establish and maintain a system of public schools open to all children of the State, and may provide for other public educational institutions. Schools and institutions so established shall be free from sectarian control. No money shall be paid from public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.
Section 8.2 - General Authority.In any case, the legislature has power over the budget of all of the state government and there's plenty to keep the 60 legislators and their staff more than busy.
The legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people.
2. Things go at a pretty frenetic pace. There is no peace and quiet and I suspect few people ever spend more than ten minutes without some sort of interruption. Staff print out calendars each day for the legislators that have the various committee meetings they're supposed to attend plus whatever meetings and receptions they have. But walking the halls and sticking heads into offices is a constant activity leading to three minute trips becoming an hour of interactions with a lot of different people.
3. Things and people aren't always what they seem. As I start to form opinions about people and bills, I have to work hard not close off my assessments too early. People I respect sometimes point out aspects about people that are contrary to opinions I've already formed, and people can surprise me. One legislator did when I saw him coming down the Capitol steps wearing jeans and polo shirt. It was a side of him I'd never seen and I had to start rewriting my mental assessment of him.
4. The State has done a lot to make the legislature accessible. The online meeting schedules that legislative staffers consult are available to anyone with internet. Committee meetings are available online and in some cases on television and at legislative information offices around the state. People could have a lot of information about what's happening if they wanted to and took the time to acquaint themselves with the legislative website.
Up to now, I've just been bouncing around and everywhere I go there is something to write about. But there's no long term objective, except the vague - show people what it is like down here. Maybe that's fine. Maybe there's a better way. I'd characterize my posts, so far as:
A. This is what Juneau and the legislature are like.
B. This how you can access what is happening via the internet if you aren't in Juneau.
C. Here's what happened in this committee meeting.
D. Here are some of the folks down here lobbying.
I've already decided I need a team, a big team. But I can only afford myself. This also raises questions about how the media cover the legislature. Ideally there would be a team on each of four or five key issue areas such as natural resources, education, health, revenues, etc.
So how should I spend my time? Should I focus on a few bills and follow them through the process? One topic area? Should I try to dig up dirt? That's not exactly my style. But I could take on some longer term projects and dig a little deeper. Maybe I'll feel more confident to do something like that when I feel more sure of my knowledge of the place. But 90 days isn't long to really know. It is long enough to think you know. Highlighting things that are being done well is also important. Should I focus on a few legislators and what they do? Or should I focus on people behind the scenes - legislative staff, the full time staff of Legislative Affairs Agency, the lobbyists? Or should I just take things as they come?
My style up to know has been basically light with some heavier, more substantive pieces. Overall, I've consciously been the opposite of sensational. Where I've had information that I thought was of interest, I've made the reader work to find it. I don't know if that's a good approach. But I've also tried to make some things more accessible with pictures and videos.
So, I'm at a point of reassessment.
If anyone has any thoughts, I'm in a receptive mood. It is clear that whatever I do it will be a tiny, tiny nibble at what is happening simply because so very much is happening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)