The meeting began at 5pm and people testified from, maybe, 5:15 until 8. My fingers are exhausted, my eyes drooping. I thought I'd try to pull out themes, but that will have to wait. I'll try the spell check and then put this up for people who'd like to know what was said. You'll see the same themes over and over again.
The pro HB 110 arguments were basically variations of this:
ACES has killed new oil development in Alaska. Without HB 110 you can be assured that the Trans Alaska Pipeline will shut down shortly and the oil money that pays for Alaska will run out and the future will be grim. Vote for HB 110 to ensure Alaska's future. Many, if not most, identified themselves as somehow connected with the oil industry.
The anti HB 110 arguments were variations of:
HB 110 is a giveaway to the richest corporations in the world. And they won't guarantee anything. You need a macro view of the world oil economy. Alaska taxes are low compared to Norway and other places plus we have a politically stable environment compared to the Middle East and Africa. This is just a shakedown by the oil companies like they do every where in the world. Keep the $2 billion a year and put it to use: building infrastructure, taking care of homeless, or financing our own oil and gas development.
My wife counted 43 for HB 110 and 37 against. (It seemed from the early questions that Rep. Stoltz was counting.)
Below are my notes from the meeting. There are lots of gaps and if you need to be 100% accurate, wait for the transcript from the Legislature. This will just give you the gist of what was said. The spelling of the names is particularly dicey since I only heard them quickly.
Public testimony repeats (continues?) Friday March 25 at 3pm.
Reps SToltz, Edgemon, Duggan, Fairclough (the whole committee was there at one point)
Sen. Giessel in audience
Anchorage:
Jerry McCutcheon: Must consider that the incentives are being given for things the oil companies are already required to do. The Tax wouldn't pass the Harvard business test. Sen. Jackson wouldn't support the gasline 30 years ago because of the impact it would have on the gas. Exxon deliberately lied to the committee and Alaska. Wound us up like toys back then. Alaskans loss almost came out in 2007 hearings AOGCC testified because the gasline was not conducted in the 1980s, had produced more oil because gasline not produced. Also testified Alaska would have been broke today if both pipelines had been constructed. We follow one ruse after another. Exxon and the other North Slope producer ... now more oil ... Exxon et al were trying to deprive Alaska and the US of billions of barrels of oil.
Inivted to send any written testimony.
Michael Jesperson: I support it and think it will put more money .
Matthew Manioni? - Been involved for 20 years. We are killing oil field jobs with ACES regime and regulations. All new dollars being spent on maintenance and repair, not new fields. I agree with experts that without more production, we'll lose the known oil reserve. Time to save Alaska from itself. For years I've been a supporter of responsible gas development. The oil companies want to work with us, but because we've been short sighted, .... Healthy oil and gas industry keeps producing a healthy Alaska.
David Gottstein: I've provided written comments Dynamic Capital mange nt capital. Aces provided . . . want to provide incentives to the oil companies. Aces provides a flexible formulaic way to tax. We want oil companies to make more money at higher prices. Devil in details. . . Also don't want to sell resources too cheaply. . . If purveyor rises prices ten percent and loses 5% of customers ahead, but if loses 15% he's behind. Hard to tell right prices from just the oil companies since they have an interest. Now Aces is too aggressive at higher levels. We don't want to do that, but we don't want to sell our resources too cheaply. Our answer thru aces is elegant. Change it from .4% progressive level rise, it could be .4 to .39. .38 etc.
Basically he's saying keep ACES but make careful adjustments within ACES.
Stick with ACES platform and study how to adjust the powerful tools you have...
Jeanine St. John: Been involved in oil and support industry for 31 years, followed every tax change over the years and consider myself pretty well versed on all these policies and I want to be clear, I fully change ACES and the Gov's HB 110.
Paul Kendall: [Got interrupted] Important that public understand - it's time - Alaska is ineffectual. You can't change that we will be taken out of the loop of affecting this. If you are ineffectual, but you have opportunity to breach both worlds and be in special place in 8 years. I'm used to looking people in the eyes when I talk. The world's seven largest auto industries to - Dougherty at ADN refused to publish it - 38 countries supplying oil to USA, they are being used to shape new world order. They surpass your ability to participate and influence. I have 20 projects before me, I don't see how you can run Alaska from Juneau. Impossible to help with 1-3 minute opportunities to talk.
Barbara Winkly: Thank you for considering public input. Speak as long time AK resident in opposition to the bill. I urge legislature to set aside any surplus funds to to fund for infrastructure maintenance. We don't need to spend money in Las Vegas to attract tourists. If we don't save our wildlife, tourists won't come anyway. Don't let Alaska become the superficial goat while oil companies make billions in profit.
Oil tax debate: need to ask if in our best interest or hoodwinked by oil companies and our governor. Other oil countries have higher taxes. Although Parnell says jobs down, but other sources say were' better than ever. Is he being loyal to his prior employer.
Bob Buch: I hope you received info Nov 2010 ADN article. I'm opposed to bill. If the answer is tax reduction, then why didn't oil companies develop when elf was in place. Why give away with no guarantee. Exploration will be status quo. They won't put in any more. Both BP and CP have made $7 billion in profits since 2007. Nothing in Constitution says we should give benefit of our resources to private corporations. Basic service would diminish if funds reduced. Now Alaska is best positioned. Giving money away with no return is not prudent.
Mike Duggan: Glad your fighting spirit not diminished.
Les Gara: Thanks Bob.
Stoltz:
Ben Moore: REsident of ER. I don't have prepared statements. I just want to be here to show my support. I see ACES as taking the shortterm money with long term hurt.
Mr. Boehmer??: Born in Ketchikan 1935, lived in anchorage for 35 years. Vote yes for HB 110.
S: Go to Fairbanks
David Delong: I do not support HB 11o. Unnecessary and excessive giveaway to oil industry. Little correlation between taxation and production. We have taxes but no political risk. Oil industry for last 30 years. Have always tried to lowball. In early 80s we were told the pipeline would be dry by mid 90s. In Gulf going thru wells for second time. Biggest impediment is the pipeline and Alyeska. We need tariff reform. Appearance of impropriety when former employee of CP is now gov and seeking tax release. Oil is finite resource and we should insure we gt max value for it.
Mark Sharp: Thank you. Who requested explicitness? Ms. Fairclough, my specialty is snarking, but I assure you I can be specific. If ever there was a proposal that deserved skepticism of public. Giveaway to states wealthiest corporations. Correlations between paybacks and reinvestment. Will take the money as is their history. World ... not political kickbacks rule investment. Parnell's APOC campaign disclosure. Amount going his way from oil companies is staggering. Citizens have right to honest negotiations and it appears the governor is sitting on the wrong side of the table. Trust Exxon Mobile? I don't think so. This isn't reform, it's a give away. Sick of watching oil money.... while economy ravaged the Gov's top priority is to raid the budget....... can't keep up with him.....
Do something, build something, another year spent in Juneau kicking the can down the road... shot to hell. Is it any wonder how little faith Alaskans have in elected officials. This bill needs to die in committee.
Lisa Herbert: Head of chamber of commerce - promote healthy economic environment, but I am concerned there will be no business to advocate for if we don't change the tax on the oil industry. Deeply concerned about economy of Alaska. With continued decline of production, same problems as last winter when pipeline shurt down. Can we dodge the next bullet. 110 gives greatest opportunity to turn things around. We can turn things around and save the state.
Tammie Wilson: Thanks for testifying.
Paul ?Metz?" In support of HB 110. Endorse comments by ED of Chamber of Commerce as board member.
?? Case: Business. Pretty scared. Significant amount of our business is related to oil business. How can we compete with Canada and North Dakota. Something is not right or the bill would never have been created. If we can get the oil companies back we can secure a good future for our children.
Jeffrey Bacon: APEA - as lifelong Alaskan proud to represent AFEA, 8000 members throughout the state. Disheartens me that our gov took valuable time this session to hurt our economy. Taking money from our state that could be invested in infrastructure and energy help - money which would help every business. Instead of vibrant community, he's taking our money and giving it to oil company shareholders.
David Wellborn: (left)
Jean Trainer: In Alaska 35 years, single parent. look at this $10billion as a giveaway. I think about all the money I saved so my daughter could go to college. If she'd come after hs and said, let me have that $40K you save and well see. Thats what the gov's bill is doing - here' take a tax break and we'll see what happens. It's evidenced by political turmoil in middle east, AK is more attractive to big players. My way of thinking is, don't create a budget shortfall by handing $ to oil executives. I'm opposed.
Buzz Otis??- Here since 1975. We're at a crossroads. Either we encourage development or keep current tax rate and discourage. Lower tax rate will cause new look at our stte. I've been a gambler on Alaska economy. My contracting business still going strong today. I see a struggling Alaska economy. Don't risk them by ringing the last dime out of aces. Pipeline at 1/3 capacity. Take the risk out of doing business in Alaska. In Rep Wilson district.
Richard Feinberg: Thank you. Will follow with documentation. Briefly: Decline in N Slope production is a historical fact, but significance of decline in this political dialog have been grossly exaggerated and current NSlope and TAPS situation widely misperceived Viable quantities of crude remain economically viable to be produced - tangible reality that benefits from existing infrastructure. Reasonable to expect, including TA{S risk, tangible quantities will be produced for an extended period. Numerous empirical indicators that ACES regime is not a problem. I have followed hearings closely. I have yet to hear substantive evidence that tax reduction will spur new development. New discoveries would be wonderful, but uncertain. The reasonable max of state revenue as produced by production tax fiscal regime is wise. Documentation will follow. I hope you will supplant rhetoric with reasoning supported by verifiable and relevant facts.
Tammie Wilson: Are you in favor or against the bill?
Feinberg: Did I not make that clear in every word? I'm very opposed.
Gerald Rafson?? - I've been involved in transportation and planning issues for 30 plus years in AK. Voice my opposition to bill. Giveaway to oil industry money that could be used for interior and bush infrastructure. What we really need than tax reform is tariff reform on the pipeline. Oil companies are greatest impediment with tariff on pipeline. They prevent competition. Legislature should ease that stranglehold on the infrastructure - much more benefit than this bill.
Richard Heieron - Chair of Chamber of Commerce 700+ businesses in Fairbanks. HB 110 top priority for Chamber. Not an expert in the field, just a small business man and obvious to me something needs to change. In past three years 3 major tax changes. It complicates business. News Miner says since 157 billion from oil, a few billion from seafood and timber. In January, piepline was shut down due to leak. within two days of a six months stoppage. All this leads me to Aesop's fable, when people speak in opposition, like dog crossing bridge with bone and sees reflection and opens mouth to get the other bone.
Lorna Shaw: Can't compete with Richard's fable. Strongly in support of 110. Only thing given away is our future. We have a natural resource economy and we need to be sure they are developed. We have to be competitive, attractive for companies to make those investment. We can't just apss around the same few dollars, as chair elect of the chamber, a miner, and parent, urge everyone to pass 110.
Stoltz: How many people in Juneau;
Mary ?Graham - 27 year resident of Alaska, recently retired and watching alot of gavel to gavel . Like the oil companies coming to us asking for allowance and maybe I'll do my chores later. Not in favor of State giving away more billions. I think money can be spent in other areas. We knew these days were coming. That's why we have the permanent fund. We knew we wouldn't be able to subsist on royalties forever. Not as dire as portrayed now. We could use money to invest in renewable sustainable resources.
Stotz: Dad, Democrat,
Barbara Huff-Tuckness - Teamsters, I do want to go on record as suporting the ???. We represent about 6000 members within the state except cruise ship and fishing. And 1000s of retired Teamsters that live in the state. Maybe 100 members still working on slope, surprisingly on Exxon. It goes without say that jobs are important to us. Thanks for opportunity to speak on this. We don't believe this is a partisan bill or union v. non-union work. Impact will affect every worker we represent or don't represent and unemployed. We commend you for your exhaustive time listening to everyone.
Clear that our development is down. Your being asked to change to ACES. We think this should be a strategic plan. We don't have the magic fix, we can relate to jobs our members have lost. NorthSlope production at historic low and you all realize the revenue it brings in. We are concerned with jobs. Need strong economic base, need to be competitive, and we need jobs. What comes out of this committee will help grow our economy and staggered economy. Quoting Begich, reverse the decline of oil. We encourage your due diligence.
Guttenberg: Would I be correct to say you support jobs?
MATSU LIO:
Loreli Carter: Greater Palmer Chamber of Commerce, we passed a resolution supporting HB 110. Tax revenue for oil and gas industry is major source of funds. TAPS at 50% below capacity.
SToltz: Miss Carter ineligible for Baord of Regents
James Crowell: I support 110. Let's become competitive again Oil company only gets one dollar from every barrel. We need to lower the tax rate. We only have one exploratory rig on the north slope. Once the pipeline is pulled out, everyone will leave. Let's become a state once more open for business.
Homer LIO:
Donna Ray Faulkner: STrongly against 110, according to Gov Office, we're seeing increase in exploration. We know the oil companies want to increase their profits. The richest companies in the history of the world want a tax break. But why is the governor supporting this? They won't leave the oil in the ground. It will only get more valuable sitting in the ground. Alaska deserves its fair share of oil value. Why gov wants to drop tax rate well below any other place is beyond me. Defeat this bill and be sure we get fair share of resource profits. Appalled Gov has proposed this rollback and wants to increase oil company profits at expense of Alaskans.
Don McNamara: Represents surfers of Alaska. 110 is poor idea. Crated by a CP lobbyist, doesn't he know who hes working for now. Look at Venezuela. If oil companies don't want to drill, we should do it. There's a huge profit there. Tax rate for ACES now 60%, in Norway 70%, and no one is shooting them in Alaska.
Amy Dombosky?? off net site: Then back to Anchroage.
Anchorage IO:
Brian Clemens: In support of HB 110. Time running short. Best option on table. Please pass 110.
Mike McGuiness: Small oil field related firm. Fully support 110. EVery one stole my material. One underlying issue is not so much the money -0 always about money - but how about the 100,000 jobs at risk if we chase the oil companies out of here. Give the oil companies within reason of what they want. Those of you opposed tellt he 110,000 employed, your selfish.
Mike Baggert: 38 years in Anchorage and oil fields. This down now is almost terminal if it continues. A lot of people won't be here, my firm included. I do support 110
Kevin Derling: South Anchorage, strongly in support of 110. 30+ resident of Alaska, company supports oil industry, military. six month downturn, had to release employees. Asked me to support 110. There are no guarantees in life except death and taxes. Can't guarantee a return. They can guarantee they will stop investing with this tax rate.
Deantha? Crockett; I do support 110. Grew up with parents in the oil industry. I hope tht keeps up for my kids BF works for Alyeska for 15 years. We have plans to live here forever. Friend now works in Bakersfield because lost his oil job. I want to see it pass and reverse the trend.
Katie Kaposy?: In support of 110: Came in 1996 military dad. Didn't expect to marry AF and taken away, but back now Looking to grow roots here. Real fear of making tht decision now. Just don't know if this is a place to buy a house. I've seen a tenth of all the documents you've seen. Overwhelmingly clear. What we have is broken. Needs to be fixed. Something needs to happen now. Don't do nothing. Hope you'll pass it. If you have to make changes, do it to relieve taxes for oil companies.
Karl Portman. Lifelong Alaska, raised in Fairbanks and UA graduate in 1977, worked on pipeline and plan to retire in Alaska. I remember Alaska before TAPS seen Alaska booms and bust. Worried about future. With pipeline now 2/3 empty and premature shut down in ten years or less. Economic Disaster. Depression beyond what hwe have ever experience. ISER study 50% of economy directly tied to oil industry. Nothing else including natural gas can replace this. Funding education, public emplyee pensions. Must improve investment climate. With high oil taxes, just not competitive. We must change that and bring companies back to the state. Trading some oil tax revenue for long term production. Strongly urge passage of 110. Thanks for opportunity to express opinion.
Jed Whittaker: I've been listening. Smartest thing said by Gottstein says, don't throw the baby out with bathwater, but if take a percentage of here or there, best thing. I want to make committee aware of global phenomenon. 2000, 6 billin people. This year there will be 7 billion people. ONe billion more who will need more energy and everything. Increased demand for commodities. Bull market. Foolish to give tax break to most profitable world companies to drill oil when they're already making huge profits. Worst testimony have gloom and doom scenario. Not the case. AK Journal of Commerce March 13. Spanish oil company has committed $768 million for exploration on NSlope. Quote CEO of Repsol: "This deal is perfect fit to balance portfolio with lower risk in stable environment." They don't have a history of buying alsaka legislators on the cheap. Bill Allen is in prison. This 2Billion giveaway is not cognizant of megatrends on the planet. Commodities will increase. Repsol didn't ask for a tax break. Our Gov. just wants to give away 2 billion. Maybe they haven't developed the historical corrupt practices of bribing Alaska legislators.
Scott ?? Also a surfer; STrongly support 110. A lot lost on public at large. Focus on profit oil companies taking out, but when it comes to making investment decision, you'll go where you gt the highest return. That's our problem today. Iagree with last person that oil prices will go up. With ACES, the higher the oil prices go, the less competitive we become to deal with ACES progressivity. We need to become mroe competitive in the world market, than other world areas that are roughly the same risk as here. Relatively low risk compared to middle east and Africa. But production prices high and you add some of the highest taxes in N America, transportation costs etc. makes us uncompetitive. Important to pass 110.
Pete STokes: Live in Rep Holmes district. Grew up in Kenai. Seen from beginning how oil has impacted our state, done wonders for it. Licensed Petroleum Engineer, started in Alaska, been all over Oklahoma Texas Indonesia. All my children are working professionals here. I urge you to pass 110 to allow Alaska competitive, but no guarantees that reduced taxes will guarantee investments, it is more likely. If remains high like they are and production will decline in higher rate. Rather than take a larger piece of this shrinking pie, we should grow the pie. Once there is no oil, no option to fund what we're doing. Except going into permanent fund and income taxes. High paying jobs because of oil industry will be gone. Lot of good jobs going to North Dakota. Not worried about myself. Ive had a good life and retire and become a snowbird and just come back in the summers. I don't want to do that. Want to stay here. Worried about my kids and their kids.
Jason Brune: Resource Development Council ED: RDC is statewide business association oil and gas, mining, tourism, fishing, Native Regional Corporations . Our mission to support strong, diversified economy. Testifying in strong support of HB 110. Testimony from Admiral Barrett [President of Alyeska]. Without change pipeline can shut down in ten years. Fair share we receive is the royalty. That was agreed to by those companies that spent 100s of millions to take the risk. Ever increasing taxes was not in the contract they signed. We are seeing fruits of our labor. Look at Nikaitchuq and Oliktok? - we need two or three of these a year. If oil shuts down, we'll see all the other industries shrink. I'd like to challenge the notion that the large capitol budgets have saved the economy. If TAPs shuts down, there will be no capital budgets.
As co-chair of Parnell's transition team - number one priority should be to deal with Alaska's taxation policy to encourage more investment.
Dugan: Jason, want to say most of the credit for the hearing in Anchorage goes to Bill Stoltz and his staff.
Kerry ???: My company is direct result of the oil industry. We have benefited from exploration and what the North Slope has become. Without the investment dollars to keep Prudhoe Bay viable. We have 14Billion state budget that will not be sustained that without oil money. If not paid for taxes, you'll have to reduce the budget. The people and infrastructure are withering on the vine. I see it on a daily basis what it takes to run TAPS at 1/3 capacity. That recent shutdown, a few more days longer it would have frozen and been shut down till spring. We can't continue on this path to get investment dollars here. We are setting ourselves for failure. I talked to Respol. They are looking at 110. Much of their investment is dependent on 110. Their decisions based on what happens. We need to do something right now. Since this has been in place, we've done nothing but decline. We had 17 before this began. They all shut down due to regulations by the feds or state. If you want to see - we're heading back to 1987 crash. I won't be here for that. I'll just go somewhere else. We employ 30 people and will have to lay off people. With $100 oil and laying off people is ridiculous.
SToltz: Kodiak
Mike Millikan: served on Assembly with Austerman and Stevens. Been in Alaska since ?? worked on the slope. I'm opposed to 110. I appreciate jobs. All of you are aware of what is happening with gas pipeline and fracking. All this money will go to lower 48 fracking. I want to point to Hawker's graph - over 65% of all world wide production comes from a state owned facility. Venezuelans come from state owned facility - they pay 10cents a gallon. Hickel was able to pressure ARCO to continue drilling at Prudhoe because state would take over if they quit. We have to have the possibility of State owned fields so we can have real negotiations.
Cordova:
???: Extensive on both sides. A lot of stuff thrown out and heat. Concern to all of us what we do and how we pay for it. I've worked in oil industry and fishing, lifelong resident. Pick up mixed signals. 22 years ago today was significant day - Exxon Valdez spill. Keep things in perspective. I'm reluctant to see this pushed and suddenly we're in doom and gloom and sky is falling. Having researched oil industry - largest entities on the planets today. Same banks and super rich hold their stocks as our finances rot. Our military supports them around the world. That's our taxes paying for them. We're stuck with oil as it is. Oil companies have been making and breaking oil countries around the world. These are the guys who wrote the maps after WWII. They hold all the cards and they know it. ACES only passed because of the light of corruption until their next pawn, Parnell arrived,
Yeah, I know its a rant. A far cry from Norway, where they have done much better than we have. I on't trust the oil companies. Force us into a corner and we're fighting each other instead of them.
Skip?? - One before us is impact of ACES may or may not have on majors and producers on slope. My opinion that ACES progressivity element is a disincentive and work needs to take place to improve the tax structure and you will modify ACES and I'm in support of 110. I have a son finishing at University and looking to go to work on North Slope.
Mark MacArthur?? - economist, own part of business in textile market, we understand business. In line for tesla motor car. I oppose it. Not good to give money to most profitbale companies on the planet. Will force our state to run a deficit budget. Rather than house bill 110. Why not champion Alaska's own oil company. We need to take more control of our resources, that's our oil they are using to make huge profits. I want to see real competition. Oil Spill in Gulf opened my eyes. Oil companies don't do anything ont heir own - contract it all out. Think how many wells we could drill with $20 billion. Great Bear and Repsol - Our gov and big oil companies want us to think we are closing down. It's a lie.
Ron ??- been here for 35 years. In opposition. Sympathetic to those fearing losing their jobs. I would support the bill if there was any evidence that passing the bill would do the things they say. There is no evidence. 18 - 20 years no relationship between taxation and production. Repsol publicly said they were going to do it because of our stable political environment. Other study says taxation either supports or is neutral. Wagoner has a bill to give them tax credits if they increase productions after not before. We have lots of other projects. There is no benefit cost ratio to support this.
Tom Lakosh - I come to bury Caesar not to praise him. Testimony establishes that it would be unconstitutional to pass 110. You must dispense resources in the public interest. There is no correlation between decreasing taxes and increase productions. Dan Sullivan told you majors told him they would not guarantee production if taxes reduced. Ridiculous and contrary to ethics of a democratic people to try to compete with cannibalistic third world despots who will swing bribery deals with oil companies. That's who you are competing with. Throughout the testimony. The one statement made by a representiative that came to the quick was Mr. Duggan's question. Did the oil majors threaten to let oil pipeline go dry if we didn't give a tax break? They already made that decicion. We've had a horrendous mismanagement of our system. They built a pipeline that turns into an 800 mile sausage. Always have problem of pipeline mismangement and corrosion. When we went through ACES we went through every company. Relied on Norway model. They created their own corporation then bought 68% of ???. Lack of capital while sitting on $39 billion of permanent fund. You have not done your due dilligence. You cannot constitutionally pass 110. Invest the money on refineries and ship product.
Merrick Peirce - Serve on board of Alaska Pipeline Port Authority?? and on Palin-Parnell transition team. Some big picture nubmers. barrels of oil today. about 65% of the value of our PF. We get to keep about $5 or $6 for us and $17 for the industry. You are being asked to give away additional billions. Constitutionally. Almost anything is alternative is better than 110. We could give everyone several hundred a year. Why not take that $2nillion a year. Like Alaska residents told you. Protects us from the extortion of the oil companies. Cleans the air, and affordable energy for military basis. Federal deficits so significant that all the bases vulnerable to closure. Finally we'd get more into the pipeline. I can't keep up with how fast he's talking. We could develop a fund to compete with the Norwegian fund which is near $500 Billion. Or we could act like sharecroppers on our own land. Why would we trust putting our money into hands of multinational corporations.
Fairbanks:
???: 41 year resident. Prof. Emeritus in Environmental and Petroleum engineering. I'm opposed to 110, but I could be convinced to support it with facts. We need jobs. But do you know how many jobs we could create with $2billion. Why $2 billion, why not $1 Billion, $O billion? Is this a one time thing? Absurd to say there are no guarantees in business. Govt. is business and these are our funds. You won't get support without guarantees. Let's amend it and establish an account and let the oil companies apply for funds to explore. Why do they need money to eplore? they know where the money is. The need to produce, not explore. If they apply for money, they need to justify their use. I'm against the proposal as it stands. Or why it has to pass because it's urtent? We've known for 30 years there would be a decline.
Cynthia Tabasco?? - mother grandmother banker and Chamber member - serious concerns about our future. Need to make Alaska competitive. What we're doing isn't working. I want my children to stay here. North Dakota has an abundance of jobs.
Butch Stein : Live in Ester since 1972. Wasn't going to testify because a lot of good testimony has been given, but you're keep track of yeas and neas, so I want to be recorded as a yea. I urge you to pass the bill out of committee.
Randy Griffin': I favor HB 110. We used to have elf, the jacked up ppt, to correct deficiencies of elf. Increase about $1billion. Then new governor, populist, they changed it with ACES partly because of Bill Allen, had nothing to do with oil industry, just a guy who hurt his head in a motorcycle accident. We've lost while North Dakota gained 20,000 jobs. I see pigs going to the trough to slop up. I'm one and in favor of maximizing what we get. Let's be smart pigs. Let's not just maximize short term slop, go for long term slop. Some people say oil companies are just using Alaska as a land bank. I worked for ARCO, just blue collar guy. My experience was they were constantly thinking how to expand and explore. Some low flow, because there is high risk. Some say we don't want to give this tax break because we don't have any guarantee. No one can guarantee. They go back to stockholders - you and I because state is invested in oil companies. I'm in favor of 110 and keep Alaska vioable.
Ken Hall: Lived in Fairbanks all my life, went to school here UAF, three kids. Part of commitment, I'm in Fairbanks Chapter of Support Alliance, and volunteer to make Alaska a better place. I've always worked in private enterprise. We do everything we can to keep things competitive and improve our position with customers. If we don't our competition does. I'm in support of 110. No one wants to give away $2billion. It will make Alaska competitive for the future. Legislature's responsibility to make it competitive. My industry had good month in March. Sold a lot of stuff to Prudhoe. Support bill.
Don Gray: Lived here 40 years, several friends some pro some con. I'm opposed. I remember pre-pipeline days, TAPS, taught history, was in private sector as financial adviser. Where the rubber meets road as far as capitalism is concerned. Hammond, I say with great respect for oil companies, Conoco only one that reports Alaska profits separately. Hammond said we have to remember who owns the oil companies here. Oil companies look out for best interest of their shareholders. Extracted maximum benefit wherever they were - in Kazakhstan or Venezuela, if had to leave, cost of doing business. Cost of
doing business in Alaska is reasonable. Some of these proposals here, read Roger Marx's and Governors, incremental cuts, using brackets, cut not a huge amount, and pretty soon it adds up to real money. A lot of these are tax policy questions beyond my expertise. You have far better experts. David Gottstein said maybe you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. ACES has lots of good features already. This would cost Alaskans lots of money with no guarantee. Oil companies go where the oil is, maximize the profits for their shareholders. I encourage you to not pass it now. Hold it for next year if you have to. Thanks
Matsu LIO
STu Graham" I'm in favor. First step we can take to increase thru put though the pipeline. That's the future of the state, not in gas pipeline. Depends on increasing TAPs throughput. We've show we could do it int he past. There is no guarantee, but we do have opportunity to open window so exploration and development companies can move forward, based on their great risk. My opposition to some of the wording. People talking bout giving away - what we owe is oil in the ground and lease that and tax. We're allowing companies to keep what they have earned. And provide tax revenue, now an excess, a political football. Discussion saying to move it into the permanent fund. they we can't use it for anything It's not our money. It's money that shareholders and oil employees rely on this. Remind that progressivity in ACES is twice what previous governor proposed. Not like were giving anything away, just trimming taxes to reasonable level. Future of Alaska is based on TAPS throughput. We have workforce in Alaska we've trained to produce ont he North Slope. Now those jobs moving to other states. We can move 110 forward.
Geoffrey Humphrey in Anchorage: Speaking in opposition. Not focused on important metrics - profits. Not right way to focus our attention to maximize benefit we see to maximize
Roger Jenkins - Good evening to committee. I am a resident of Spenard, live in Rep Doogan's district. Just read your interview int he Petroleum News. Comes as no surprise to people who know me that I'm for this bill. My earth science background says geologically we have to - geophysical targets in ANWR and off shore in Chukchi and PET4. BEaufort Sea closed violating air quality. ANWR is away from us. Each of you should find on eBay, Don Young's 74 mile pipeline to ANWR. 12 years ago both houses passed bill to open ANWR and president then said it would take ten years. Young laid it all out. Only 74 miles from drilling to terminal of pipeline. We can build a 74 mile pipeline.
SToltz: Roger was member of 14th legislature, hope I will see you at Mulcahy.
Doogan: I'd never dream of trying to tell the truth about you.
Donald Bellamy: new resident of Alaska. engineer, supporting mining and petroleum. I'm envious of people who say they are lifelong Alaskan and I want to make my life hear. Fear we will have to leave. Friend is going to Houston. Someone said 110,000 jobs and their families who will leave. I support anything that will create jobs. Not easy oil Tough to get that developed. When oil is 100 /barrel, and in other places the boom is on. What is it about Alaska that the boom is not on here? What can we do to create growth. If 110 does that I'm 100 % for it.
Chuck Becker:
Buch: Can you hear us? ARe you going to take questions? Young lady has just returned.
Deborah Berlini??: Testifying in support of 110. 35 year Alaskan a couple of kids, single and unemployed. I went to Juneau to support 110. In mid 1980s I was foreclosing on homes due to plummeting oil. I was 20 years old foreclosing 20 homes a week. One para legal, I have foreclosed on 5200 homes in five years. After I returned I researched the year Alaska crashed. I didn't realize how bad things were in 1986. The headlines which stood out: Income plunges. AHFC largest property owners. Budget cuts cut 9000 jobs. Warns of depression. Alaska dug itself out of the crash when prices went up and oil in the pipeline. I want my kids to have the same opportunities. Crying as she says to remember my children.
Chuck Becker: Distinguished members of the committee....I am supportive of 110 retired of commercial service of US this is my personal opinion. ACES is disincentive. ONe exploratory well in 2010 and only one permitted in 2011. Average monthly employment in oil jobs fell by 1000 jobs. .... Many years ago I sold pharmaceutical, I'd tell my physicians ... ACES exceeded optimal affect. Alberta too increased taxes until industry went elsewhere.
Lynette Moreno Hens: I was born in Sitka just before statehood. I'm opposed. The money given away for AGIA was Alaskan money. She wanted to please Canada and also gave away salmon. As ak native I oppose. I've driven cab in Anch for 32 years. I don't represent industry. I drive around and see homeless kids - high school, jr high, and elemntary. I look in their eyes and see they have no hope. Other kids told not pick on them. I know homelss hardships. Ex husband vietname vet, is on the streets. My three grandchildren taken by OCS. This is some of the real problems Alaska residents face. I'm starting a petition to have state sell Alaska oil at cost. Me and Javen Osie are starting this. We know Alaska has an agreement with the oil companies. NOw I see the outcome. I never saw that in this state that we'd have people so greedy who want more and more and more and that's why I'm doing this. Testimony from Kodiak Island - Mark - I know people think this is a charity. How many people give back their permanent fund money? not many. People here tired of paying the middle men - the oil reinery jacking up cost of distribution of Alaska gas. ..... fingers hurt. .. she's reading her petition to the legislature. Gasoline, since we own it, shouldn't cost more than $1.50 a gallon. They expect $5/gallon.
Yolanda Delacruz - I oppose 110. This administration who support exploration want to give away $2billion. Sarah Palin already gave away $500 million to Trans Canada. Time for legislators to work for all Alaskans. Time to stop this manipulation and control. Thank you very much.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Tax Foundation: Alaska #2 in 2011 State Business Tax Climate Index
South Dakota beat out Alaska as the state with the best business climate for business in 2011. I guess being number 2 isn't good enough for Gov. Sean Parnell who wants to give the oil industry $2 billion a year discounts in oil taxes.
The Tax Foundation's report, which gives Alaska an overall score of 7.39 compared to South Dakota's 7.43, warns against giving away special tax incentive packages to lure business to one's state:
Did you catch that?
Now, it is true that our lack of an individual income tax and state sales tax certainly helps Alaska get high on this rating even though we do get significant revenue from the oil. But only part of that is tax, there are also royalties, because, as Wally Hickel often pointed out, the oil belongs to the State of Alaska. The oil companies are getting rich on oil owned by Alaska.
But the Tax Foundation study took all this into account:
In any case, there are hearings on the Governor's oil tax bill this evening starting at 5, and again tomorrow beginning at 3pm.
Thanks to SC who passed on a press release from Sen. Hollis French's office that led to this report.
UPDATE 4:15pm: Here's the study itself:
FF2011_combined_d-1-FINAL
 | |||
| Double click to see this bigger and clearer |
The Tax Foundation's report, which gives Alaska an overall score of 7.39 compared to South Dakota's 7.43, warns against giving away special tax incentive packages to lure business to one's state:
State lawmakers are always mindful of their states’ business tax climates but they are often tempted to lure business with lucrative tax incentives and subsidies instead of broad-based tax reform. This can be a dangerous proposition, as a case in Dell Computers and North Carolina illustrates. North Carolina agreed to $240 million worth of incentives to lure Dell to North Caro- lina. Many of the incentives came in form of tax credits from the state and local governments. Unfortunately Dell announced in 2009 that it would be closing the plant after only four years of operations. A recent USA Today article chronicled similar problems other states are having with companies who receive generous tax incentives. [footnotes dropped, but links to them added]
Lawmakers create these deals under the banner of job creation and economic development, but the truth is that if a state needs to offer such packages, it is most likely covering for a woeful business tax climate. A far more effective approach is to systematically improve the business tax climate for the long term so as to improve the state’s competitiveness. When assessing which changes to make, lawmakers need to remember these two rules: [You want to know the two rules? Go to the study here.]
Did you catch that?
"if a state needs to offer such packages, it is most likely covering for a woeful business tax climate."But Alaska doesn't have a woeful business climate. It's second best just a few decimal points below South Dakota, and way head of number 20 North Dakota that is being cited by the Governor's office and newspaper ads as taking away our oil business.
Now, it is true that our lack of an individual income tax and state sales tax certainly helps Alaska get high on this rating even though we do get significant revenue from the oil. But only part of that is tax, there are also royalties, because, as Wally Hickel often pointed out, the oil belongs to the State of Alaska. The oil companies are getting rich on oil owned by Alaska.
But the Tax Foundation study took all this into account:
Ranking the competitiveness of 50 very different tax systems presents many challenges, especially when a state dispenses with a major tax entirely. Should Colorado’s tax system, which includes three relatively neutral taxes on general sales, individual income and corporate income, be considered more or less competitive than Alaska’s tax system, which includes a particularly burden- some corporate income tax but no tax on individual income or general statewide sales?
The 2011 SBTCI deals with such questions by comparing the states on five separate aspects of their tax systems and then adding the results up to a final, overall ranking. This approach has the advantage of rewarding states on particularly strong aspects of their tax systems (or penalizing them on particularly weak aspects) while also measuring the general competitiveness of their overall tax systems. The result is a score that can be compared to other states’ scores. Ultimately, both Alaska and Colorado score well.
In any case, there are hearings on the Governor's oil tax bill this evening starting at 5, and again tomorrow beginning at 3pm.
The House Finance Committee will be holding its first public hearings on the Governor’s oil tax bill, HB110 this coming Thursday and Friday. You can testify from the
Anchorage Legislative Information Office (LIO) at
716 W 4th Avenue, Suite 220
at the following times:
Thursday, March 24 5:00pm – 8:00pmFriday, March 25 3:00pm – 7:00pm
Thanks to SC who passed on a press release from Sen. Hollis French's office that led to this report.
UPDATE 4:15pm: Here's the study itself:
FF2011_combined_d-1-FINAL
Pete Kott Rumor: Court Judgment Dismissed or Overturned or Something
[Consider this a heads' up rumor. I'm posting this with much less back up than I normally would. ]
Something is happening and I'm not clear on the details, but since I get dissed as 'just a blogger' I can use my blogger's license (something like poetic license for bloggers) to report this without much more than one usually unreliable source.
The report is that Pete Kott's case has been dismissed. Or maybe overturned. There was also mention of the possibility that he could get compensation for time served.
Meanwhile Tom Anderson was released from Sheridan Correctional Camp last month and is at a Seattle half-way house. Rick Smith, I'm told, was released, also from Sheridan, very recently (maybe it was yesterday), and is at the Bellingham half-way house.
Alaska prisoners, it appears, now go to one of four half-way houses - two in Tacoma, one in Seattle, and one in Bellingham. The company now with the contract for Federal half-way houses, GEO, does not have any half-way house facilities in Alaska.
I'm really uncomfortable putting up a post like this, so I've called the US attorney's office to see if I can get some confirmation and I'm waiting for a call back (it's lunch time) before posting anything.
OK, I found more on this on White Collar Crime Prof Blog:
UPDATE 1pm: It turns out the Alaska Dispatch had this story an hour ago.
UPDATE 2:30pm: I found this photo I took of Kott attorney McCloud on November 17, 2009. You can see the arguments she made then.
UPDATE 4:30pm: I should read my own blog links. Alaska Political Corruption one of my Alaska sites in the blogroll on the right had this story at 11:35am.
Something is happening and I'm not clear on the details, but since I get dissed as 'just a blogger' I can use my blogger's license (something like poetic license for bloggers) to report this without much more than one usually unreliable source.
The report is that Pete Kott's case has been dismissed. Or maybe overturned. There was also mention of the possibility that he could get compensation for time served.
Meanwhile Tom Anderson was released from Sheridan Correctional Camp last month and is at a Seattle half-way house. Rick Smith, I'm told, was released, also from Sheridan, very recently (maybe it was yesterday), and is at the Bellingham half-way house.
Alaska prisoners, it appears, now go to one of four half-way houses - two in Tacoma, one in Seattle, and one in Bellingham. The company now with the contract for Federal half-way houses, GEO, does not have any half-way house facilities in Alaska.
I'm really uncomfortable putting up a post like this, so I've called the US attorney's office to see if I can get some confirmation and I'm waiting for a call back (it's lunch time) before posting anything.
OK, I found more on this on White Collar Crime Prof Blog:
Kott Decision Matches Kohring - Prosecutors Violated Brady
In an unpublished memorandum decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Peter Kott's conviction, like Kohring, needed to be reversed because of Brady violations by prosecutors. The court in citing the Supreme Court's decision in Bagley said, that "there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." The court remanded it to the district court to determine if the prosecution "acted flagrantly, willfully, or in bad faith."
Judge Fletcher concurred and dissented in part, finding a new trial an insufficient remedy. She wrote to express the view that the court's supervisory authority should be used and the indictment should be dismissed with prejudice. Judge Fletcher stated:
"I am deeply troubled by the government's lack of contrition in this case. Despite their assurances that they take this matter seriously, the government attorneys have attempted to minimize the extent and seriousness of the prosecutorial misconduct and even assert that Kott received a fair trial -- despite the the government's failure to disclose thousands of pages that reveal, in part, prior inconsistent statements by the government's star witnesses, ..., regarding the payments Kott allegedly received."For prior posts, see here, here, here, and here. Peter Kott was represented by Sheryl Gordon McCloud of Seattle, Washington.
UPDATE 1pm: It turns out the Alaska Dispatch had this story an hour ago.
UPDATE 2:30pm: I found this photo I took of Kott attorney McCloud on November 17, 2009. You can see the arguments she made then.
UPDATE 4:30pm: I should read my own blog links. Alaska Political Corruption one of my Alaska sites in the blogroll on the right had this story at 11:35am.
Anchorage Daily News Announces Hearings - After the Fact for Anchorage and Wasilla
There's a brief rewrite of the Alaska Redistricting Board's press release under Legislative Briefs in the Anchorage Daily News today:
The Alaska Redistricting Board is holding statewide hearings as it gets ready to draw new boundaries for the state's legislative districts based on the 2010 census. The board held public hearings in Anchorage and Wasilla this week and has six more planned before the end of the month. All are scheduled to begin at noon and last until 7 p.m. except the Kotzebue hearing from 1 p.m. to 6 p.m.
Redistricting Board Chair John Torgerson - Video
I got to talk to Alaska Redistricting Board chair John Torgerson Tuesday at the Anchorage public hearing. I asked about publicity for the hearings. He said they're using the State of Alaska Public Notice site. I suggested not that many people used it, but he said he did. True, he is a former state Senator so he might be more familiar with how the state makes announcements. But I suggested most people wouldn't know to look there.
And you really do have to know what you're looking for. I went back and googled it.
Here's what the page looks like:
Did you see it? I've linked the image to the page. So you can double click it, but since the list changes you might not get to the same page.
I asked if they considered putting ads in newspapers. You can see his answer on the video.
UPDATE 10am: I didn't click on the state public notice link because I already knew the information. But this morning I did to confirm the Juneau location and discovered these notices are written by the same people who write the ten page small print agreement for credit cards and cell phones. Look how easy it is to find where the public hearings will be:
And you really do have to know what you're looking for. I went back and googled it. Here's what the page looks like:
Did you see it? I've linked the image to the page. So you can double click it, but since the list changes you might not get to the same page.
I asked if they considered putting ads in newspapers. You can see his answer on the video.
UPDATE 10am: I didn't click on the state public notice link because I already knew the information. But this morning I did to confirm the Juneau location and discovered these notices are written by the same people who write the ten page small print agreement for credit cards and cell phones. Look how easy it is to find where the public hearings will be:
ALASKA REDISTRICTING BOARDAnd if you want to know where the hearings will be you have to open yet another file!]
AMENDED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
On March 15, 2011, the US Census Bureau delivered local redistricting data for the state of Alaska to the Alaska Redistricting Board. That data has been posted on the Board’s website at: www.akredistricting.org. According to Article VI of the Alaska Constitution, the Board must release a proposed redistricting plan or plans within 30 days of receipt of the census data.
To assist the Board in its work, the public is invited to submit comments on the data and proposed redistricting plans via email (info@akredistricting.org), mail (Alaska Redistricting Board, 411 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 302, Anchorage, AK 99501), telefax (907)269-6691 or in-person at hearings to be held in Anchorage (March 22, 2011), Wasilla (March 23, 2011) , Juneau (March 25, 2011), Ketchikan (March 26, 2011), Fairbanks (March 28, 2011), Kotzebue (March 29, 2011) and Bethel (March 30, 2011) at the locations and times listed in the ATTACHMENT to this notice. A statewide teleconference via the Alaska Legislative Information Offices network will be held on March 31, 2011 from 12:00PM—7:00PM.
Any individual, group or organization wishing to present a proposed redistricting plan at any of these hearings is required to provide reasonable advance notice to Board staff by telephone (907)269-7402, telefax (907)269-6691, or email info@akredistricting.org.
Plan proponents must also include in their notice to Board staff whether they will present paper copies or an electronic version of their plan to the Board and whether any special equipment is needed for their plan presentation. Plan proponents will be given a fixed amount of time to present their plan dependent upon the number of plans proposed at a respective hearing.
The Board may conduct a short Board meeting at the start of any public hearing session to address administrative matters.
The Board will schedule a separate portion of each public hearing to take public comments related to redistricting issues not associated with any plan presented at that hearing. These comments will be limited to 5 minutes per individual, group or organization.
Please note that the public hearing on March 31, 2011 will be the only hearing on this schedule to be conducted via teleconference. Redistricting Board members will be in attendance at the Anchorage LIO site for the March 31 hearing. Members of the public at the Anchorage LIO site on March 31 will be able to provide testimony and present plans during the teleconference.
These are Public Hearings. If you need special accommodations, please contact 907-269-7402.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
More Hearings: This Time Parnell's Oil Tax Bill
It's hard to try to be fair and balanced on this one. Sometimes there just aren't credible stories on both sides.
This is the bill where the Governor would give the oil companies a break of $2 Billion - yes, with a B - a year in exchange for . . . nothing except the vague hope that this will cause oil companies to invest in Alaska in the future. None of the people supporting this would make this kind of deal with their own money.
It's important to remember that the Governor was a Conoco-Philips lobbyist in a previous life. It helps to believe your fantasies when you're a lobbyist, but now that he's governor he's supposed grow up and represent the people of Alaska. The oil fairy doesn't exist Sean.
Let the Finance Committee know what you think.
This is the bill where the Governor would give the oil companies a break of $2 Billion - yes, with a B - a year in exchange for . . . nothing except the vague hope that this will cause oil companies to invest in Alaska in the future. None of the people supporting this would make this kind of deal with their own money.
It's important to remember that the Governor was a Conoco-Philips lobbyist in a previous life. It helps to believe your fantasies when you're a lobbyist, but now that he's governor he's supposed grow up and represent the people of Alaska. The oil fairy doesn't exist Sean.
Let the Finance Committee know what you think.
The House Finance Committee will be holding its first public hearings on the Governor’s oil tax bill, HB110 this coming Thursday and Friday. You can testify from the
Anchorage Legislative Information Office (LIO) at
716 W 4th Avenue, Suite 220
at the following times:
Thursday, March 24 5:00pm – 8:00pmFriday, March 25 3:00pm – 7:00pm
For more information, please contact the LIO by phoning 269-0111 or by emailing Anchorage_LIO@legis.state.ak.us.
Information on the hearing comes from Rep. Berta Gardner's newsletter.
Information on the hearing comes from Rep. Berta Gardner's newsletter.
PeggyAnn McConnochie, Redistricting Board Member, Video
The most recent appointee to the Alaska Redistricting Board is PeggyAnn McConnochie, who replaced Albert Clough. PeggyAnn (don't leave off the Ann) is also a blogger (real estate advice, though the header photo is definitely not Juneau) and I got to talk to her during a break yesterday. We talked about the computer program they are using to create plans.
Right now, the board should be meeting in Wasilla at the City Hall.
They're scheduled to be there until 7pm so wonder on by if you're in the neighborhood.
If it is anything like yesterday in Anchorage there will be plenty of time to talk to the Board members because not many people showed up to make presentations to the board.
And Matsu has big changes coming up. Your districts are well above the ideal size, so you'll probably pick up one, even two districts depending on how they redraw the lines. Here's a map of SC Alaska and you can see the numbers. The ideal size is 17,755 per district and you can see the Matsu districts are mostly well over that number.
District 15 - Wasilla seat held by Rep. Mark Neuman is 46% above the ideal at 25,974.
District 14 - another Wasilla seat, this one held by Rep. Wes Keller is 33% above at 23,682.
District 13 - neighboring Palmer seat held by Rep. Carl Gatto is 32% above at 23,507.
District 16 - Chugiak seat held by Rep. Bill Stoltz is above the target of 17,755 by 21% at 21,559.
A couple of neighboring districts are low:
District 6 - the large interior district north of Fairbanks held by new Rep. Alan Dick is 19% below the ideal size of 17,755 at 14,235.
District 12 - the large seat that stretches from around Chickaloon to Valdez held by new Rep. Eric Feige is 16% below the target at 14,811.
But these are districts with high Alaska Native populations and the board has to be careful about "retrogression." Here's from a previous post on the criteria the board will use:
An attorney for the Native American Rights Fund argued that these guidelines were simplified and the changes were misleading. She argued that the Federal guidelines do not include the word 'avoidable' before regression for example. Attorney White respectfully disagreed, but did agree to another change she suggested.
Right now, the board should be meeting in Wasilla at the City Hall.
They're scheduled to be there until 7pm so wonder on by if you're in the neighborhood.
If it is anything like yesterday in Anchorage there will be plenty of time to talk to the Board members because not many people showed up to make presentations to the board.
And Matsu has big changes coming up. Your districts are well above the ideal size, so you'll probably pick up one, even two districts depending on how they redraw the lines. Here's a map of SC Alaska and you can see the numbers. The ideal size is 17,755 per district and you can see the Matsu districts are mostly well over that number.
District 15 - Wasilla seat held by Rep. Mark Neuman is 46% above the ideal at 25,974.
District 14 - another Wasilla seat, this one held by Rep. Wes Keller is 33% above at 23,682.
District 13 - neighboring Palmer seat held by Rep. Carl Gatto is 32% above at 23,507.
District 16 - Chugiak seat held by Rep. Bill Stoltz is above the target of 17,755 by 21% at 21,559.
A couple of neighboring districts are low:
District 6 - the large interior district north of Fairbanks held by new Rep. Alan Dick is 19% below the ideal size of 17,755 at 14,235.
District 12 - the large seat that stretches from around Chickaloon to Valdez held by new Rep. Eric Feige is 16% below the target at 14,811.
But these are districts with high Alaska Native populations and the board has to be careful about "retrogression." Here's from a previous post on the criteria the board will use:
Then there are the Federal Statutory Redistricting Principles - two sections (2 and 5) of the US Voting Rights Act.
- Section 2 - No denial or abridgement of voting rights on account of race, color or status as a member of a language minority.
- Section 5 - No avoidable retrogression. Retrogression is drawing a district in a manner that worsens minority voting strength as compared to the previous district configuration. The minority group must be a large, cohesive and vote as a bloc.
An attorney for the Native American Rights Fund argued that these guidelines were simplified and the changes were misleading. She argued that the Federal guidelines do not include the word 'avoidable' before regression for example. Attorney White respectfully disagreed, but did agree to another change she suggested.
Google Works in Mysterious Ways - Liz Taylor's Husbands and Bones of the Foot
There was a bump in hits to the blog this morning. People were getting here by googling variations of "liz taylor's husbands/children."
(Let's pause a moment in remembrance of this beautiful woman and talented actor whose life was filled with great and not so great moments. Each person is born with different personal characteristics and into different life situations. There are no instruction books for life that fit all those different conditions. The life of a beautiful woman has its own opportunities and hazards. The life of child celebrities has additional perils. Elizabeth Taylor got to meet some of the most interesting people of the 20th Century, and was, perhaps, one of them herself. But that's not, as her life demonstrated, a guarantee of generally sustained personal happiness. Taylor's work for cures for AIDS has made a big contribution as did her excellent acting.)
Back to google's mysterious ways. People are getting to my post on Famous People Born in 1909 which includes a short bio of one of Taylor's husbands, Mike Todd, which includes the line, 'and one of Elizabeth Taylor's husbands.' (The one, I'd note, that seemed like the one that would last, but he died in a plane crash. But a lover who dies in the height of the romance can never do wrong, so who knows?) But could this humble blog's obscure mention of Taylor be snagging google hits for this? I googled to see where What Do I Know? showed up. I gave up after 20 pages of google. I did a google image search and didn't find the Todd picture I have up either.
A second google mystery I've been pondering: Suddenly one day last week I was getting hits on a post about my wife breaking a bone in her foot. People were googling "bones of the foot" or 'foot bones." I tried googling and again couldn't find a google page leading here. But then I noticed these were image searches and there is a picture I found and posted (with attribution) with bones of the foot - in addition to an x-ray of my wife's foot. And that showed up near the top of google images. But why is google sending them to my blog instead of the original site with that picture? I realize this has to do with other factors google uses to rank websites and that blogs that update regularly like this one gain some advantage that way. But what changed last week after 10 months with no hits from people searching for foot bone pictures? It's like all of a sudden the switch was turned on. And it's continued every day since.
These are hits I don't think I really 'deserve.' They are accidents of google algorithms. But then there are hits google botches - getting them to this blog, but not really to the best page here for the search terms.
And since I'm doing this parenthetical blogging post, I'd note that I started a Famous People Born in 1911 post. I have a list of names and started some bios. But each year the internet gives me more 100 year old names than the previous years and my bio research keeps getting more elaborate and it takes more time. And I'm distracted by other topics. But I want to do this one because this year would be my father's 100th birthday. So it might happen.
(Let's pause a moment in remembrance of this beautiful woman and talented actor whose life was filled with great and not so great moments. Each person is born with different personal characteristics and into different life situations. There are no instruction books for life that fit all those different conditions. The life of a beautiful woman has its own opportunities and hazards. The life of child celebrities has additional perils. Elizabeth Taylor got to meet some of the most interesting people of the 20th Century, and was, perhaps, one of them herself. But that's not, as her life demonstrated, a guarantee of generally sustained personal happiness. Taylor's work for cures for AIDS has made a big contribution as did her excellent acting.)
Back to google's mysterious ways. People are getting to my post on Famous People Born in 1909 which includes a short bio of one of Taylor's husbands, Mike Todd, which includes the line, 'and one of Elizabeth Taylor's husbands.' (The one, I'd note, that seemed like the one that would last, but he died in a plane crash. But a lover who dies in the height of the romance can never do wrong, so who knows?) But could this humble blog's obscure mention of Taylor be snagging google hits for this? I googled to see where What Do I Know? showed up. I gave up after 20 pages of google. I did a google image search and didn't find the Todd picture I have up either.
A second google mystery I've been pondering: Suddenly one day last week I was getting hits on a post about my wife breaking a bone in her foot. People were googling "bones of the foot" or 'foot bones." I tried googling and again couldn't find a google page leading here. But then I noticed these were image searches and there is a picture I found and posted (with attribution) with bones of the foot - in addition to an x-ray of my wife's foot. And that showed up near the top of google images. But why is google sending them to my blog instead of the original site with that picture? I realize this has to do with other factors google uses to rank websites and that blogs that update regularly like this one gain some advantage that way. But what changed last week after 10 months with no hits from people searching for foot bone pictures? It's like all of a sudden the switch was turned on. And it's continued every day since.
These are hits I don't think I really 'deserve.' They are accidents of google algorithms. But then there are hits google botches - getting them to this blog, but not really to the best page here for the search terms.
And since I'm doing this parenthetical blogging post, I'd note that I started a Famous People Born in 1911 post. I have a list of names and started some bios. But each year the internet gives me more 100 year old names than the previous years and my bio research keeps getting more elaborate and it takes more time. And I'm distracted by other topics. But I want to do this one because this year would be my father's 100th birthday. So it might happen.
Redistricting Board Member Marie Greene of Kotzebue
Marie Greene is the sole member of the Board not appointed by a Republican elected official. She's the President/CEO of the NANA Regional Corporation and talks about her role on the board and how to prepare for the Board hearings in rural Alaska.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Randy Ruedrich Brief Video
I should have mentioned on the last post that I had to leave at five to get to my own meeting - Healing Racism in Anchorage. I'm home now and ready to take off, but here's a brief comment I got from Randy Ruedrich, head of the Republican Party.
I've video that I'll add later from three more of the Board members and another person who spoke to the Board today.
[I've always had some sort of mental block that changed Randy to Rudy. I actually wrote Randy a couple of times today and changed it to Rudy. I've fixed it in the post here and will get to the video soon, but that takes more work. Sorry. And thanks DZ]
I've video that I'll add later from three more of the Board members and another person who spoke to the Board today.
[I've always had some sort of mental block that changed Randy to Rudy. I actually wrote Randy a couple of times today and changed it to Rudy. I've fixed it in the post here and will get to the video soon, but that takes more work. Sorry. And thanks DZ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)