Friday, June 21, 2013
Hangin' In There
Headed to the Redistricting Board meeting. This guy we saw last night on the way to the Thai Kitchen seemed like a good metaphor.
What's Fair Game When Public Officials Get Careless?
OK, that's a loaded question. Careless isn't even quite the right word. Here's the context. The Redistricting Board has had working meetings. There are Board members in and out almost all day each day as the techs work on maps. Sometimes the Board members are working on maps in their offices in the back, sometimes they're out in the meeting room. It's an open meeting, though it's a work session. It's not really formal. People are trying out ideas. They're talking casually. Even joking. Except I'm there. So, careless only in the context of being 'on' long enough that they might forget there's a blogger in the room.
Talking is intermittent. So I'm not sitting their typing everything they're saying the way I often do at meetings. And sound recording is iffy because of the ventilation noise due to the unusual heat outside and the broken air conditioning in the building. Mostly they aren't saying anything. There's not much happening to video tape. People working on their computers with little changes happening on the screens that wouldn't mean much to someone watching.
So, when the chair stopped to talk to Ray about the map he was working on, I got out my pocket cam and turned on the video to see what I could get.
What rules should I use to decide what to post in this situation? Here are some of my thoughts on this.
1. It's a public meeting. Everything is fair game. They know I'm a blogger and that I'm listening. They need to be professional about how they handle themselves and in what they say.
2. It's good for people doing serious work to joke at times. But joking often reveals what they are thinking. Joking is a way, in some settings, to say what you're really thinking, but then be able to back off and say, "Just kidding" if it doesn't go down well.
4. What if they don't know I'm recording what's going on? Again, it's a public meeting and they know there's a blogger in the room. They're public officials. They're grown ups. No, they can't let their guards down too far.
5. What if it prevents them from talking frankly about their doubts and questions? I'm not doing "Gotcha" journalism. I'm not trying to get headlines by trapping people into saying something stupid or by writing things out of context to make them look bad. But anything going on at a public meeting is on the record. Even these work sessions that aren't (to my knowledge) being recorded or transcribed. In fact, that's even more reason for me to be vigilant and to record what's happening. Last year, I thought long and hard before posting a video of the Board's attorney talking pretty candidly about what he thought about an Alaska Supreme Court's decision. It was during a break. But I had my camera out and he was looking at me. And I'd recorded him like that a number of times before. Even so, I sought guidance from journalism ethics sites and people with actual journalism degrees before I posted it. The clincher for me was that he said pretty similar things in an written appeal to the Supreme Court. I'm glad I did all that, because he wasn't pleased when he saw me next and complained that he didn't know I was recording. And he wouldn't talk to me again if I was recording.
All this is preface to a video that's pretty bad technical quality - both video and audio. I took it because it was the first time I actually heard the Chair talking more than a sentence here or there during the work sessions and he was close enough to me there was a chance the audio would get past the noise of the cooling equipment. It was more to just give readers a sense of how this process works, how decisions are made, the kind of conversations that go on.
Ray, one of the new techs on loan from the Department of Natural Resources, was working on Anchorage and the chair came over to see what he was doing. It seemed like a good thing to record. To let readers get a sense of how this works. As it went along - it's pretty brief - it touched on a topic I've been trying to understand. Exactly how much are they starting from scratch and how much is borrowed from old maps? Both Torgerson and Eric had already told me they started with blank maps. Torgerson even showed me on the computer how to create a new blank map. But how, I keep asking myself, did these maps often seem to look so similar to old ones and how did they get such similar numbers for the districts? This seems to add to my questions here.
The audio's not great, so I've written up a transcript that, I think, catches the meaning if not all the exact words.
Talking is intermittent. So I'm not sitting their typing everything they're saying the way I often do at meetings. And sound recording is iffy because of the ventilation noise due to the unusual heat outside and the broken air conditioning in the building. Mostly they aren't saying anything. There's not much happening to video tape. People working on their computers with little changes happening on the screens that wouldn't mean much to someone watching.
So, when the chair stopped to talk to Ray about the map he was working on, I got out my pocket cam and turned on the video to see what I could get.
What rules should I use to decide what to post in this situation? Here are some of my thoughts on this.
1. It's a public meeting. Everything is fair game. They know I'm a blogger and that I'm listening. They need to be professional about how they handle themselves and in what they say.
2. It's good for people doing serious work to joke at times. But joking often reveals what they are thinking. Joking is a way, in some settings, to say what you're really thinking, but then be able to back off and say, "Just kidding" if it doesn't go down well.
- Some jokes are neutral - joking about the weather and heat in the room.
- Some jokes are self-effacing - talking about one's own faults. This works ok if you you're generally pretty good at what you do. It shows modesty, though it could come across as false modesty. It might not work so well if you joke about a fault that is driving everyone crazy.
- Some jokes are directed at others - your perceived opponents (in court or the media for example) or people over whom you have power. Or the public. These are not jokes you should make publicly. These are for relieving stress with your inner circle. Such as something like, "Not even Wallerie would sue over this." [Wallerie is the attorney for the Riley plaintiffs in Fairbanks.] OK, this seems innocuous enough and Wallerie would probably laugh if he heard it. And I'm guessing if Wallerie were in the room, they still might have said it. It's natural given the growing sense of them versus us when you're being challenged in court. Yet there's a difference between being personally sued and when you're being sued as a public official doing your job. You should be more like athletes - competitive in the game, but able to go out together for a drink afterward. But the Board does seem to be a tad touchy about the Plaintiffs and members of the Supreme Court. It's understandable, but the Board should recognize that people have differences of opinion and that's part of the process. If they take it personally and get bristly with some people they become less effective in the quest to find a fair and equitable plan for all Alaskans.
4. What if they don't know I'm recording what's going on? Again, it's a public meeting and they know there's a blogger in the room. They're public officials. They're grown ups. No, they can't let their guards down too far.
5. What if it prevents them from talking frankly about their doubts and questions? I'm not doing "Gotcha" journalism. I'm not trying to get headlines by trapping people into saying something stupid or by writing things out of context to make them look bad. But anything going on at a public meeting is on the record. Even these work sessions that aren't (to my knowledge) being recorded or transcribed. In fact, that's even more reason for me to be vigilant and to record what's happening. Last year, I thought long and hard before posting a video of the Board's attorney talking pretty candidly about what he thought about an Alaska Supreme Court's decision. It was during a break. But I had my camera out and he was looking at me. And I'd recorded him like that a number of times before. Even so, I sought guidance from journalism ethics sites and people with actual journalism degrees before I posted it. The clincher for me was that he said pretty similar things in an written appeal to the Supreme Court. I'm glad I did all that, because he wasn't pleased when he saw me next and complained that he didn't know I was recording. And he wouldn't talk to me again if I was recording.
All this is preface to a video that's pretty bad technical quality - both video and audio. I took it because it was the first time I actually heard the Chair talking more than a sentence here or there during the work sessions and he was close enough to me there was a chance the audio would get past the noise of the cooling equipment. It was more to just give readers a sense of how this process works, how decisions are made, the kind of conversations that go on.
Ray, one of the new techs on loan from the Department of Natural Resources, was working on Anchorage and the chair came over to see what he was doing. It seemed like a good thing to record. To let readers get a sense of how this works. As it went along - it's pretty brief - it touched on a topic I've been trying to understand. Exactly how much are they starting from scratch and how much is borrowed from old maps? Both Torgerson and Eric had already told me they started with blank maps. Torgerson even showed me on the computer how to create a new blank map. But how, I keep asking myself, did these maps often seem to look so similar to old ones and how did they get such similar numbers for the districts? This seems to add to my questions here.
The audio's not great, so I've written up a transcript that, I think, catches the meaning if not all the exact words.
Torgerson: So these deviations came from?
Ray: Already in the plan????
Torgerson: See how tight those are? That one is zero
So there are already constitutional in their nature? So you’r saying you didn’t change these from one plan to the next. The court said we might have painted ourselves into a corner because we didn’t do something different from what we did. But in reality, there’s not a hell of a lot we can we can do with a lot of those districts. Particularly the ones that are kind of isolated. The ones like you’re working on, the south Anchorage and maybe the north Anchorage, east and west, yeah, those are in play. The ones like 28 are pretty hard to do anything with that. But if you change one, you might change all, you might have to because of deviation.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
The Other Two Draft Options Since They Aren't On The Redistricting Website Yet [UPDATED WITH LINK TO MAPS]
[UPDATE 4:30pm : Just an email from the Board:
Yesterday, a board member asked why I was taking pictures of the plans they had on the wall at the work session, since they were putting them up on their website that afternoon.
"Well, I'll have them up right away and I can direct people to find them on your website, since people won't know that's what your doing. Nothing's been posted on the Draft Plans page for a long time, so why would they know to look there? It would help to have an announcement on the home page directing them there." I was also thinking, "Let's see if your webguy really gets them up today."
Well, I'm pleased to say that announcement is on the home page, but unfortunately, as I write this, almost 24 hours later, none of the draft options are up yet on the website.
When Taylor Bickford was still working for the Board, he was in charge of the website. Not much has been done with it since he left. Though one of the best parts of it have disappeared - mainly the the long list of court documents that made it easy to see all that had been filed by the Board and the various challengers and the Court decisions.
The lack of updates and the missing court documents were noted in Judge McConahy's last order, because the Fairbanks North Star Borough had mentioned them in their amicus brief. From McConahy's order:
Recently the Board, perhaps in response to the judge's mentioning it, has hired (or contracted or just made an agreement, I'm not sure which) to have Michael Soukup in the Governor's office update the website.
So, until the higher resolutions copies are online, here are the next two - Option E done by tech Ray and Option F done by tech Erin. (Of course if someone with a little aesthetic sense had thought this through, Erin's would have been Option E.)
Options A, B, and D were posted yesterday here. I figured I'd get that much up and alert people to check for the others. But since they still aren't up, I'll post them so you can see them. [The Draft Plans Drop Down menu is no longer working, which I'll take as a sign that Michael is working on it.] And close ups of Southeast on all five options were posted here. Option C had been pulled for more work and they weren't sure if it would be used or not.
Board Draft Option E
Board Draft Option F
And, as I said above, close ups of Southeast on all five options were posted here.
Due to unforeseen issues with the Redistricting Boards WEB page, we are providing access to the Board unadopted draft plans through Google Drive.Please click of the following link:https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B23vqYskBnILUjd6V092U2V0clk&usp=sharing
[UPDATE 7:00pm: What the email didn't say is that easier links to the maps, stats, and GIS files are available on the main page here. (June 20 entry if you read this later.)]You can get the maps here in all sorts of formats. ]
Yesterday, a board member asked why I was taking pictures of the plans they had on the wall at the work session, since they were putting them up on their website that afternoon.
"Well, I'll have them up right away and I can direct people to find them on your website, since people won't know that's what your doing. Nothing's been posted on the Draft Plans page for a long time, so why would they know to look there? It would help to have an announcement on the home page directing them there." I was also thinking, "Let's see if your webguy really gets them up today."
Well, I'm pleased to say that announcement is on the home page, but unfortunately, as I write this, almost 24 hours later, none of the draft options are up yet on the website.
When Taylor Bickford was still working for the Board, he was in charge of the website. Not much has been done with it since he left. Though one of the best parts of it have disappeared - mainly the the long list of court documents that made it easy to see all that had been filed by the Board and the various challengers and the Court decisions.
The lack of updates and the missing court documents were noted in Judge McConahy's last order, because the Fairbanks North Star Borough had mentioned them in their amicus brief. From McConahy's order:
"FNSB contends that the Board is not providing public notice of its meeting in a consistent fashion and is no longer using its website to post court pleadings and has not updated its Facebook page and Twitter accounts since 27 August 2012"As good as websites and Facebook pages might be, you need to keep them up-to-date and that takes time as this blogger can tell you.
Recently the Board, perhaps in response to the judge's mentioning it, has hired (or contracted or just made an agreement, I'm not sure which) to have Michael Soukup in the Governor's office update the website.
So, until the higher resolutions copies are online, here are the next two - Option E done by tech Ray and Option F done by tech Erin. (Of course if someone with a little aesthetic sense had thought this through, Erin's would have been Option E.)
Options A, B, and D were posted yesterday here. I figured I'd get that much up and alert people to check for the others. But since they still aren't up, I'll post them so you can see them. [The Draft Plans Drop Down menu is no longer working, which I'll take as a sign that Michael is working on it.] And close ups of Southeast on all five options were posted here. Option C had been pulled for more work and they weren't sure if it would be used or not.
Board Draft Option E
 |
| Board Draft Option E |
 |
| Board Draft Option E - Anchorage |
 |
| Board Draft Option E - Fairbanks |
 |
| Board Draft Option E - Kenai |
 |
| Board Draft Option E - Matsu/ER |
Board Draft Option F
 |
| Board Draft Option F (Erin) |
 |
| Board Draft Option F - Anchorage |
 |
| Board Draft Option F - Fairbanks |
 |
| Board Draft Option F - Kenai |
 |
| Board Draft Option F - Matsu/ER |
And, as I said above, close ups of Southeast on all five options were posted here.
Russell Brand Brilliantly Exposes The Emptiness of American TV News/Talk Hosts/Anchors
Gryphen had this video posted over at Immoral Minority.
It's amazing video. Russell Brand is a comedian I'd never heard of. He's on Morning Joe, an MSNBC Talk Show promoting his tour Messiah Complex. They treat him like a bimbo. Turns out he's sharper and more aware than all three of them and turns the whole process upside down. He chastises them for objectifying him and for talking about him in the third person as though he weren't there. He literally exposes the shallowness of what they're doing. This is especially clear when he talks about the theme of his tour:
This is the point where we get a direct hint at the depth of Brand's thinking. The hosts are simply not up to his level of adult seriousness. But while they slip back into silliness, he calls them on it. And he does it so politely, and with a big smile. And as they fall apart, he takes over as an anchor and starts doing their job for them.
I was watching him thinking how vapid these hosts were and this whole nonsense he has to go through to promote his show in the US, thinking about which way to take this, then deciding to say directly what he's thinking about what they're doing to him (and us the audience.) Did they do any preparation for this interview? They have no idea of who this man is. He turns this into a brilliant expose/satire.
This is what people should be doing all the time - articulately, politely, and with humor pulling of the facade of all the bullshit we deal with daily. But not many people have the wit and stage presence to pull it off.
It made me think of The Newsroom. I only saw the first episode online of this satire series on television news. But here is Russell Brand doing it on a real television newsy/talk show.
It's amazing video. Russell Brand is a comedian I'd never heard of. He's on Morning Joe, an MSNBC Talk Show promoting his tour Messiah Complex. They treat him like a bimbo. Turns out he's sharper and more aware than all three of them and turns the whole process upside down. He chastises them for objectifying him and for talking about him in the third person as though he weren't there. He literally exposes the shallowness of what they're doing. This is especially clear when he talks about the theme of his tour:
RB: I'm talking about Malcolm X, Che Guevara, Gandhi, and Jesus Christ and how these figures are significant culturally and how their icons are appropriated to designate consciousness and meaning, particularly posthumously.
Q: And what brings all those people together?
RB: They're all people that died for a cause, they're all people whose icons are used to designate meaning, perhaps not in the manner in which they intended.
Q: That sounds dead serious.
RB: [Hard to hear but sounds like "It's a lot funnier when I do it as comedy on stage."
Q: Can't we get like 30 seconds now?
RB: Not really love, this is my work. (hard to hear exactly because the third host is saying, and pointing, "Gandhi, go."
This is the point where we get a direct hint at the depth of Brand's thinking. The hosts are simply not up to his level of adult seriousness. But while they slip back into silliness, he calls them on it. And he does it so politely, and with a big smile. And as they fall apart, he takes over as an anchor and starts doing their job for them.
I was watching him thinking how vapid these hosts were and this whole nonsense he has to go through to promote his show in the US, thinking about which way to take this, then deciding to say directly what he's thinking about what they're doing to him (and us the audience.) Did they do any preparation for this interview? They have no idea of who this man is. He turns this into a brilliant expose/satire.
This is what people should be doing all the time - articulately, politely, and with humor pulling of the facade of all the bullshit we deal with daily. But not many people have the wit and stage presence to pull it off.
It made me think of The Newsroom. I only saw the first episode online of this satire series on television news. But here is Russell Brand doing it on a real television newsy/talk show.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Comparing The Five Southeast Alaska Configurations From The Board
Since I didn't do close ups of Southeast Alaska in the previous post, here they are - plus the two extra maps I didn't get up in the last post. Again, all five maps - A, B, D, E, and F (yes, no C, for now at least - they are still working on it and it may return) - are scheduled to be up in much better resolution on the Redistricting Board Website in the Draft Plans tab.
Reminder, Option C was removed, but may return. They're still working on it.
 |
| Board Draft Option A - Southeast |
 |
| Board Draft Option B - Southeast |
 |
| Board Draft Option D - Southeast |
 |
| Board Draft Option E - Southeast |
 |
| Board Draft Option F - Southeast |
Alaska Redistricting Board Has 4 Draft Plans
[UPDATE 4pm - I've added Kenai and Matsu/ER maps for Option A. You can look at closer views of Southeast - in all five options - here.]
The temperature in Anchorage is down a bit today and I decided it was time to visit the Board's work session again. Board member PeggyAnn McConnochie gave me a weather report (yesterday the main room was 88˚F and one office was over 100˚F) and then a tour of the draft plans on the wall.
There are four draft plans - I took pictures of Plans A, B, C, and D. But as I'm writing this, plan C has been replaced by Plan E. [UPDATE: I double checked, C was taken down for more work and may or may not come back]
NOTE: ALL THESE PLANS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE BOARD'S WEBSITE SOMETIME THIS AFTERNOON. THEY SHOULD BE POSTED HERE IN THE DRAFT PLAN TAB. THESE WILL BE MUCH BETTER RESOLUTION THAN MINE.
These are labeled DRAFT in big letters. It's what the Board and staff have come up with so far. From what I can tell, they didn't completely reinvent the wheel and used what they learned the first time around to help them make districts.
I saved these all in a little higher resolution than normal so you can enlarge them, though the light is bad and they aren't great. You should be able to get much better files on the Board's website soon.
BOARD DRAFT OPTION A - NOT ADOPTED
.jpg)
BOARD DRAFT OPTION B - NOT ADOPTED
BOARD DRAFT OPTION D - NOT ADOPTED [C WAS REMOVED AND REPLACED BY E (RAY'S) AND THEN LATER CAME F [ERIN'S]
While I was uploading and downloading my photos, they added two more Draft Options - E (Ray's) and F (Erin's). Ray and Erin are GIS tech's lent to the Board by the Department of Natural Resources. [Probably good I waited - they've just replaced Option F twice now.]
I also seem to have left out Matsu and Kenai in Option A. I'll try to add them in.
And, since Southeast didn't have its own little box, I didn't do a closeup of them. I'll try to repair that oversight too.
And everyone hear assures me that the new person they contracted to keep the website up-to-date will get these all up any time now, so you'll get much better images there.
And for those who are curious, yes, there's a reason Kenai is larger - it's vertical and I can use Blogger's standard extra-large setting without it running into the sides. I can play with it in HTML, but I'm trying to get these up quickly.
[UPDATE: You can look at closer views of Southeast - in all five options - here.]
The temperature in Anchorage is down a bit today and I decided it was time to visit the Board's work session again. Board member PeggyAnn McConnochie gave me a weather report (yesterday the main room was 88˚F and one office was over 100˚F) and then a tour of the draft plans on the wall.
There are four draft plans - I took pictures of Plans A, B, C, and D. But as I'm writing this, plan C has been replaced by Plan E. [UPDATE: I double checked, C was taken down for more work and may or may not come back]
NOTE: ALL THESE PLANS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE BOARD'S WEBSITE SOMETIME THIS AFTERNOON. THEY SHOULD BE POSTED HERE IN THE DRAFT PLAN TAB. THESE WILL BE MUCH BETTER RESOLUTION THAN MINE.
These are labeled DRAFT in big letters. It's what the Board and staff have come up with so far. From what I can tell, they didn't completely reinvent the wheel and used what they learned the first time around to help them make districts.
I saved these all in a little higher resolution than normal so you can enlarge them, though the light is bad and they aren't great. You should be able to get much better files on the Board's website soon.
BOARD DRAFT OPTION A - NOT ADOPTED
.jpg)
 |
| BOARD DRAFT OPTION A ANCHORAGE |
 |
| BOARD DRAFT OPTION A - FAIRBANKS |
 |
| BOARD DRAFT OPTION A - KENAI |
 |
| BOARD DRAFT OPTION A - MATSU/ER |
BOARD DRAFT OPTION B - NOT ADOPTED
 |
| BOARD DRAFT OPTION B - ANOCHORAGE |
 |
| BOARD DRAFT OPTION B -FAIRBANKS |
 |
| BOARD DRAFT OPTION B - KENAI |
 |
| BOARD DRAFT OPTION B - MATSU/ER |
BOARD DRAFT OPTION D - NOT ADOPTED [C WAS REMOVED AND REPLACED BY E (RAY'S) AND THEN LATER CAME F [ERIN'S]
 |
| BOARD DRAFT OPTION D - ANCHORAGE |
 |
| BOARD DRAFT OPTION D - FAIRBANKS |
 | |
| BOARD DRAFT OPTION D - MATSU/ER |
 | |
| BOARD DRAFT OPTION D - KENAI |
While I was uploading and downloading my photos, they added two more Draft Options - E (Ray's) and F (Erin's). Ray and Erin are GIS tech's lent to the Board by the Department of Natural Resources. [Probably good I waited - they've just replaced Option F twice now.]
I also seem to have left out Matsu and Kenai in Option A. I'll try to add them in.
And, since Southeast didn't have its own little box, I didn't do a closeup of them. I'll try to repair that oversight too.
And everyone hear assures me that the new person they contracted to keep the website up-to-date will get these all up any time now, so you'll get much better images there.
And for those who are curious, yes, there's a reason Kenai is larger - it's vertical and I can use Blogger's standard extra-large setting without it running into the sides. I can play with it in HTML, but I'm trying to get these up quickly.
[UPDATE: You can look at closer views of Southeast - in all five options - here.]
Court Again Rules For Plaintiff Against Alaska Redistricting Board
This is a June 11, 2013 order that I should have put up earlier. It's not too long. Basically it tells the Board
- to follow the timeline it adopted after the previous court order
- to get moving on the Voting Rights Act parts of the plan as soon as they complete the Hickel Plan and it says
- any Alaskan voter who has a problem with the plan is eligible to challenge it in court within 30 days of promulgation.
It also gives more context to my take on the Board's June 7 meeting (before this ruling) where I thought they basically said that they were planning to set a faster schedule and hold public hearings because they wanted to, not because the Court was telling them to.
Petersburg, Calista Corporation, and the Fairbanks North Star Borough filed amici briefs supporting Riley. Fairbanks also noted that the Board was not consistently posting meeting notices on its website and had taken down the long and very helpful links to court filings it had earlier.
Below is the ruling. It's only five pages and relatively straightforward for anyone not used to reading court orders.
[UPDATE 10:10am - I just got an agenda for the June 21 meeting which includes:
"Discussion of limited appeal to Alaska Supreme Court of Superior Court ruling."
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Small Earthquake in Anchorage - 4.4 [Later: 4.0]
Enough of a movement in the house to notice and think about moving, but it ended before I got up. USGS doesn't have it listed yet - it was about 13 minutes ago (11:20pm). This follows the warmest day I can remember in Anchorage - it was 88˚F in our backyard this afternoon, but the breeze coming in through the windows is much cooler now. (I remember temperatures in the 80s, and maybe I'm just suppressing memories of it this warm.*)
The report is up now at USGS - they're calling it a 4.4 and in the greater Wasilla area.
*UPDATE June 19, 2013 10:10am - The Anchorage Daily News says the 81˚F recorded at the airport was a record for June 18 and the all time high was 87˚F in 1953, well before we got here. So my memory isn't that bad. (The airport is generally cooler - in summer - than other part of Anchorage.)
The report is up now at USGS - they're calling it a 4.4 and in the greater Wasilla area.
Redistricting Board Rolls Out A Detailed Schedule
It's getting to be crunch time at the Redistricting Board. Their new schedule has them finished with their Hickel Plan by July 12, 2013. Then if the US Supreme Court rules in the Shelby County v Holder decision to invalidate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, they plan to be done with their plan by July 12.
There were several emails in the last two days for folks who have subscribed to the Board's emails. Let's see if I can pull out the information from the emails with some explanation.
WORK SESSIONS:
First there are work session where the meeting is open to the public, but basically they are developing maps. They have to have an announced meeting as long as three or more Board members talk about redistricting. But much of the time will be spent on the computers making maps.
These meetings are going on now. I just couldn't drag myself over there over the weekend or in this hot weather yesterday and today. I've posted about the meetings last week. Probably there should be people there watching, but it's been more than I could handle.
Private Plans Due Friday June 21 at Noon
For anyone who wants to submit their own plan, it's got to be in by Friday at noon. Mostly this will be done by organizations who have been tracking this - the two big political parties - Democrats and Republicans. Several Native organizations have been following the process and have submitted plans in the earlier chapters of this process.
What's a HICKEL PLAN? Even for those of you following this, it could be confusing. It means a plan that only considers the Alaska Constitutional requirements, not the Voting Rights Act (VRA) requirements. The Court required the Board to draw these maps first and then stop. Then they are to make the changes necessary to also meet the VRA requirements. Of course, most of the Board is hoping they will be relieved of Section 5 of the VRA when the US Supreme Court issues its opinion on Shelby County v Holder, which I've posted about already.
Then Come Public Hearings
So a week after the June 21 meeting, will be the first public hearing and people who submitted Hickel Plans will be able to present them to the Board at the hearings and anyone can testify about the plans. The first time around I tried to present some information here for people going to the hearings and post questions people might want to ask. I'll try to do that again.
I'm guessing that 'reasonable advance notice' means they didn't get around to figuring out a specific number of days or hours before the hearings so they left it vague. On the other hand, anyone turning in a Hickel Plan by the June 21 deadline, presumably, will say which public hearing they want to present it at when they turn in the plan.
My perception was that if there are minor issues that affect a neighborhood, or coincide with what the Board wants to do, your recommendations have a good chance of being adopted. But if it conflicts with what the Board wants to do, probably not. For example, in the first public hearings, lots of people from both Muldoon and Eagle River argued that they should not be in a single House district because they have very different interests. And while the Board did separate them more in the House districts, they also paired one Eagle River House district with one Muldoon House district to form a Senate seat that became Republican enough to bump off Sen. Bettye Davis.
More Board Meetings For A Final Board Hickel Plan
There were several emails in the last two days for folks who have subscribed to the Board's emails. Let's see if I can pull out the information from the emails with some explanation.
WORK SESSIONS:
First there are work session where the meeting is open to the public, but basically they are developing maps. They have to have an announced meeting as long as three or more Board members talk about redistricting. But much of the time will be spent on the computers making maps.
Alaska Redistricting Board Mapping Work Sessions
The Alaska Redistricting Board will hold Mapping Work Sessions at the Anchorage office, 411 West 4th Avenue, Suite 302 from 8:00AM until 5:00PM on the following days:
June 12th, 2013,
June 13th, 2013,
June 14th, 2013,
June 15th, 2013
June 16th, 2013
June 17th, 2013
June 18th, 2013
June 19th, 2013
and June 20th, 2013.
This schedule may be subject to change. Notice of change will be provided.
These meetings are going on now. I just couldn't drag myself over there over the weekend or in this hot weather yesterday and today. I've posted about the meetings last week. Probably there should be people there watching, but it's been more than I could handle.
Private Plans Due Friday June 21 at Noon
For anyone who wants to submit their own plan, it's got to be in by Friday at noon. Mostly this will be done by organizations who have been tracking this - the two big political parties - Democrats and Republicans. Several Native organizations have been following the process and have submitted plans in the earlier chapters of this process.
SUBMISSION OF PLANS
Any individual, group, or organization wishing to submit a proposed Hickel Plan for the Board to consider must do so no later than 12:00 p.m. on Friday, June 21. Hickel Plans are to be drawn based solely on the requirements of the Alaska Constitution and without any consideration to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
Submissions can be dropped off in person to the Alaska Redistricting Office or emailed to info@akredistricting.org.
Then the email refocuses on the work session and then the meeting to be held Friday June 21. You'll notice the work session sort of wraps the meeting.
ALASKA REDISTRICTING BOARD WORK SESSION
The Alaska Redistricting Board will hold a work session June 21, 2013 from 10:00AM until 4:00PM at their conference room at 411 West 4th Avenue, Suite 302.
ALASKA REDISTRICTING BOARD MEETING
The Alaska Redistricting Board will hold a board meeting June 21, 2013 from 12:00PM (noon) until 1:00PM at their board room at 411 West 4th Avenue, Suite 302. The Board meeting will be teleconferenced. To listen call in at 1-855-463-5009 or streaming on AKL.TV. The Board intends to review the draft Hickel Plans created during the work sessions and also finalize the list of submitted third-party plans it will be considering.
What's a HICKEL PLAN? Even for those of you following this, it could be confusing. It means a plan that only considers the Alaska Constitutional requirements, not the Voting Rights Act (VRA) requirements. The Court required the Board to draw these maps first and then stop. Then they are to make the changes necessary to also meet the VRA requirements. Of course, most of the Board is hoping they will be relieved of Section 5 of the VRA when the US Supreme Court issues its opinion on Shelby County v Holder, which I've posted about already.
Then Come Public Hearings
So a week after the June 21 meeting, will be the first public hearing and people who submitted Hickel Plans will be able to present them to the Board at the hearings and anyone can testify about the plans. The first time around I tried to present some information here for people going to the hearings and post questions people might want to ask. I'll try to do that again.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PLAN PRESENTATIONS
The Board intends to hold public hearings in the following locations to solicit general comments and receive presentations on any third-party plans submitted prior to the Friday, June 21 deadline:
Anchorage (June 28, 2013) To be held at the Anchorage LIO [716 W 4th Avenue, Suite 200] from 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM
Testimony will be taken in person and by teleconference 1-855-463-5009
Fairbanks (July 1, 2013)
To be held at the Fairbanks LIO [1292 Sadler Way Suite 308] from 12:30 PM - 4:00 PM
Testimony will be taken in person and by teleconference 1-855-463-5009
Juneau (July 2, 2013)
To be held in the Beltz Room, Capitol Building from 12:00PM - 4:00PM
Testimony will be taken in person and by teleconference 1855-463-5009
Any individual, group or organization wishing to present their submitted Hickel Plans at these hearings is required to provide reasonable advance notice to Board staff by:
Telephone (907-269-7402)
Fax (907-269-6691)
Email (info@akredistricting.org)
I'm guessing that 'reasonable advance notice' means they didn't get around to figuring out a specific number of days or hours before the hearings so they left it vague. On the other hand, anyone turning in a Hickel Plan by the June 21 deadline, presumably, will say which public hearing they want to present it at when they turn in the plan.
My perception was that if there are minor issues that affect a neighborhood, or coincide with what the Board wants to do, your recommendations have a good chance of being adopted. But if it conflicts with what the Board wants to do, probably not. For example, in the first public hearings, lots of people from both Muldoon and Eagle River argued that they should not be in a single House district because they have very different interests. And while the Board did separate them more in the House districts, they also paired one Eagle River House district with one Muldoon House district to form a Senate seat that became Republican enough to bump off Sen. Bettye Davis.
More Board Meetings For A Final Board Hickel Plan
ADDITIONAL BOARD MEETINGSAnd there you have it. I'm sure that this is getting old for the Board. If it was fun once, it isn't so much any more. And you can see from the last paragraph in the email that they are looking forward to the US Supreme Court relieving them of the pre-clearance requirement. (Except Board member Marie Green who has worked hard to preserve Alaska Native districts in compliance with the VRA.)
The Alaska Redistricting Board intends to hold a meeting at its Anchorage office on
July 5, 2013 at 11:00AM ,
July 6, 2013 at 10:00AM and
July 7, 2013 at 10:00AM,
July 8, 2013 ( time to be announced) J
July 9, 2013 (time to be announced)
July 10, 2013 (time to be announced),
July 11, 2013 (time to be announced) and
July 12, 2013 (time to be announced, to adopt a final Hickel Plan.
All board meetings will be teleconferenced at 1-855-463-5009 and streamed at AKL.TV .
The Board's schedule thereafter is dependent upon the status of Section 5 of the VRA, which will determine if the Board's adopted Hickel Plan becomes the new final plan or whether further changes must be made to balance Alaska constitutional requirements with the requirements of the VRA, in accordance with the Hickel Process.
Monday, June 17, 2013
Redistricting Board Complies With Court Order, But Insists They Would Have Anyway, Not Because The Court Told Them To
On Friday June 7, the Redistricting Board met to discuss how they were going to proceed given a Superior Court ruling telling them to get moving and to hold hearings. I've reported what happened at the meeting, but I've been thinking about what it meant and been trying to interpret what I saw and heard. It's sort of old news, but it's not been said yet, so I'm putting this up for the record. Which seems to me was a key goal of the Board at the June 7, 2013 meeting. Basically, it's my interpretation of what I heard with some rough quotes to support my assertions. It's a bit tricky because:
- My notes are spotty and I don't have the official transcripts
- The comments weren't spelled out one by one - all were mixed together
It seemed to me that the Board was:
- Upset by the Court telling it what to do
- Trying to make a point that they were doing things (that the court told them to do) but they were doing them because they planned to all along, not because they had to.
- They wanted to be sure that their new schedule and plans for hearings did not become a precedent for future Boards.
- Therefore, they checked with their attorney that their legal right to challenge the Court's right to tell them how to do their job wasn't hurt if they proceeded with a new, speeded up schedule and public hearings. (The attorney assured them they could preserve their right to appeal.)
- Putting on the record their response to things they felt were wrong that people seem to think about the board - We're not doing a bad job - problems are other people's fault
Things the Board was upset about:
- The court setting their schedule
- The court saying they had to hold public hearings
- Faulty "public opinion" seemed to hold that
- That the Board had gerrymandered, when, attorney White told us in detail, that the court had found no evidence of that, and in fact so ruled
- That the whole plan had been thrown out when, in fact, only a few districts had been found to have problems
In past meetings, the Board - mostly Chair Torgerson - said things like "for the record" or "we can't say for the record too often." Most notably on May 14, 2012. They didn't say that at this meeting, but it sure sounded like that's what they were doing. Getting their side of things on the record. You can hear the echoes from different folks.
Some examples: [NOTE - these are not direct quotes, they're from my running notes of the meeting which you can see in their entirety here.]
Preserving Our Court Challenge While Moving Forward
The Schedule/Timelines - We're doing them because we want to, not because the Court is forcing us to.- Torgerson: We could set a schedule and move forward, working on Hickel plan and following time line and at the same time pursue the appeal because we think the legal precedent is wrong.
- PeggyAnn McConnochie: I’d say, let’s set the schedule, it’s not because we are required to, but because we want to. I don’t want any other board to have to deal with the stuff we have to deal with, without having some outsiders come in and dictate what we have to do.
- PeggyAnn McConnochie - Motion to ?? they’re trying to impose timelines on us? Is that right? Riley Plaintiffs asked for a specific timeline and to hold hearings.
Public Hearings - Variations of "the court can't make us hold public hearings" and "but we want to on our own."
- Torgerson: We never said we wouldn’t hold hearings, but making constitutional point it’s not required. I personally think that public input is important and this Board thinks public input is important. I recall PeggyAnn McConnochie and Marie Green working so hard to meet the public concerns.
- PeggyAnn McConnochie: McConahy [Fairbanks judge] says that public hearings are required on the Hickel Process. If VRA is removed, then I’m not sure we would still have to do that since we wouldn’t follow Hickel plan. . .The Board is only required to hold public hearings on its draft plan, but not on its final plan. Nothing after final plan is adopted.
- White: It’s my understanding the Board always planned for public hearings anyway. Waiting would only be for future Boards. . . [to challenge the Courts' ability to set the Board's time schedule so future Boards won't have to deal with this]
- White: We will have public hearings because we want to, and reply to Monday’s decision.
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
- It's Not Our Fault and Setting The Record Straight
My Comment: This is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin. I'm guessing Torgerson is conflating time and process here.Torgerson: Just because the Court doesn’t have time to do its job, not because we aren’t doing our job.
- The Court said it couldn't do its job if they didn't have a plan that met the Alaska Constitutional requirements. They needed this because their job is to determine if any deviations from the Constitutional requirements are the least necessary to meet the Voting Rights Act. They need the first plan to compare to the second plan. This did delay the Board's work because they hadn't taken the Hickel Process into consideration until the Riley plaintiffs argued it in their challenge and the Court agreed with them.
However, I'm willing to give the Board the benefit of the doubt when they first got this order and didn't quite know how to interpret it. But they then went back to the Court several times asking, "You don't really mean this, do you?" But that's not the issue here as I see it. - The Board, instead of getting back to work and developing a Hickel Plan, decided to do nothing until the Shelby County v Holder opinion comes out from the Supreme Court. They set up a very leisurely schedule that gave them about ten months (from March 2013 to January 2014). The Constitution has the initial process getting done in 90 days, but doesn't talk about what happens after the 90 days is over and a new plan has to be done from scratch. The Board interpreted that to mean there were no longer under any time pressure. Given that whatever they do will probably be challenged in court, it seems to me that getting it done as quickly as possible makes sense. If there is time leftover at the end, no problem. That's better than not having enough time at the end. And now the Board has a plan to get things done in about six weeks. So why the nine months schedule before?
- The Courts have gotten their opinions back to the Board with incredible speed, with just one exception. That was after last May's (2012) decision that allowed the Interim Plan to be used for the 2014 election. Their next decision - to start from scratch - didn't come until late December 2012. And there I can't be sure how much of that was the Court's delay and how much was related to the filings of the different parties.
- Political Gerrymandering
My Comments: You can prove political gerrymandering two ways:White: no political gerrymandering claim made in the filings. In trial, Riley raised them. I’ve looked at the orders. Sept. 23rd order - there is not evidence in the record to find partisan gerrymandering occurred. . . . It finds the allegations regarding political motivation are speculative, but not persuasive.
Later: allegations that John, you said, political paybacks.
Court agrees with Board, that alleged gerrymandering unpersuasive.
Torgerson, Holm, and Bickford [all said they were] proud [of the Board's work] and not persuaded by partisan… and court finds this persuasive.
Made changes for Native districts, result lowest possible deviation. p. 134 proclamation plan is not based on impermissible partisan . . . Court ruled over and over again.
- Revealing the intent of the Board
- Showing the effect of the Board's work
Showing the effect - changes in the makeup of districts to favor Republicans and of the legislature after the election - can show a correlation, but you can't show the cause was intentional political gerrymandering. The Board talked about many technical reasons that forced them to do these things. [I use Republicans here only because the Board is 4-1 Republicans. If it were switched, I say Democrats.]
But I was listening in to most of this and if some omniscient being were going to reveal the truth in 30 days, I'd wager a lot of money that Fairbanks and Anchorage were intentionally gerrymandered. I watched them play with districts, such as splitting the two Fairbanks city house seats into two different Senate seats, and extracting Ester from the rest of Fairbanks and attaching it to the Bering Sea, and putting an Eagle River house seat into Bettye Davis' Anchorage Senate seat. I know they can defend these moves, but I'm not at all convinced. That said, as long as they can produce a Constitutional map that meets the VRA, they have a certain amount of freedom to do it their way. No, the Court didn't find the Riley plaintiff's proof persuasive, but that doesn't mean there weren't some districts whose boundaries reflected ways to get more Republicans into the Senate.
- Public believes the whole plan was illegal. The whole plan never declared illegal. Only two districts. .
White: Somehow [people believe] the whole plan was illegal. The whole plan never declared illegal. Specific rulings on specific districts. SC said on HP by not following that, we can’t tell if you properly balanced between the VRA and constitution we can’t do our job. Just a couple of districts - trial court said some issue on influence district, 2006 amendments and DOJ don’t rule out influence districts, SC you may want to look.
Torgerson: Told board this would just be an hour.
White: Only two districts 32 in SE which we changed and SC said never mind use your original. And 38 . . .. can’t keep up.
Hear people saying things about illegal plan. Only ten out of 60 challenged. 4 that were ?? and only 2 ????
Brodie: Thanks for the clarification. Keep reading that the plan is unconstitutional. They didn’t say unconstitutional, only that they couldn’t see how we reached our conclusion. I think we did constitutional.
PeggyAnn McConnochie: I agree. It was constitutional and good to hear that from you Michael.
My Comments: We could split hairs here or count the angels in a census bloc. A few districts were found unconstitutional - not every district. But the plan is either legal or not. If just a few bad districts make the plan illegal, then, as I understand it, the whole plan is illegal. Not all the districts, but the whole plan.
It's always hard to have a higher authority declare you wrong. And there are plenty of situations where that higher authority IS wrong. Two members of the Supreme Court - one liberal the other not as much - wrote a dissenting opinion on parts of the decision. But, it's my understanding that by definition, what the Supreme Court says is constitutional is what is constitutional. There's no instant replay here.
As I said, this all sounded a lot like the earlier meeting when they were busy saying things just to put them on the record. I think that's what this was all about.
The Board's job is not easy. They have worked hard. They've done a lot of good things. They particularly worked hard to get the VRA districts right. Some members harder than others. Some members seem to be more political than others. But all this patting themselves on the back is counter to what I was taught at home is good form. And declaring it rather than offering proof - Attorney White did offer examples when talking about gerrymandering - isn't convincing. There's a lot they could have done better and I've not been shy about posting those things over the last couple of years.
Blogging comment: There's so much to blog about, I can't keep up. There's the court order that came out June 10 which I'll try to get up soon. The Supreme Court still hasn't published its opinion on Shelby County v Holder which will have an impact on the Alaska Redistricting Board, because some on the Board are counting on not having to deal with pre-cleariance any more if Shelby County wins. We'll see. Was today's Arizona case throwing out their law requiring proof of citizenship to vote an indicator that enough Supreme Court justices do understand the problems of voter suppression or was it decided on a legal technicality? And Anchorage is still having warm sunny weather. I can't remember such a long streak of such weather - but I'm sure that reflects my faulty memory. I passed on today's meeting. These working meetings are far more tedious than usual. Lots of computer work and little discussion of what they are doing or what it means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)