Would You Have Been a Loyalist or Patriot? Or Uncommitted?

As we observe the Fourth of July, it's tempting to ponder which of us would have sided with the British, which with the new American Patriots, and which would have tried to avoid taking sides and just lived their lives.

THE QUIZ APPROACH

Allthetests offers a quiz for that which begins:

Question 1: If a soldier came up to you and asked if you would join the army to fight Britain, what would you do?
	Agree to fight for your independence
	Say that you will think about it, but never get the time to actually choose
	Yell "NO" and slam the door in his face

Question 2: If you found a spy for the Americans and he was getting caught by the British, what would you do?
	Grab your gun and fight off the British so the spy can run for it
	Try to compromise between the British and the spy
	Help the British grab him and take him into custody to reveal the Americans' secrets

But how can the typical American of 2011 honestly answer a question like that? How would you answer a question like:

If you saw a someone being robbed, would you run to help the person?

I doubt very many of us know how we would react in such a situation. Each robbery has a different context.  Are there others around?  Does the robber have a gun?  Are we in a hurry?  Have you - the bystander - been trained to fight?

So many things come into play that even if we've been in the situation before, we may not be able to predict what would happen next time.  When it comes to taking personal risks,  our emotional response doesn't always match our ideals.

With  something as abstract as what we would have done 200 years ago, where our personal standing in that society is undefined, where the 'right' and 'wrong' answers are so known, and where all the personal emotional context is non-existent, is impossible.


THE PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS APPROACH

Wikipedia says that Larabee (1948) has identified eight characteristics of the Loyalists that made them essentially conservative:

* Psychologically they were older, better established, and resisted innovation.
* They felt that resistance to the Crown—the legitimate government—was morally wrong.
* They were alienated when the Patriots resorted to violence, such as burning houses and tarring and feathering.
* They wanted to take a middle-of-the road position and were angry when forced by the Patriots to declare their opposition.
* They had a long-standing sentimental attachment to Britain (often with business and family links).
* They were procrastinators who realized that independence was bound to come some day, but wanted to postpone the moment.
* They were rightly cautious and afraid of anarchy or tyranny that might come from mob rule, which did cost many their property and security after the revolution.
* Some say they were pessimists who lacked the confidence in the future displayed by the Patriots, while others point to the memory and dreadful experience of many Scottish immigrants who had already seen or paid the price of rebellion in dispossession and clearance from their prior homeland.

Could we use these to better gauge where we would have been?

• Would older folks who don't text today, have been loyalists?  
• What about folks who think we need to respect the president, even if he's not always right?
• Is aversion to violence today the equivalent of aversion to the violence of Patriots in the 1700s? 
• What sort of long-term sentimental attachment today would be equivalent such an attachment to Britain back then?

Wikipedia's article on Patriots offers characteristics about Patriots that seem to overlap those of Loyalists to some extent.

The Patriots came from many different backgrounds. Among the most active of the Patriots group were highly educated and fairly wealthy individuals. However, without the support of the ordinary men and women, such as farmers, lawyers, merchants, seamstresses, homemakers, shopkeepers, and ministers, the struggle for independence would have failed.
In 2000 historian Robert Calhoon estimated that in the Thirteen Colonies between 40 and 45 percent of the white population supported the Patriots' cause:

Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. Approximately half the colonists of European ancestry tried to avoid involvement in the struggle — some of them deliberate pacifists, others recent emigrants, and many more simple apolitical folk. The patriots received active support from perhaps 40 to 45 percent of the white populace, and at most no more than a bare majority.

Clearly, calculating those numbers, over 200 years after the fact, has lots of complications.


Are there members of current political groups who would have been more likely to Patriots or Loyalists?

Tea Party members and supporters, according to an Atlantic article last year, made up

• 4% of the population (actual members according to a CBS/NYTimes poll) or
• 28% identified as "supporter[s] of the Tea Party movement" (Gallup poll)
•  4%  (18% of the 20% supporting the Tea Party in another CBS/NYTimes poll had actually given money or attended a Tea Party event)

Those numbers were calculated a year ago, but the 28% and 20% number is vaguely close to the estimated number of Loyalists.  Of course, that's a ridiculous correlation.

Do Tea Party supporters have characteristics more like those of Patriots or Loyalists?

Apparently that same CBS/NYTimes poll, this time cited in the Dallas News, identifies a number of factors that are more associated with Tea Party supporters than the general public. [I've reorganized the list a bit to make it briefer.]

• Tea Party supporters are more likely to classify themselves as "angry."  Their anger is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country.
• Obama does not share the values most Americans live by, and that 
• he does not understand the problems of people like them.
• More than half say administration policies favor the poor, and 
• 25 percent, compared with 11 percent of the general public, think the administration favors blacks over whites. 
• Tea Party supporters offered three main concerns: 
• the recent health care overhaul, 
• government spending and 
• a feeling that their opinions are not represented in Washington.
• More than eight in 10 hold an unfavorable view of him personally, and 
• 92 percent believe he is moving the country toward socialism - an opinion shared by about half the general public.
• Most describe the amount they paid in taxes this year as "fair." 
• Most send their children to public schools; 
• do not think Sarah Palin, who spoke at a Tea Party rally in Boston on Tuesday, is qualified to be president; and, 
• despite their push for smaller government, think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost. 
• They are actually more likely than the general public to have returned their census forms, despite some conservative leaders urging a boycott.

How would you compare this list (assuming it was even accurate a year ago) to characteristics of Patriots and Loyalists?


Even though they are named after a quintessential Patriot event, one interpretation of this list could be that many Tea Party supporters are more like the conservatives who were resisting change to the status quo.  People who thought that they had something to lose from radically changing the system.

CONTEXT TODAY?

But I'm not willing to make such a conclusion.  Tea Party supporters are probably a pretty varied group.  And just as 'older, and better established' is listed as a Loyalist characteristic, leaders of the Patriots were also from the wealthier classes.

But, as we observe Independence Day, it's useful to question ourselves carefully about the kinds of risk we would be willing to take and under what conditions.  (To what extent is risk-taking genetically inherited and to what extent is it environmentally shaped?  Do people take risks in some areas, but not other areas of their lives?) 

What are you willing to risk today to protect democracy?
How many of us use lack of understanding of how to effectively protect democracy as an excuse not to do something?
How many of us are working at understanding what roles we can effectively play?
How many of us would not have understood the right path back in the 18th Century? (Was there only one 'right path' or did it matter who you were.  For instance many black slaves fought for the British after being promised their freedom.)

None of this is easy.  But I urge you to go out and listen to someone you disagree with.  Assume that the person is rational and sincere in his or her beliefs.  Then ask the person to explain the position taken and how he knows he's right.  (I tried hard to make that sentence work without gendered pronouns, but finally gave up.)  Don't contradict.  Don't challenge.  Just ask, respectfully, to better understand.  It's hard to do.  but worth it. 

Happy Fourth of July.

Girdwood Forest Fair

We didn't get to the fair until nearly 9 pm.  But, it's early July in Alaska, so no problem.  It's going to be light, late.



It's been years since I've been at the Girdwood Forest Fair.  It's like walking back into the late 60s.



While some of the arts and crafts looked familiar, the food booth's offered a much wider international selection. I couldn't resist the vegie empanadas with a wonderful tabbouleh-like tomato concoction.

I didn't see any bell-bottoms (good), but I did see a pair of barefoot shoes (they're pretty bizarre looking, but I love the idea.) 




Kindergarten has cloned into a legitimate English word from German, including the 't'.



But apparently Bier Garten has only made it half-way into English. 

[UPDATE 9PM:  I forgot to add this map.  I think it's the 2010 fair map, but the 2011 map didn't open in either Firefox or Safari.  It looks like the layout was basically the same, but since it doesn't say where north is or have the main road, I'm not completely sure. I just liked the way the map was done.

Click for Clearer and Bigger Version

I also forgot to mention the bear. As we rode our bikes up into Girdwood, somewhere past the Candle Factory, I noticed part of the wall of bushes lining the pat, just ahead of us, was bouncing around wildly. As we passed the spot, I looked in and saw a mass of black fur, that vanished as we rode by. I wasn't more than four feet away. Y, who was riding between me and bushes, was closer. He didn't even know about it until I told him and the bear was gone. If I hadn't noticed the bushes moving and looked in, I wouldn't have seen it either. Lots of people were riding and walking up and down the path.]

The music still has wild guitar rock, but there was also a massage chair booth. 



Superfrequency was listed as the 6:45pm (and last) performers on the Marlowe Stage, but I'm afraid I forgot to check to be sure who this was.  If someone knows, please leave a comment or email me. email me. In any case, they were good. 

We biked back to the car and were on the road home enjoying the long summer evening. We didn't get any rain until almost Potter Marsh. A lesson learned long ago - don't let the Anchorage weather affect what you're going to do. Even if it's grey in Anchorage, it could be sunny a little ways down the road. It was pushing 11pm when I got this shot.

Bird to Gird

My friend Y (why not? there's one in his name) wanted some exercise and there were heavy clouds on the hillside, so I suggested a bike ride from Bird Point to Girdwood.

As luck would have it, the sun was shining south of Anchorage. Here are a few shots that caught my eye.

 

The other white flower in the top picture is cow parsnip.  Here's a close up with customer.


And below some visitors at the monkey flower organic cafe.



The phrase finder has a long entry about the phrase 'the bee's knees.' Here's a tiny excerpt:

Bees carry pollen back to the hive in sacs on their legs. It is tempting to explain this phrase as alluding to the concentrated goodness to be found around a bee's knee, but there's no evidence to support this explanation. It is also sometimes said to be a corruption of 'business', but there's no evidence to support that either.

 Maybe they mean the front knees.

The trail from the rest area at Bird Point to Girdwood takes the path of the old road.  It was the worst and best part of the trip south.  It had great views, but was two laned, no shoulder at all, and curved up and then down.  Now there's a speed track down by the water, and the bike trail that replaced the old road is wonderful.  But it is uphill and downhill both directions.  It's about 6 miles each way. 

Columbine

Getting Close To Girdwood - Y's the white speck on the trail

A raven flew noisily onto the second from the top branch, followed by a bomber squad of swallows.  There's one very close to the raven just on the right of the trunk in the top photo.  It almost looks like a branch.  You can see it's not there in the bottom shot. Presumably they had a nest up there.  They kept returning.  Later a second raven joined the first. 

I'll try to get part 2 up later - with a few shots of the Girdwood Forest Fair. 

Exit Polls Predict Big Red Shirt Win in Thai Election - English Interview with Yingluck Shinawatra

From an AFP news story posted at Thai Visa:

Thaksin allies in Thai election landslide: exit polls
by Daniel Rook

BANGKOK, July 3, 2011 (AFP) - Opposition allies of Thai fugitive ex-leader Thaksin Shinawatra scored a landslide election win, exit polls showed Sunday, marking a stunning comeback after years of turmoil sparked by a military coup.

The poll was the first major electoral test for the elite-backed government since mass protests by Thaksin's "Red Shirt" supporters last year paralysed Bangkok and unleashed the worst political violence in decades.

Thaksin's Puea Thai Party is set to win 313 seats out of 500, against 152 for Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva's Democrats, according to a projection by Suan Dusit University. Other exit polls painted a similar picture. . .

. . .Toppled by the military in 2006 and now living in self-imposed exile in Dubai to avoid a jail term for corruption, Thaksin nevertheless dominated the election, after tapping his youngest sister to run in his place.

Yingluck Shinawatra, a telegenic businesswoman who is now set to become Thailand's first ever female prime minister, is a 44-year-old political novice described by Thaksin as his "clone".

You can hear an English language interview, sent by a friend in Thailand, with Yingluck Shinawatra below.




What does this mean? Hard for me to tell, but the educated Bangkok elite were trounced by the rural voters and working class. The NGO I volunteered with in Chiangmai were not red shirts and I'm sure they are unhappy with this turn of events.

Walgreens Store Opening Anchorage

Some regular readers my wonder if they are on the wrong blog.  But part of what I'm doing here is chronicling what happens in Anchorage - as I live it.  Last Wednesday I happened to be at Northern Lights and Seward Highway just as Walgreens was having its grand opening.

I was underwhelmed, in a very comfortable way.  This wasn't a super glitzy, high tech, over the top event.  This reminded me more of the US in the 1950s and early 60s. ("The 60's" in some ways is misleading - the first part was more like the Fifties.)

Flags, balloons, hot dogs, a brass band, Shriners, a drawing and a raffle, flowers, and they even had the recently won Kelly Cup.  People were happy, enjoying the hoopla and the sun.

Didn't know there was another Sea Wolves

A lot of businesses today seem bent on squeezing every penny out of their customers.  Hidden costs on cell phones, penalty fees at banks and credit cards, baggage fees at airlines seem to tell the customer - we've got you by the balls and there's nothing you can do about it.  Sure, there are smaller local businesses where the owners know your name and give you freebies now and then because they like you and appreciate your business. 

But I don't expect that any more from national corporations.  But Bruce Phillips, the regional rep for Alaska and 'half of Seattle' I think he said, sounded genuinely excited about the store opening and I felt he really had worked hard with his new store staff to make this store friendly to the neighborhood.  It could all be a good show based on marketing studies, but I don't think so.  I think it was genuine.  I had the sense that Walgreens gave him enough freedom to do what he wanted with this store opening and he was feeling good about the store and his staff and his work.  

Oh yes, my sound card ran out of memory just before they brought out the giant ceremonial check for $2500 for the Diabetes Association. 

You can watch the video and judge for yourself. 

Potential Flaws in the Mayoral Power to Veto Amendments Opinion

I'd intended to post this earlier this morning and kept changing the post time because I wanted to get it right.

It accidentally got posted before it was ready and so I pulled it, because the post itself had some flaws in it.  Actually, there are probably a lot of flaws in my posts, but these were flaws I was aware of and I'm working out the kinks. 

Sorry.  I'll try to get it up by tomorrow.

Attorney to Mayor: You Have Power To Veto Amendments

At the Assembly meeting Tuesday night, Mayor Sullivan vetoed an amendment to a proposed ordinance that had just passed.  I wrote about it with amazement and questioned, particularly, how that fit with separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches.  The attorney at the meeting representing the mayor said there was an interpretation finding the mayor had this power.  The assembly's attorney thought he did not, and also mentioned separation problems and the need for a written statement explaining the veto.  The Municipal Clerk had also mentioned the written memo requirement in the Charter. 

Yesterday I called the mayor's office and was forwarded to Legal.  This morning Legal called back and asked for more information about what I was looking for.  Soon they called back and said they couldn't find anything from Municipal Attorney Wheeler to Mayor Sullivan on the veto.

But, they had a 2006 memo from  earlier Municipal Attorney Boness to Mayor Mark Begich on veto power.  It's a 28 page memo.  I've embedded the full document further down in this post.  But as you can see from the synopsis at the beginning of the memo, Attorney Boness clearly believed that the mayor has the power to do exactly what Mayor Sullivan did on Tuesday night.

Memo Synopsis

"QUESTION: You have requested I provide you with a general discussion of the veto authority of the mayor, and to specifically address whether you may veto a motion approved by the Assembly which amends a proposed ordinance.    If you have the authority to veto a motion, you have asked me to indicate when the veto must be presented to the Assembly.

BRIEF ANSWER:    Subject to the following Background and Discussion, my Brief Answer is the mayor has broad general veto power. The mayor may veto an amendment to a proposed ordinance. The timing of the veto is dependent upon the goal to be achieved by the amendment. Assuming your goal is to prevent an amendment from becoming part of the ordinance under consideration but not to prevent the ordinance itself from being further considered by the Assembly, the veto should be made immediately after the Assembly votes to approve the amendment and before the Assembly considers the proposed ordinance."

The memo cites earlier memos interpreting the Charter Commission's intent when it gave the Municipality the 'strong mayor' form of government that the Greater Anchorage Area Borough had.  (The Borough merged with the City of Anchorage to become the Municipality of Anchorage in 1975.)

The Municipal Charter, Section 5.02 c says:

The mayor has the veto power. The mayor also has line item veto power. The mayor may, by veto, strike or reduce items in a budget or appropriation measure. The veto must be exercised and submitted to the assembly with a written explanation within seven days of passage of the ordinance affected. The assembly, by two-thirds majority vote of the total membership, may override a veto any time within 21 days after its exercise.

Anchorage Mayor Veto Power Opinion - Boness 06-011



I've tried to find other examples of executives being able to veto an amendment before the main motion was even passed.  The closest I came to was this 2008 discussion of Illinois' "amendatory veto" from Eric Zorn in the Chicago Tribune:

You have questions about Gov. Rod Blagojevich's big surprise last week. And I have answers.
Q: Is the proposal to make public transportation free for senior citizens a separate bill suddenly submitted to the legislature?
A: No. Without warning, Blagojevich simply tacked it onto the transit-bailout bill that lawmakers sent to his desk Thursday. Then he sent that bill back to the General Assembly saying, in effect, I'm vetoing your plan unless you also approve my idea.
Q: What makes him think he can do that?
A: A passage in Article IV of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 allows a governor to make "specific recommendations for change" to any piece of legislation, then send it back to be OK'd. The informal name for this is an amendatory veto.
Q: Can the legislators reject such changes and pass a bill in its previous form?
A: They can. But they need a  three-fifths vote in both houses to do so. To accept the changes, however, they need only a majority vote.
Q: Do all U.S. governors hold such a mighty club?

A: No. Illinois is one of seven states where the governor has amendatory veto powers, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Q: Whose idea was that?
A: "It was mine, I'm almost embarrassed to say," said former  state Comptroller Dawn Clark Netsch, now a Northwestern University law professor. She was a delegate to the 1969-70 Constitutional Convention and wrote the proposal that advanced the amendatory veto.
Q: What was she thinking?
A: That it was an efficient way for the governor and part-time legislators to tweak bills as needed and speed them along. "A governor can use the power with discretion and in appropriate circumstances and not abuse it," Netsch said, and then she laughed merrily.
Q: What's so funny?
A: History has been unkind to this optimistic notion, as Netsch came to realize. Illinois governors have been making mischief with amendatory vetoes since 1971, when Richard  Ogilvie totally rewrote three bills and sent them back to the legislature.
Q: Did he get away with it?
A: No. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that "the substitution of complete new bills ... is not authorized by the constitution." In the most recent related case, in 1980, the state high court added the view that amendatory vetoes can't "change the fundamental purpose of the legislation, nor make substantial or expansive changes in the legislation."

If readers know of other jurisdictions where the executive can veto legislation in the middle of the legislative process rather than after legislation is passed, please comment below or send me an email.

Regarding Tuesday night, the mayor did have an opinion saying he had the power to veto amendments.  The opinion wasn't from his own attorney, but from now Sen. Begich's attorney.  An opinion is an opinion.  It's not law until it is challenged in court and upheld. 

I find the logic and documentation used to link this power through the charter to the powers of the Greater Anchorage Area Borough's powers persuasive.  Though I would like to hear some attorneys' comments, especially how it relates to the separation of powers between the legislature and the executive. 

I called  now Sen. Begich's office to ask whether then Mayor Begich had ever used this form of veto.  While they couldn't recall it and were pretty sure he hadn't, they said they didn't have access to the records to check.  Municipal Clerk Barbara Gruenstein checked the records and said that Mayor Begich had only vetoed one ordinance.  He never used the power to veto an amendment which his attorney said in this memo he had. 

By the way, the Clerk said the Mayor did write out an explanation of his veto at the meeting. 

Such a Beautiful Day

Riding home this afternoon on 36th.  The air's warm/cool factor perfect.  Blue sky, white fluff on the edges. 36th closed westbound at Lake Otis, not much traffic.

It would be nice to shut down 36th to cars altogether. :)  Oh, maybe we could make it one-way and give cars a lane.

UPDATE 9:30pm:  From the June 26, 2011 NYTimes article Dallas (in comments) links:

Cities including Vienna to Munich and Copenhagen have closed vast swaths of streets to car traffic. Barcelona and Paris have had car lanes eroded by popular bike-sharing programs. Drivers in London and Stockholm pay hefty congestion charges just for entering the heart of the city. And over the past two years, dozens of German cities have joined a national network of “environmental zones” where only cars with low carbon dioxide emissions may enter.

Anchorage Mayor Tries To Veto Amendment To Proposal During Assembly Meeting

[Follow up post Thursday June 30 with attorney's memo.]

I haven't been to an Assembly meeting for a long time.  But I went because I know something about boards and commissions and I wanted to see what they were going to do with the ordinance on boards and commissions.  I'll write more on the ordinance they passed adding back sunset provisions for many boards and commissions in another post soon.

What really caught my attention was the mayor's attempt to veto an amendment to a proposal right after the amendment, but not the ordinance, was passed.  As I've said, I haven't been to an Assembly meeting for a while and I've never attended them regularly.

But it seems to me pretty clear that there is supposed to be a separation of powers.  The Assembly does the legislation, then the mayor needs to implement them or veto them, but only AFTER they pass. To veto an amendment in the middle of the Assembly debate seems  totally bizarre.

Assembly members quickly responded.  I wasn't planning on posting about the meeting and hadn't brought my computer or even a note pad.  But someone said something about line item veto being reserved for budget items.  Municipal Clerk Barbara Gruenstein said that a veto had to be accompanied by a written explanation.  Assembly chair Ossiander asked an administration attorney and a person I assume is the assembly attorney.  The administration's attorney said she thought it was ok.  The other attorney said she thought it wasn't, and agreed that a written statement explaining the veto had to accompany it.

Someone added, perhaps it was the mayor, that the Municipal attorney had written an opinion that the mayor could line item anything.  But that memo didn't show up and the Municipal Attorney didn't explain it while I was there.

Then Assembly member Trombley argued that since the item to be vetoed would affect the budget, it could be considered a line-item budget veto.  Member Flynn said something to the effect of, "Nice try, but no way."

For me the issue is separation of powers.  The mayor was, in my opinion, interfering in the Assembly process.  He can say he plans to veto it, but he can't just stand up at the Assembly meeting and veto things on the spot, even before the ordinance is passed, even if he writes a note explaining why. (Who knows what all attorneys can do to twist the process, but it just feels unseemly for the mayor not to wait for the process to play out, before he plays his authorized role.)

And if there was an opinion written by the Municipal attorney on an issue of such significance, why wouldn't it be shared with the Assembly in advance, instead of dropping it in like a bomb, perhaps to see if he could get away with it?  I think the answer is worth another post - a discussion on how seriously divided the Assembly has become.  Divided so that they are toeing the ideological line on practically every minor amendment.  Even when it wouldn't matter particularly.  So divided that both sides seem to assume the worst about the whatever the other side proposes.

UPDATE June 29 11:30 pm:  Let's see if I can make this work. The Muni video of the Assembly meetings has a way to embed specific parts of the video, but I'm leery. These should be:
a. The mayor vetoing the amendment. (if it works, I'll put up b)
b. A bit later when they get clarification

a) didn't capture the part it was supposed to get. I'll try b.  This one is closer to the part I was trying to get, but still misses it.  I'll leave it for now, for anyone who wants to see how Assembly members talk to each other.  Meanwhile I'll try again to get the right clips.
[Friday July 1: I've deleted the video clip because and can't turn off the autostart and having the video automatically go on is just plain annoying.]

[AUTOSTART DISABLE HELP NEEDED: Anyone know how to change the html to disable the autostart? Autostart and play are both set to false. What else is in there that needs to be changed?]

I'm having trouble loading up the video again. Meanwhile, my Firefox access to Blogspot gets me a "Bad Request Error 400" message - I'm using Safari now. Did that come from the Muni video link? It started after I was using it.

But I did learn from the video I wasn't able to upload that the second attorney, Julia Tucker does work for the Assembly and she did raise the issue of separation of powers.

You can go to the Muni site yourself and load up the video.
The motion gets passed and the mayor says he vetoes it @ 1:24:00 - 1:25:26
Then they do other things while waiting for a clarification of the Mayor's basis for being able to veto.
Then they get the clarifications from the Mayor's attorney and the Assembly's attorney @ 1:30:50-1:34:00.

Mayor Doesn't Need Citizens Advising Him - Whacking Boards and Commissions

[Warning:  I'm afraid some snark has slipped into this.  My wife isn't here to check this over before tonight's meeting.]

The Dan Sullivan administration has a proposal before the Assembly tonight to put sunset clauses on many boards and commissions and to abolish a few.  These aren't "let's review these every now and then to be sure they're still needed" sunset clauses.  Some would end this October.  Some next October.  Some in 2013. 

Sunset clauses are a good thing.  Agencies as well as boards and commissions should be reviewed periodically to be sure they still are needed.  But the mayor's limits means people appointed to a board could sometimes have longer terms than the board.   This seems less like oversight than an attempt to kill off as many boards as possible.  A whole list of boards are scheduled to be whacked UNLESS otherwise renewed.   This looks like an attempt at wholesale board and commission slaughter. 

It would be nice to see the study the mayor's office did and the criteria they used to determine which boards to keep and which to whack.  And to know the people they consulted for history and context.  Surely, they have such a study before making a wholesale attack on citizen participation.  His father did a pretty extensive study through the Anchorage Urban Observatory back in the late 1970s to determine how well the different boards and commissions functioned. 




Why have these bodies?

Boards and Commissions have two main statutory functions:

1.   Give advice to officials about particular programs.
2.   Make decisions about about specific issues, such as zoning variances or ethical violations.

During the Knowles administration, after another study, the ordinance was changed to make the titles reflect the function.  Boards made decisions and Commissions gave advice.  This no longer seems to have been followed consistently. 


There are a number of benefits such boards and commissions serve.

1.  Many perspectives weigh in.  They allow an easy and inexpensive way to have a variety of voices heard on issues.  Members add valuable perspectives that Muni employees might never consider otherwise, or not until they've implemented a program that causes serious complaints.

2.  Board Members educated on policy.  It's a way to get everyday citizens to be much more aware of what is happening in Muni departments, communicate that to their constituents, and bring back valuable feedback.

3.  Problems avoided in the planning stage rather than implementation stage.

4.  Other beneficial side-effects

• The more information people have on an issue, the more they are able to understand the complexities and tradeoffs necessary in most programs.  
• Having people of diverse backgrounds - politically, economically, socially, ethnically - sitting together on a regular basis to hear about a program their interested in, means that they have time
•  to get to know and respect each other,
• understand the interests affected by the programs, and 
• when issues arise, they are much better equipped to find solutions that meet the needs of more than one interest group.  
• They can also reassure their constituency that the 'other guys' aren't out to screw them over.  Or, if they are, they can alert them early.  

Good public officials, who believe in serving the whole community, encourage a wide variety of citizen input, because they recognize that the community is made up of lots of different types of people. 

The Mayor doesn't simply represent one political ideology.  The mayor represents everyone.  Boards and commissions are a good way to get that wide spectrum of Anchorage interests participating in mutually supportive environments to iron out wrinkles in the early stages, rather than in combative, expensive, divisive win/lose battles. 

People who come into office determined to change things to suit their ideology or other guiding principles tend to have little patience for public participation.  It's messy and takes longer to make decisions.  And they may not get their way.  But if you can't get people to buy in, the battles will continue and things will get uglier. 


The original proposal called for sunset clauses:

A.  All boards and commissions established under this title, except for those mandated by the Charter or state law, or where specifically set forth in the board or commission enabling ordinance below, shall terminate by operation of law every three years from the date set forth therein unless affirmatively continued by the Assembly by ordinance.
 

B.  All new boards and commissions shall sunset within three (3) years of creation and shall be subject to the provisions of this section.

C.    Prior to continuation or reestablishment of any board or
commission, the Assembly shall hold a public hearing.

But the latest proposal - apparently from Assembly members Ossiander and Piper - whacks C.  The Assembly apparently wouldn't have to hold a hearing before the board vanishes into the sunset.  I'm guessing that's what this means, not sure.

Another sign that this is an attempt to whack the boards?  They have very specific, one time dates for termination.  They aren't to be reviewed, say, every five or ten years.  No, there's a specific death date.  And then what?  After that date, will a new date be added?  Will the ordinance be changed for each board every two or three years until they finally get rid of the commission? 

The Library Advisory Board's death penalty is set for  October 14, 2012.
The Health and Human Services Advisory board's is also October 14, 2012.
(Both of these were originally scheduled to go on the block in 2011)


The Mt. View Community Recreation Center Advisory Commission - ZAP - October 14, 2011.  After that, we don't need community folks helping out. 


Transit Advisory Board?  October 2012.  Since all the Mayor's staff ride the bus to work, they don't need others to tell them how to do things. 

Senior Citizens Advisory Commission?  Also October 2012.  Does the mayor know that us old folks vote?

Fortunately, the Sister Cities Commission is exempt from the Sunset clause.  Clearly this is more important that local public transportation and senior citizens.


Arts Advisory Commission?  October 2012 (moved up in the last draft from 2013) 


The Public Facilities Advisory Commission is simply whacked in the new ordinance.  No sunset here.  It's possible that some commissions don't have a continuing need.  I don't really know about this one.


You get the idea. 

Assembly member Flynn has some amendments to offer.    And to require the Assembly be noticed at least 90 days before a board or commission is sunsetted.  He wants to eliminate the sunset clause for some of the commissions.  Specifically he wants to make the following permanent:

1. Urban Design Commission
2. Library Advisory Board
3. Parks and Rec Service Area Commission
4. Public Transit Commission
5. Heritage Land Bank

All the links come from the Assembly website.  The meeting is tonight at the Anchorage Assembly.