Board Gets Court Order For Schedule, Discusses Deviation and Section 2 of VRA, Then Adjourns

Again, these are rough notes.  I put some headers in to help you find the points in the title.  Don't consider these more than a guide - lots of missing words and paraphrasing. 

1:35pm Board reopens meeting

Torgerson:  Took 35 minute break, not ten.

Look at some plans from last week and then Board members can open own computers and start working.
Start with AFFER map.  Trial court order just came turn to Mr. White.  We were being challenged on not having a deadline to adopt the final map.

COURT ORDER ON BOARD SCHEDULE

White:  Order from Judge McConahay, July 5.  Order short. On Riley motion to establish deadline.  Pointed out they said they failed, something about Shelby County, don't dispute how it affects Alaska.  Neither court or Board submitted plan.

It shall propose a schedule within five days

I read that to say Board has to have a schedule by next Friday.  Something the Board should think about and consider.  No indication what timeline is required, might help a bit with someone ???? Board can think about it and have formal schedule adopted prior to next week.

Torgerson:  REasoning?  Still slow, to speed Board up? 
We'll go back to Eric, AFFER overlay with Calista 4
Marie:  Can't hear.

Eric:  AFFER 2.1 - Pastel Colors,  Red Outline is Calista Option 4.

White:  I think we might have confusion here.
Torgerson:  What are you confused about?
Eric:  Pastel Color AFFER 2.1 turned in this morning.  Red Outline is Calista Option 4.  I also have Calista Option 2.5 if you want to look at that.
Torgerson:  We might
McConnochie:  Can you take the numbers off?

Lots of nothing.

Torgerson:  Can you zoom in on Matsu?  Brings Valdez.  2.1 comes down.
White:  AFFER 2.1  ???

1:53pm I wasn't listening too carefully, but now they are talking about members playing with maps and taking a 90 minute break

Green:  [Can't hear well enough - they moved mike]
Torgerson:  you two will work together on SE.  Mr. Holm on Kenai???  Healthy to have Mr. White talk about deviations again.  I got lost about best deviation and findings that we can go.  If another constitutional need, deviation might not be that important.

DEVIATIONS CLARIFICATION FROM WHITE

White:  I would interpret the teachings of our SC, that we no longer need to comply with Section 5 of the act.  The only way was to underpopulate the Native districts to get districts effective.  it's been shown that maps can be drawn with extremely low deviations.  there may be some problems.  You don't need to have the lowest possible deviations if making changes to improve SEI, compactNess or contiguity.  Balancing act.  Do I think ok to have 9.6?  Probably not.  But if you have a good justification, maybe.  If going from 1.2 to 5% don't think a problem unless those deviations are in urban areas.  Given relatively larger populations and because Boroughs are by law SEI, so you have to get those deviations as low as possible.  But according to trial court, deviations aren't everything.  If more compact or more SEI, I think the higher deviations ok.  US Supreme Court gave 10% safe harbor, but Alaska court will look.
Brodie:  I appreciate that interpretation.  Now we don't have Native districts and non-Native districts, now we have Alaskan districts, rural and urban.  Need to take into consideration their unique issues.

SECTION 2 OF VRA STILL IN FORCE

White:  Section 2 of the VRA still applies and we do have to comply with that, doesn't have impact of discriminating against natives.  US Supreme Court, if protected minority group doesn't 50% plus in a district.  We had districts under 50% that were not under 50%.  37 was not over 50%.  You could not draw it to make it to be 50% plus.  Under section 2, that district wouldn't count.  Need to make up majority in order to qualify for Section 2 protection.
Torgerson:  How do you propose we make a reocrd of higher deviation.
White:  Do what we did last time, when we make those decisions, we do written findings as we did last time of how the Board makes its decisions.
Torgerson:  Stand in recess until 3:30.  Should I go off the teleconference and back on.  Call back in at 3:30.  At that we are at recess. 


[I'm listening in via AKL.tv from Los Angeles]

Redistricting Board Meeting - Calista and AFFER and McKinnon Discuss Their Maps

[I'm listening to the Board online from LA, this is long.  I tried to summarize briefly after this note, then my very rough notes as I listened.]

Overview: 

• Board attorney White went over definitions of Socio-Economic Integration (SEI).  Seemed to be addressing last week's testimony from Cooper Landing (that North Kenai was not connected to South Anchorage) and Gazewood & Weiner testimony (that rural Alaska may be connected to Fairbanks, but had no connection to Ester).  Citing Court rulings that if Kenai is connected to Anchorage in general, then N Kenai could be connected to S Anchorage. 

There was a request to winnow down the many plans, though Board member Brodie said there were good parts of maps that otherwise were not good that might be useful.  They surmised that the latest maps of Calista and AFFER would be all they needed.  Then had them come to the table to explain where they were. 

• Calista had two maps.  Final Best plan is Calista Option 4 but if the Board was going to split Matsu two ways, then Calista Option 2 Revised.
• AFFER - New map submitted this morning at 9am, Board didn't have it.  Ruedrich went through the whole state.  Said mostly similar to Calista but different with Matsu double split and some Fairbanks, but mostly like Calista. 
• McKinnon - private citizen - deviation 9.6, but keeps all ANCSA Regional Corps intact and all Boroughs except Fairbanks and Anchorage intact.  

 Also some discussion of "Brave New World" after Shelby County v Holder decision that low deviation is now much more important than before.



Here are the very rough notes.  Don't quote, but use to get a sense of what happened.  Lots missing or paraphrased. 

ALASKA REDISTRICTING BOARD MEETING
411 W 4th Avenue, Suite 302
Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone:
907-269 -7402

JULY 5, 2013 FRIDAY
11:00 AM
Anchorage office
AGENDA
11:00 AM

11:00am - I can hear the Board, but clearly the meeting hasn't begun.
Brodie - summer weather in here
noises

1. Call to Order
Torgerson:  Call to order.  Five after 11.

  
2. Roll Call of Members
Roll call - all members present
3.Approval of Agenda  - approved
4.Discussion of Social-Economic Integration
White:  Compact and contiguity clear.  Go over SEI - Constitution
where people work together, ?? together, earn their living together.  Can't be defined with math precision.  Can be figured.  Economic unit inhabited by people.
Courts have said - proof of actual interaction and interconnectedness more than mere homogeneity.  Other things;  common interests in ??;  transportation, ferry, Native characteristics, geographical proximity, ferry.  services hub.  Court has said 'relative' not minimal, but some flexibility, given the sheer size geographically.
One of the issues raised in ???, idea of how to measure SEI, when have to combine two different areas - like Kenai and Anchorage.  Court has said they are.  In Kenai case in late 80s.  combined N Kenai with Anchorage - challenged.  No connectedness with N Kenai and South Anchorage - maybe with Anchorage, but not S Anchorage.  Court clear, don't look at specific areas, but can look - let me get exact wording:  will be upheld if reasonable not arbitrary.  Previously upheld comparison.  .  . Issue here whether interaction with hd7 and not just n Kenai, and surrounding areas as well.  Kenai as a whole and Anchorage as a whole.  Since then no dispute, Kenai and Anchorage a clearly SEI.  Not just N K and SA, but surrounding area.
Questions?
Torgerson:  No questions for Mr. White?  Anything else?
PeggyAnn McConnochi:  If people in N Kenai go to Dr. in S Anchorage?  Some indication.  But if go to Dr. in N Anchorage or Airport not in S Anchorage, still there.
Sufficient of N Kenai and S Anchorage results from interaction with Anchorage.  . . .Actual is minimal, but nexus between Kenai and Anchorage.  That nexus is what's important, not the two areas of N. Kenai and S. Anchorage.
Same argument was raised last in 2001 - Valdez challenged S anchorage SEI, trial level upheld.  SEI not tied just to S Anchorage area, but Anchorage-Valdez nexus.
Torgerson:  Other Questions.  Alright.  Brings us to 4 Discussion of draft plans.
5.Discussion of draft plans
McConnochie:  Is there  a way to reduce the number of plans?
Brodie:  difficult in that one plan treats one part of the state better, but we don't like another part.  Looks like it will be a mix and match.
Green:  Thank you for raising that.  It would be helpful to focus ?? limited time we have, throughout our hearing this has been mentioned - why we have so many maps.
 Holm:  Maybe we should just go thru the options, like Calista 1-4, if offering all four maybe we should assume 4 is the latest and look at that and remove the others.  Same with Board.  We have ABCDEF and I don't know which we think 2 or 3 most appropriate.  Way to eliminate some of those.  Then Gazewood & Weiner and AFFER and Gateway and that gets us down to 5 or 6 and work from there.
Brodie, Hard.  Some have attractive small portions tho the rest we don't want.  So take a look at start with A and see if there is a portion of that, or knock out the whole plan.  If we want to do that, I'm willing to knock out C the one I drew.  Things I would change, particularly N. Slope drawn to get numbers even.  Not knocking out SE portion or city portions. . . .
McConnochie.  Since four from Calista.  Not clear, hard to pull map off the computer.

 Torgerson :  Would you like to hear from Calista to see what they intend.  Not planning to open hearings again, but . .  One filed 21st which was our deadline for filing maps.  AFFER also because they have 3 or 4 plans.  Let me take a small break and we can pull up table and let people talk.

11:25am Rustling of papers, some talking, waiting for Brodie to return from bathroom
11:27am  Back to order, invite Marcia Davis and Tom Begich
??:  We got another this morning?
Davis:  Just Southeast . . .
Torgerson :  We need another mike, bring that table to center.  Teleconference mics.
My name is Marcia Davis - Calista general counsel
My name is Tom Begich - consultant to Calista
Davis:  to avoid confusion start with punchline.  Where we stand today, we've been listening to testimony, evolving like the Board, based on testimony and concerns and knowledge we acquired, Our final best plan is Calista Option 4, there is another SE that we sent over today.  Meets our ANCSA corporation need, political boundaries to max extent possible.  Considered that AFFER was pushing double split of Matsu, not sure, we wanted to have  double split that allowed the Native interests.  That's our option - changes to Native areas - Shish to Bering Strait and Arcti Village to 39, needed ot move Koyukuk??  If Board goes to dobule shift in Matsu want to be prepared. 
Either Calista option 4 with whatever SE  or Calista 2 Revised
Begich:  ???  Opiton 2 one worked with AFFER group  - disagreement in FB and some Senate pairings.  essentially the same of 36 of 40 house district. 
Marcia:Just to respect to house districts, but not senate pairings.
PAM repeat
Tom Begich:  If Board does double Matsu split - our 2 revised matches AFFER close, they have Juneau to Hobard Bay, assume B wants to keep hold, we honor B there.  Same split with J.  Fairbanks - AFFER aligned more moves Eilson to rural, NP different, fundamental difference pairings

Bethel 37 up into Doyon - Coastal Native and Interior - prime objection, we paired Native Interior to Interior rural/FB district.  Taken with comment that Natalie Landreth made about Coastal Natives have such strong focus on fisheries and Coastal delivery and we feel really strongly that Western Coast Natives need to stay linked in Senate pairings too.  Does real injustice, have no issues in common, tail wagging dog.  Common issues fuel delivery, transportation, shopping.  We realize that if they're contiguous good enough, but 37 doesn't touch 3?  - not contiguous.  Don't have native preclearing issue but doesn't mean we can ignore it.  They came up highway with Valdez - we linked to seven, we linked to 5.
Begich:  Ruedrich - all three of Senate seat five that FB is entitled to should be paired together. 
Davis:  Only if Board feels comfortable breaking Matsu twice,
Begich:  Very low deviations.
Brodie:  N and W Alaska same as four.
Begich:  Six is virtually identical, Delta?? together.  Don't break Matsu 2x  - then 10E has to be paired either to Matsu or Anchorage.  Easier to pair to Anchorage break - there's the break right there, incorporates 500 Matsu residents.  Maintains Chugiak district Anchroage has had and pairs it to the road district with Matsu to Valdez.  Only way to have only one Matsu break.  You can link Valdez to Anchorage - by law - and this seems to be the best way.  If break Matsu just once, this is the only way.  Tried to match lines Mayor proposed as Colligan said to follow Mayor's.  Couldn't match exactly.
Torg:  Kenai still divided twice.
Begich:  All maps take ?? out of B.  Know we have to break twice.  Tried to take Native pop in Nanwalek and to lower coastal district - Halibut Cove and Far eastern part of Homer, but not Homer.  Three fully populated borough districts (H Kena Soldotna)  Three Boroughs in Kenai . . .
Brodie:  Took Nanwalek for Native population?
Begich:  Yes.  Neither community likes to be connected to Kenai.  Driven by deviation.
Brodie:  ??? 32 along the Coast  . . .
Begich:  Blocks red and green, huge blocks make the water connection.
White:  Only contiguous by water 32 - connect across the bottom.
Begich: Could, but creates crazy angles - by Seward - no population.  Board's ability to draw straight line. 
White:  what happens to deviation if pick part of Matsu and put . .
Begich:  About 550 people - about 3%.  If you did that a wholly enclosed Matsu.  But we were shooting for low deviation.  Case law political boundaries can be reason for higher deviation.  Overall, minus to plus is 1.37%  40 goes down to -.88, still under one percent.  to .48 positive. 
Torg:  Homer group? 
Begich:  Still dealing with about 3%, but because underpopulation one and overpopulating another comes to 6%, but Board can do this.
White:  are there villages you moved into 40 where population was a factor?
Begich:  You could take Koyukuk and take back in 6 is a coherent group of village.  As long as keeping groupings together, they are comfortable.  Villages around ruby and Galena, McGrath villages together,  Relationship between Ahtna and upper Tanana, Matt Ganley also testified on that.  Short answer is, all Athabascan.  Always bring more Athabascan in, but changes deviation.  this puts all villages together but pops the deviation a bit.
Brodie: ???? North Slope hard to hear him.
Begich:  More than 3 now.  Can't speak for TCC or Doyon.  As long as groupings together they were satisfied.  Would put more Ath villages together but throw deviations out
Brodie:  Well worry about that.
Begich:  Sure, but upper Koyukuk about 700 people . .
Brodie:
Begich:  Shishmareff represented about 550 people.  Bering Straits didn't want Shish out.  The others were taken to balance Shish to Bering Straits.  Bettles addition keeps upper part together.  Start drawing the map very differently if you do that.  Letter from NWAB at this point, may speak to that. 
Holm:  I'm curious, Mr. White, how we defend SEI compatibility between Fairbanks and Barrow, Metlakatla and Barrow if that is challenged?  Concerned with SEI and with the different groups wanting to be grouped.
White:  Public testimony with what they would like to see, not always compatible with law.  Comes down to if we can move these villages here and meet their needs, but raises deviation above allowable.  1990 case called Athabascan and ?? possible combination.  30 years ago.  Might be an issue there about SEI, Marie, Marcia.
PAM;  Would like to hear from Marcia.  Marie and I did a lot of work in that area, got a lot of testimony.  Why do you feel comfortable with that.
Davis:  Working villages a long time, listened to folks, Lawyer in me plus the person having all this discussion answers:  1st US and Alaska Constitution dictates maximum deviation.  If you move off it, need to justify.  Excuse to move off deviation needed.  Presumption established.  Not unique we have Athabascan cultures intermixed in other cultures.  It exists in multiple place.  Because region so huge but sparsely populated, so necessary.  Doyon's testimony so huge that they have operated in clusters, ability to travel and communicate across every cluster impossible.  If clusters are intact, they're ok.  With that objective met here.  Then how comfortable in context of larger district.  Pipeline corridor, economic, similar lifestyle - subsistence, caribou, moose managed for subsistence.  Positive thin, when we went back, Lime Village, Calista, but they go to McGrath for shopping.  Even those Calista, has Athabascan connection.  Same with Middle Yukon villages.  Highest order - Athabascan with other Athabascan - not possible, but can honor it at cluster area. 
Holm:  I bring this up because I spent a lot of time in ?? pass and ??? river.  All their relatives are in Ft. Yukon, not North Slope.  They have the connections with the eastern Athabascan families.  Just seems as if they really don't have any connection to N Slope at all.  Hard for me to believe they can do it for SEI connections.  Just for deviations, that's my concern at this juncture. 
Davis:  One thing Board has to face.  it's a new world for you.  In past battle around VRA,  VRA said other things have to yield to VRA.  With that missing, battle more around deviations.  You definitely got hammered hard on SEI because deviations weren't the weak points.  But now those are gone and now pure hand of equal protection.
White:  Holm has good memory, Trial court from last Feb.  While the B think deviations necessary, simply said, the Board must meet low deviations. 
If that deviation caused by making more compact or SEI that will be acceptable.  Now more safe harbor at 10%.  Before only applied to Anchorage, now to most urban areas with large districts that can be shifted.  If now applied to rural areas - Davis says, this is a brave new world.  Does that mean you should have lower deviations?  If put villages there - if you feel not SEI with other part, if go from 1 to 6% probably be acceptable if making it more compact. 
Brodie:  We could carry deviation in extreme we could divide Ft. Yukon in half.  Same in urban area, go down highway and grab 3 houses across the street to get low deviations.
White:  Deviation a laudable goal, but US and Alaska SC recognize - urban and rural different standards.  In the States, given 10% leeway, even our court has allowed above 10%, but I don't think that's allowable any more.  Playing between 10 and 1, if have rational reasonable justification.  Wish we could be 1.4, but want this SEI.
Begich:  reason for grouping, don't take one or two of the villages, move them as a group.  Your comment about splitting Ft. Yukon is reason why we did this.  Maintained all the city boundaries.  North Pole for example.  Don't want to split neighborhoods.  Sadly struck down by Court ten years ago, didn't care about neighborhoods in larger area. 
????: 
Begich:  Toatal, from my head, about including Eilson, about 8500, Salcha and about 4000 to the north. . .
White:  If Board feels SEI needs, deviation in FB pretty close too.
Begich:  Yes, in urban core the better off for rural FB.  Two Rivers Road below 6c, ????
3b anywhere there, a population more closely integrated with NP,  You have options.  Begins to become rural quickly if go to Hot spring road.
Torgerson:  Thanks, Randy, you be ready  We want to eliminate some plans, you have four I believe, Calista had 5 and now down to 2.
Ruedrich:  Morning Mr. Torgerson, guess it's afternoon.  to assure you world is dynamic, we have filed another plan this morning which eliminates all the rest.  Adopts slight variations between Calista and ours, They will now be identical except for some zero blocks.  Emailed this morning about 9 o'clock.  Current version of option 2 modified slightly.  Let's talk about SE initially.

This map, we filed this am, district 33 as Calista has we have not modified in any way shape or form.  then left - Juneau north D31, intact over these many maps.  Reduced its deviation, put those people back into 32, south of the airport.  Main change is Hobart Bay area, and island ???? on in 34.  34 larger bulk visually, but doesn't change population, puts entire Petersburg in 34.  Green area bigger, southern portion of rust color go way, makes S district more compact.  Think of those 33 people west of Hydaburg - they would be better served in D33.  No people on island west of Hydaburg.  Makes a better map, but worse deviation.  If want more compact, that's the place.
Torg:  Can you back up and tell me diffs between Calista and your new one.
Ruedrich:  in SE no differences.  All I've spoken to so far.
Now lets go to Western Arctic, High Arctic.  Our map is again, virtually identical when we talked about N Inupiat district. Western Nome District, D37 and D36 identical.  Only dealing with House.  Pairings meaningless now.
Agree with Calista concept.  Had to increase size in all because no longer reason to maximize Native districts.  ?? on perimeter.  I've worked with Doyon and TCC more than other groups and I understand reason.  When they recruited for roustabouts, they recruited in those villages.  Had direct tie to their areas.  I was hesitant to take Huslia and rest of Koyukuk valley, Realized that Arctic Village didn't fit.  Matt Ganley convinced me what we did was back idea.  Koyukuk, ??, Upper Kuskokwim, all TCC sub regions, in different district.  They still work together, as we try to populate Coastal region where we run out of people if we don't take them.
PeggyAnn McConnochie:  In your talks with them . . .
Ruedrich:  I haven't talked to them but I lived there years ago, it's valid what Davis says.
White?  Senate pairings?
Ruedrich:  Tried to scrub letters but didn't work
White:  Not defending non-contiguous.
Ruedrich:  Please disregard the letters.
Back to South Kenai and other portion of the world.  Breaking boundaries is something we pay close attention to Constitution recognizing political entities.  Kenai B has been split - Hope has been taken out in past, Seldovia, often not part.  In this case, with view to bring deviations down and bring SEI into play, we have again split the Kenai B significantly.  West side in 36, historically attached to some district on West side.  took significant # of people out , sorry put in a sig number in to 35 and allowed us to drop Yakutat.  Beluga and Tyonek and Port Graham and Nanwalek, breaks the boundary in two places, is proper....  took from S kenai, Katchemak Bay, Fox River and ??? Creek to replace the surplus population and put into 35, smaller than before and put Yakutat back in.  Almost identical to Calista and I think serves Kenai well.  Single southern of Homer, Anchor River, and ??
Brodie:  Upper Katch Bay - east end road?
Ruedrich:  Some of the last ones on east are attached to road system.  Don't believe people on West . .
Brodie:  For deviation - if some can't drive to Homer, to their voting place???
Ruedrich:  I think we've done that, not sure.
Brodie:  Whittier?
Ruederich:  Surplus pop problem,  detail could be revisited.  Whittier is kind of a unique small population, definitely PWS, not Anchorage, though once were.
Holm:  36, Port Graham?
Ruedrich:  ????
?  How many people?
??: Native villages, not connected by road at all?
Ruedrich:  Seldovia not attached by road, there is a small area that is more native, but larger non-native pop in general area. 
Moving into Anchorage.  No changes, except editorial in beginning.  There were some map in 25 boundary, but eliminated we found a better way.  Some tiny tweaks unless questions.  Deviation under 1% for city.  Probably about .9.  Some toward Matsu, we reduced populations from original.  In city from 13 to 27, no net change.  Moved small population on perimeter of 27 to ???13??
Ruedrich:  Let's look at valley.  matsu.  used 2002, 2012, most rapidly growing part of state of Alaska, paired on S side surplus with Anchorage and also with highway corridor to Valdez.  Highway communities have sued i the past wanting to stay together.  Delta, etc. Valdez is not paired with Anchorage in any way shape or form.  Valdez has asked not to be paired with Anchorage.  Picks up surplus population with eastern portion of Matsu B.  From SEI those villages are like eastern villages of Matsu B.  Maybe they'll draw a better Borough i the future.
White:  Help us understand split with anchorage and Valdez.  Splits Matsu twice.  Rational? 
Ruedrich:  Find no way to put Anchorage surplus population elsewhere.  Solid boundary on Anchorage Kenai front.  Courts have looked before said this is ok.  Only think Matsu did is grow one more full district.  Did in 1990, 2000 cycle and will again in 2020 probably.  More people more SEI than the highway commuters driving from chugiak, Palmer, or Wasilla to Anchorage caught i the snow.
Brodie:  ??? Calista plan eastern border of Alaska with Anchorage and N. Kenai - treated different way of moving around the population. 
Ruedrich:  Begich reminded me their double split Matsu is identical to ours (not totally clear.)
building map starts north of Yakutat, putting Y into 35, no population north of that.  So gttig to Ahtna, combined with Indian pops of upper Tanana fit together with traditional Athabascan groups of upper and middle Yukon.  Keeping Doyon and Ahtna people to south, those four groups in D38.  You'll find we built the urban population for 38, go back to other one and expand, zoom in please, easier to see.  38 wraps around FB, villages on the West, Upper Tanana villages to the east, middle Tanana is right there in front of you.  Rural areas to the east to S. boundaries of NPole to Chatanika precinct.  Rough equal urban NSB resident and non- NSB resident.  9000 something and 9000 something.  Bringing other FB districts to truly minimum deviataion,  .4% .3% 3 people under if look at FB map. 
Takes Wainright bombing range and north.  Come up into FB, have the City of FB only in D4, eastern NSB of fB added and gives us a compact city district, which probably would share a senator - one of the litigation issues earlier,  No FB district S FB district surrounding FB.  Broken once along purple red interface.  closed to Denali on south and district 38 on this map???
White:  Help us understand, on right hand side bottom border with 38, split some population there.  Why there instead of elsewhere.
Ruedrich:  Tried to keep people live on that road system, there, together.  That's there way back to civilization.  Corridor of interest.  River.  Chatanika, more rural, and needed significant population to do this.  Respected NPole and north of there to gain population.
White:  Maps you offered i past.  No dispute, all courts said, have to go with rural-urban. In past you did from west side.  What's your change on that?
R:  Not a big difference.  People on east equally rural to people on west side.  Maybe more a matter of how you try to create d 1 and 2 that makes sense.  Northwest borough makes sense this way.  If shift further wind up with undesirable 1&2 Boundary, gives clear division for ?? Borough
White:  You made some choices but other reasonable choices?
R:  Absolutely,  I kind of like the one we had before.
PAM:  Zoom in on 3 and 4? 
R:  All thee people by def are SEI within a Borough.  Makes no difference where you draw the lines.  People have some reason to be together.  Who works and plays together.
White:  Only changes from this map in SE? 
R:  yes, I have to look, we've drawn enough maps.
White:  Thank you.
We have a map given us Friday.  Mr. McKinnon ??? is here.  Worried about timeline?
MAP?  ????
John McKinnon - presenting this as private individual.  Has overall deviation of 9.6% in FB, Anchorage, Juneau less than 1%.  Principle feature it adheres to Borough boundaries. only Anchorage and FB are broken.
White:  Not broken at all, or not more than once?
McKinnon:  Not at all.  Either whole B in one district, or if multiple seats, all seats are within the B.  Also more than others, it adheres to ANCSA boundaries.  People ask what Doyon wants, I think this is what Doyon wants.  All but few Doyon villages there.  Bering Straits from Calista.  Bristol Bay, Aleutian district.  Kenai Borough, Matsu has population for five seats, Kenai for three.  This gives them their 3 and 5.  Doesn't carve out Nanwalke and Seldovia.  Does create one aspect Board might want to look at.  Kenai is self contained, leaf from Kodiak to Cordova - about 145 miles running from east of tule island to Johnstone Bay on Montague, but same magnitude with interim plan, District 9 from Nunavak Island to ??? also about 139 miles,  Same order of magnitude.  If Board is uncomfortable, I've identified three unoccupied islands, that would violate geography of Kenai Borough would still keep population of Kenai in three boroughs.  Takes Valdez ??? becomes part of the highway district.  Begich in earlier testimony last week explained justification.  Includes most of Ahtna district.  SE forms district out of Ketchikan and Wrangle.  Sitka and Petersburg. . .. . [missed this.]
Fairbanks - wither district that , based primarily, two city districts combine for senate district, takes West population Ester and U and forms district there, and then north of city, then another based on North Pole.  Maintains a Doyon district out Chena Hot Springs Road, more rural areas of Borough.  Eilson.  Rational - Tom argued in his presentation - less connected with FB area, potential, that population could be moved to Anchorage if fighter right developed and would strengthen Doyon villages. 
I think that covers it.  It is 9.6% deviation.  Based on existing law.  Talk about more mathematical precision.  Now the standard is 10% outside of urban Boroughs.  Once inside Borough boundaries no longer dealing with SEI.  In rest of the state, SC acknowledged a lot of SEI factors need to be adjusted for. 
White:  You said 5.6
McKinnon -5.6 is Bethel, +4 is Homer based.
White:  How many people out of FB put in . . .
McKinnon:   half the people, about 8500.  Valdez about ???
White:  All the rural districts underpopulated?
McKinnon:  yes.  Bush districts -4.6 about -5  - allows you to maintain regional corporations
White:  Thank you very much.

Lets take a ten minute break before we go to work session.  You can ask questions of presenters, then we'll be back about 1:10. 

Finished here before working session. 

6.Board work session
7.Executive Session on litigation strategies (if Necessary)
8.Adjourn

Trying to Understand Problems I See At The Alaska Redistricting Board

This post is going to look at problems I see with the Alaska Redistricting Board.  This is meant to be descriptive more than judgmental, though some would point out that the word 'problem' itself is judgmental.    I’m reasonably certain about the actions I am reporting on, but I’m much less certain about the reasons.   This was going to be a series of posts so I wouldn’t overwhelm readers.  Or myself.  But while separating them makes it easier to talk about them, they really are all tangled together. 

Key problems I see:

1. Public Access problems
1. The Board doesn't say much about what it's doing and why
2. The website - I’ll cover that in its own section, but basically things get moved, disappear, return, show up in different places, critical things don’t get posted,
3. The state public notice website - the Board's official public notice, the only one that make sure they keep up to date, is the state's public notice website.  This is site that most people have never heard of, unless they are regularly looking to get contracts with the state.  It's not a place that most people check out regularly, or even know exists. It's much more user friendly now than when the Board started, but if you google "Alaska Redistricting Board"  it doesn't show up in the first ten pages of results (I stopped there.)
4. One way on-the-record communication with public - The Board does not answer questions from the public on the record.  Board meetings have no public participation.  At public hearings the public has three minutes to say something.  The Board can ask questions,  Other than that,  it’s all one-way communication and no conversation.  People can ask the Board members questions during breaks, but anything that challenges what the Board is doing tends to be met with resistance.  Thus we don't know much about what the board is doing or why.
1. It's hard keeping track of what the board is doing
2. It's harder to understanding the motivation of the Board
3. It's hard understanding what the differences are between all the plans
5. When I asked a Board member about the disappearance of the court documents from the website, I was told that people should be able to go to the court websites and get them on their own.  The Board didn't need to do all that for the public.
   I know the Board likes to say they are by far the most accessible redistricting board in Alaska history.  And I've said before, that's not a high standard.  Besides, technology has changed radically in the last ten years so they should be the most accessible.  But I do appreciate the access I've been able to have via the Legislative Information Office and via telephone when the either the Board or I am not in Anchorage.
   
   
2. Changing rules about when plans are due, and lack of rules for approving them, etc.
1. The Board created seven plans.  Why?  Why not three or ten?  There was no public discussion of the purpose of the options or criteria for deciding which ones to keep or not keep.  They simply approved them all.     
2. The Board had a deadline of noon, June 21 for third-party plans.  They then voted to approve all three state plans plus one Southeast plan.  There was no discussion of criteria for approving plans. 
3. The Board then accepted more third party plans and posted them the day before the first public hearing.  There was no explanation of why they accepted plans after the deadline.  There hadn't been another meeting for them to change the rules or to accept more plans after the deadline.  It just happened. 
4. When the Board added new and amended third-party plans after the deadline, it was problematic because others might not have submitted a plan or made changes because they thought that a deadline was a deadline.  At the very least the other group to submit a plan should have been notified that adjustments could still be made.  So I contacted Gazewood & Weiner, who had also submitted a third-party plan but not an amended one.  I talked to Michael Wallerie.  I wanted to know:
1. If the Board had notified them that the deadline had been extended  [he said no]
2. If the Board had sent the amended and new plans to them [he said no, but Calista had sent them their plans, but AFFER did not]
   
3. The sheer number of different plans plus the Board's lack of information about each of their plans means the public has lots of data, but very little information.  The public hearing had seventeen plans for the public to read.  But there was no information about how the Board plans differed from each other or why. (This overlaps a lot with number 5 below.)
   
4. Problems with the Board’s websiteLet me preface by saying I've gotten a lot of important information from the Board's website. 
1. Keeping the website current has always been something of a problem.  But toward the end of the first round of creating plans, the website had begun to have useful information and much of it was fairly timely.  
1. New maps got put up quickly.  
2. There was a link with all the documents filed with the Courts.  
3. But it took a little longer than forever for meeting transcripts to get posted. When the last executive director left, the website went to sleep.
2. Information has disappeared, been moved, reappeared, and otherwise been hard to find
1. The list of court documents - a very useful feature - disappeared.  I think.  I recently found it again.  But I had complained about it to three different Board people and none told me it was still there.  There's now even a litigation document link on the main page, but it says 'updated 6/28/12'.
2. Old maps from the prior round disappeared - though links I had to them from this blog continued to work.  And recently I found the Amended Proclamation Plan in a new location.  
3. Board meetings, when they were announced on the website, were usually on the main page.  Recently I looked for a meeting announcement and couldn't find it.  Later I found they were on the calendar - not a bad place, except the calendar hadn't ever been used before. 
4. The best way to keep track of what's happening with the Board is through their subscription email.  That link is almost on the bottom of the right column on the main page. 
5. The website problems were mentioned in one of the recent Court orders and I was told that the Board had contracted with a website managing company to keep the site up-to-date.  This is positive, but they really need someone who understands the Board's process and what the public needs to direct how the website is used.  Making a user friendly website isn't easy.  The Board has different information scattered all over the place in different formats.  There is no one person any more who knows the process who is also managing the site.
    
5. Lack of discussion at Board meetings about their different maps, how they were different, why they had those differences, etc.
1. Third parties were asked to present their plans at the public hearings.  They were given 30 minutes to do this.  They tended to explain the factors that were important in creating their maps - such as keeping  the deviations low or respecting ANCSA boundaries - then they talked about why they made decisions to things the way they did.  They’d say, for example, we looked at splitting Matsu to connect with Anchorage here,  or we used the east side of Fairbanks for the rural district because the military are much more transient than the people on the east side and they don’t vote nearly as much.  
2. The Board has been doing this work for two years now and they need the Third party map makers to explain their maps to them. 
3. The Board had seven plans but they did not explain any of their plans to the public.  One person, Lois Epstein, an engineer who works with GIS, asked a couple of the Board members, during a break in the testimony, to explain the logic of their plan.  PeggyAnn McConnochie, one of the more technically savvy members of the board said they followed the Constitutional criteria.  Asked if she could be more specific, she told her it was too complicated.  The tone of McConnochie’s answer said, “Why are you asking me this?  This is an unreasonable request.”  I talked to Epstein right after that and tried to find out more of what she was after.  Basically, she wanted to know what criteria they programmed into the computer - was keeping boroughs intact the key one?  Or low deviation?  Or what?  I told her the ones I understood - equal population in each district, yes, trying to keep boroughs intact, compactness, contiguity, etc.  But as we discussed this I realized that covering this process so long had lowered my expectations.  That yes, the public was just as entitled, probably more so, to an explanation of each of the Board’s plans as the Board was to explanations of the third party plans.  I say lowered expectations because two years ago, I suggested on this blog that the Board needed to give the public more information about each plan so that the public would understand them enough to actually make comments that mattered.
4. This is not to say that a few organizations with the interest and resources to pay experts to follow this process closely, haven't been studying these things closely.
   
   In fact, the first time we all went through this process, the Board, at their meetings, did talk about each of the plans and why they were done the way they were done.  But that didn’t happen this time.  There was no public discussion of the plans.  They only voted to accept them all.
    
6. No discussion at Board meetings about what Section 2 of the VRA requires of them.  The Board has been holding off action in hopes that the Supreme Court would rule that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act would no longer be in force, on the grounds that they would then only need to meet the Alaska Constitutional requirements.  
   Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was invalidated by the Supreme Court recently.  Section 4 was the formula for determining which states and localities needed pre-clearance as required in Section 5 of the VRA.  Since the criteria are no longer in effect, Alaska and the other states that had been required by Section 5 to get pre-clearance no longer need to.
   However, Section 2 is still in force.  The Board doesn't need pre-clearance, but it does need to comply with Section 2.  If they don't, they can be challenged by the Department of Justice or by Alaskans in court.  Such a challenge could cause long delays.
   The differences between the standards for Section 5 and Section 2 are not completely clear.  I recently wrote in a post on this that it appeared that Section 2 required proving intent while Section 5 only required proving a discriminatory effect.  In the public testimony, Natalie Landreth of the Native American Rights Fund "pointed out to the Board that though Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is not in force now, Section 2 is.  And contrary to some media reports Section 2 does not require intent.  It too is evaluated on impact on protected groups."  Board attorney Michael White agreed with her.
   But there's been no public discussion of this by the Board.  They've simply concluded they just need to meet the state Constitutional requirements and all will be well.  Something seems to be missing.
    
7. Disruption of the Voting Process
   
   Redistricting is necessary, because maintaining the one-person one-vote principle requires some adjustment as population changes.  The US Constitution recognized this and requires states to adjust every ten years.
   But this adjustment is disruptive.  New districts require citizens to learn new borders, often new representatives, and new polling places.  Generally redistricting boards should minimize these disruptions while they balance the other criteria such as one-person one-vote, compact and contiguous districts, etc. 
   
   Another disruption when districts are changed too much is that Alaska state senators, normally elected to a four year term, can be truncated.  That means their term is shortened and they must go up for election at the next election after redistricting.  19 of the 20 Alaska Senators had to run for election in 2012.  That was the end of four years for some.  But for others, it meant they had to run for reelection after only two years.  And then the Board determined which new Senate districts would have two year terms and which four year (so that terms stayed staggered.)  So some Senators could have been required to run for office three times in  in six years (2008, 2010, and 2012.)  I haven't looked to see if there are actually any senators who came out this way.  But if there are, with new redistricting, it's conceivable that a senator would now have to run again in 2014 AND 2016 if the Board doesn't pay attention to this. 
   For most states, this happens only once every ten years.  But because the Board failed to create an acceptable plan for 2012, they are making another plan now.  For the second election in a row, Alaskans will be confronted with new districts, and in some cases new representatives.  And State Senators again face truncation and having their terms set for only two years. 
   This has not been discussed by the Board, but it seems to me that when the Board creates the new plan, they should be working hard to minimize such disruptions by keeping the new maps, when possible, as similar to the old ones as possible to avoid these disruptions for voters that degrade the quality of their representation in Juneau.  And that degrade the intent that Senators have a longer term view because they get elected every four years instead of two. 
   It's important for voters to know who their representatives are, to establish relationships with them, and to know their district and polling place.  The quality of representation is better this way. As I recall this issue was discussed by the Supreme Court when the Board's case was before them.
   This hasn't been mentioned at all as the Board reviews plans this time round. 

Why are these things happening? 

I can’t tell you exactly because I don’t have access to enough information about what the Board members are thinking and what they say to one to another when others aren’t listening. [I'm not charging any hidden conspiracy here.  Board members - if only two are present - can talk to each other about these things.  If I were on the Board, I'm sure I would.]  So I don’t know for sure how decisions got made or didn’t get made.   But I can speculate and here are some possibilities:

1. It’s lack of resources
2. It’s incompetence
3. It’s the inherent conflicts in the task 
4. It’s intentional
5. It’s Group Think
6. It’s that Board members’ models of their job and their obligations are totally different from mine

I think that there are different reasons for different problems and that in each case it isn’t simply one or the other, but some combination of them.  And some problems exacerbate others.  For instance, not hiring an executive director means they don’t have the human resources necessary to keep the website up to date.  I think the board’s views of what public participation means also makes the website a lower priority for them than for me.

I'll go through these issues in another post. There is already way too much for people to chew on,

Immigration, Indians, and Voting Rights in the Declaration of Independence

Two issues that are still burning in the US today that caught my attention:
While rereading the Declaration of Independence, three of the 27 particulars the writers listed, caught my eye as of particular relevance as we celebrate July 4th in 2013.


Immigration

Item number 7:

"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands."

The Founding.com a project of the Claremont Institute explains this desire for more immigration to the Colonies and England's resistence this way:

This charge relates to the King's opposition to various colonial laws passed for the purpose of encouraging immigration to America. The British government feared that such encouragement would reduce the population of England and lure away workers who would otherwise be employed in its domestic industries. In addition, the King issued orders that made it more difficult to obtain land by royal grant. Americans believed that one part of the unalienable right to liberty was the liberty to make use of property to provide for oneself and one's family. To that end, government should make unused land available to the people by homestead or auction, so that it can be put to use by their labor. The King, however, treated all land in America as his, to be granted or to be withheld from others at his pleasure, even though neither he nor his officers had expended any labor upon it. 

There are people who fear the influx of foreigners today and want walls to keep immigrants out.  Some of those same folk cite the founders and the 2nd Amendment as reasons for no laws whatsoever that regulate the possession of guns in the US. It seems to me that in the first case, they are, at least implicitly, saying that conditions have changed, while in the second, they are saying nothing has changed.  

I realize that the Declaration of Independence is NOT the Constitution.  My point is that times change and we need to adjust to those changes. The need for immigrants today is different than it was 200 years ago, and so is the issue of bearing arms.  I'd encourage these folks to loosen up on immigration and also loosen up a bit on guns.  Afterall, the founding fathers were all for immigration. 


Indians

Item #27

"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

There's a screaming irony here.  While the colonists' representatives are complaining to the British King that they aren't being allowed to govern themselves and find their own path to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they are mimic the King in their dealings with the people already living in the New World.  I'm sure the words for merciless and savage in the various Native American languages were frequently to describe their treatment by the European settlers. 

But there's more according to Founding.com:

The British had encouraged slave and Indian revolts against the colonists. For example, in 1775, Lord Dunmore of Virginia, swore to members of the Virginia House of Burgesses that if "any Injury or insult were offered to himself" he would "declare Freedom to the Slaves, and reduce the City of Williamsburg to Ashes." The governors of North and South Carolina also were planning similar uprisings. General Gage, commander in chief of the British army in America, tried to persuade various of the Indian tribes to attack the colonists.
In Jefferson's original version of the Declaration, this charge was followed by a long passage condemning King George for having failed to suppress the slave trade to America. According to Jefferson's autobiography, Congress struck the passage from the final version of the Declaration in deference to South Carolina and Georgia, who wanted to continue the slave trade with Africa.
This is the stricken passage: "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another." [This continues here.]

Voting Rights

Item #4

"He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures."

 Just after the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which was aimed at preventing states from moving polling places to unusual, uncomfortable, and distant locations for the sole purpose of fatiguing voters into not voting, I see that these kinds of  practices were already well known in 1776.  In this case, the British set up legislative sessions where it would difficult if not impossible for colonists to attend and participate.  The point is trying to thwart an activity by making it hard to access.

Could You Tell An Egyptian (Or Anyone One Else) The Gist of the Declaration of Independence?

It's July 4th.  The day we celebrate American Independence.  Though, on that hot summer day in 1776, the signers were no more certain they would achieve their goal than the demonstrators in Tahrir Square in Cairo were a year ago or are today.  They were taking a risk, a big risk.  They didn't represent the majority of colonists.  And the last line of the Declaration reflects this:

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Most Americans have either never read the Declaration or have only read it in school.  They couldn't readily explain it to someone.  I looked at it carefully last night and realized I too was guilty.  The quiz in the previous post was to tweak people into looking at the Declaration.  For those who had better things to do on this July 4th (hey, I'm teasing here, we all make decisions on how to spend our time), I'll give you a shorter way to engage this.  Here's a synopsis and, below, an outline.  Perhaps a few of you may want to look at the whole thing.

A Synopsis of the Declaration of Independence

Essentially the document says:

People have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Governments are set up to ensure these.  When the government fails to do this, it's ok to overturn that government and set up a new one.  But this shouldn't be undertaken lightly.  We are not doing this frivolously and here is a list of complaints we have to support the justness of our decision.  They then list 27 items that they say they have petitioned the King over only to have the violations repeated.  They have also appealed to the people and legislative body of England only to be ignored.  So now they have no choice but to declare themselves independent as a nation. 

I've made the following outline of the Declaration.  Others will probably make different outlines as different points resonate with them more strongly.  I'd love it if people knew enough about the Declaration to point out where I've gone astray. 

An Outline of the Declaration of Independence

Paragraph 1.  There comes a time when you have to cut ties

• And when it’s only reasonable to give the reasons

Paragraph 2.  Our basic assumptions

• all men are created equal and 
• have certain unalienable rights
• Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness
• Governments, deriving their power from the governed, are the means to these ends
• When the government deprives people of these ends,
• they have the right to change or get rid of the government
• to institute a new one with principles and powers they think most likely to establish their Safety and Happiness
• Changing governments shouldn’t be undertaken lightly
• But after much abuse, it’s their right to throw off such a government
• That’s our situation, and here are the particulars:
• List of 27 items - basically dealing with
• Interference with the Colonies; legislatures, laws, rights to govern selves
• Interference with justice systems
• Bringing armies, inciting others (e.g. "merciless Indian Savages’) to plunder, ravage, burn,  and destroy
• Preventing immigration and blocking trade

Paragraph. 3.  Every step of the way we humbly petitioned for redress only to be answered with repeated injury

Paragraph. 4.  We’ve also reached out to our English Brethren, but they  too were deaf to our pleas

Paragraph  5.. We therefore, as representatives of these united States of America, declare

•     they are absolved of allegiance to the British crown and
•    all political ties are cut
•     As free an independent states
• the colonies have full power to
• levy war
• conclude peace
• contract alliances
• establish commerce
• and all things independent states have the right to do
•     We mutually pledge our lives and fortunes and our sacred honor.

In a third July 4th post, I'll look at a few issues that struck me as of interest today as I reread the Declaration.

Declaration of Independence Quiz - How Much Do You Know?

The Fourth of July is a good day to read the Declaration of Independence.  To tease you into doing that, here's a quiz.  

Declaration of Independence Quiz

1.  Which of these terms was not used in the Declaration

1.  Almighty God
2.  Laws of Nature
3.  Nature's God
4. The Supreme Judge

2.  Which of the following phrases is not in the Declaration Independence?

1. all men are created equal
2. all men are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights
3. of the people, for the people, and by the people
4. let Facts be submitted to a candid world

3.  Which word does not appear in the Declaration of Independence?

1. democracy
2. consanguinity
3. naturalization
4. savages

4.  What were the thirteen colonies?

5.  Which colony had the most people sign the Declaration?

6.  Which colonies only had one person sign?

7.  To whom did the Colonists plead their case (in vain) before writing this document?

8.  How many specific complaints did the colonists list?

9.  How many paragraphs are in the Declaration?  


Here's a link to the Declaration.  Using the find function you can find most of these answers fairly quickly.  But I hope you don't rush through it.  There's a lot worth thinking about. 

Are there folks reading this who don't know how to 'find' something on a webpage?

How to find something on a page in Firefox.

How to find on your iPhone?

Which Life Prolonging Intervention Would You Choose As The End Nears?

We're all dying.
We start that process when we're born.
Some of us are closer to the due date than others.
Some of us don't realize how close we are, because the statistics suggest we shouldn't die soon.
But things happen.
Others wait, impatiently, to die.
The increasing number of aches and pains and bodily failures that come with aging, are, I think, a way to make dying less disturbing.  Eventually, dying seems, if not a better option than living, then at least a reasonable one.
I'm thinking about this a lot because at 91 my mom would seem closer to her due date than most.
And while she worked, by choice, until she was 85, and has taken care of herself well, including driving on her own to the DMV to renew her drivers license just before her last birthday, things have been more difficult since then.
There are good days and bad.
Living in Anchorage makes it hard for me to look after her the way I feel I should.
Moving to Anchorage is not on her list of options.
Her caregiver is terrific and eases my conscience a little, but she's not superwoman.
I talked to Hospice folks yesterday.
Death is inevitable for all of us.  Handling it well is not.
My mom has always said she didn't want to be dependent on others.
So this chart and the article from The Dish were of some solace to me as we wander this thorny garden.

"When hypothetically on the cusp of death, physicians overwhelmingly decide against life-prolonging intervention, with the exception of pain medication."

Image from The Dish

Ventilation sounds particular gruesome:

First, few non-physicians actually understand how terrible undergoing these interventions can be. [Murray] discusses ventilation. When a patient is put on a breathing machine, he explains, their own breathing rhythm will clash with the forced rhythm of the machine, creating the feeling that they can’t breath. So they will uncontrollably fight the machine. The only way to keep someone on a ventilator is to paralyze them. Literally. They are fully conscious, but cannot move or communicate. This is the kind of torture, Murray suggests, that we wouldn’t impose on a terrorist. But that’s what it means to be put on a ventilator.

This, of course, is the hypothetical. When actually faced with a choice to let one's life go, I suspect many people have second thoughts. 

Think Paula Deen's Getting A Raw Deal? “Well, what I would really like is a bunch of little niggers to wear long-sleeve white shirts, black shorts and black bow ties, you know in the Shirley Temple days, they used to tap dance around.”

Paula Deen laughed and said “Now that would be a true southern wedding, wouldn’t it?  But we can’t do that because the media would be on me about that.”

The media accounts that I've seen on Paula Deen have focused on her admitting to long ago having said 'the N word' but that she really means no harm and she isn't a racist.  There's been sympathy for Deen losing so many business deals over this.  As though what she did was long ago, and simply reflected the culture she grew up with in the deep South. Today, she would have us believe, she is horrified at what she had done long ago and so very sorry.  Given that context, the many businesses cutting ties with her may seem extreme.    I decided to hold off writing about this until more came out.

StoneKettle blog had a link to the court documents from At Law blog listing numerous alleged instances of sexual, racial, and other discriminatory behavior at Paula Deen's businesses.  It's a PDF document I can't cut and paste from.

Although these are allegations, it's hard to imagine someone making up so many, so specific incidents and getting them this far in the legal process without their being some basis to them.  As much as people claim that there are false claims of racial and sexual discrimination and harassment,  these go way beyond simple or isolated incidents.  There are other court documents that were already up on Scribed, but in this one the allegations are clearly spelled out.

It is truly shocking to imagine that people are putting up with such behavior at work today.

Here are a few of the allegations, and I'm only picking a few and restricting my selection to racial discrimination, not sexual.   The point is to expose the timidity of the media in their handling of this case.

Note:  Bubba Hiers is Paula Deen's brother and the locations are all businesses under the Paula Deen business empire.

"52.  At Uncle Bubba’s restaurant, African-American staff persons are required to use the back entrance for all purposes, including picking up their checks.  they were prohibited from using the front entrance.

53.  African-American staff persons at Uncle Bubba’s restaurant are required to use one restroom that is in the back of the restaurant and is not the customer restroom.  White staff was allowed to use the customer bathroom.

55.  Ms. Jackson hired two African-American hostesses.  Their position required them to be stationed in the front of the restaurant.  Bubba Hiers complained repeatedly about one hostess being out front and she was later fired for allegedly stealing a white customer’s purse.  The police were called and the young woman was searched, but she was not arrested and no charges were brought.  Mr. Hiers demanded that the other African-American hostess be moved to a position in the back of the restaurant where she could not be seen by customers.

56a.  Ms. Jackson was meeting with a vendor in her office at Uncle Bubba’s restaurant when Bubba Hiers entered the office and slammed the door behind him, stating “I wish I could put all those niggers [in the kitchen] on a boat to Africa.” 

56c.  In Ms. Jackson’s presence Bubba Hiers said to his African-American security guard and driver, “don’t you wish you could rub all the black off you and be like me?”  the security guard responded, “I’m fine the way I am,” whereupon Mr. Hiers replied that ”you just look dirty, I bet you wish you could.” 

56e  In the presence of a vendor who traps wildlife (e.g., raccoons) and Ms. Jackson, Bubba Hiers stated, “you also got a bunch of coons in this kitchen you can trap.”  The kitchen was primarily staffed with African-Americans.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.  Here's the whole list which I found through  Stonekettle, who linked to At Law which had a link to the document which I put on Scribed so you could see it.  The allegations start at page 4. 

Jackson v. Deen Et Al. Complaint

Ranier and Columbia Sunsets

The connection was tight, but we got into Seattle 20 minutes early so there was no problem.  Just walked from the C terminal to the N Termanl train, and walked onto the LA flight.  My  only exposure to outside was getting on and off the planes and it was plenty warm there.   It was about 9 when we took off.  Here's Ranier glowing in the sunset rays.

A little latter we flew over the Columbia River reflecting the glow of the sunset. 

\

Board Meets In Fairbanks, I'm At Airport Headed South

I was able to listen to about an hour or so of the public hearing in Fairbanks this afternoon, but I was gathering stuff for a last minute trip to visit my mom.  She had some issues over the weekend and I just felt I needed to go down and check up on things.  The caregiver is there and as things change, I need to be flexible. 

Michael Wallerie presented the Gazewood & Weiner plan.  He acknowledged some issues in his plan, but said it was more "This is a demonstration that it is possible" to meet the Hickel plan. 

It seemed to me the people testifying had a better grasp of the plans and gave more details than a lot of the people who testified in Anchorage.  There weren't any people who sounded like they were sent in to make sure the numbers supporting a particular plan were good. 

These are the rough notes I took as I was making sure I had everything packed.  Like always, BEWARE, these are very rough, just to give you a sense of what was talked about.  They have a transcriber and at some point the transcription should be on the Board's website.

Rough Notes: 

12:35:
[It took me a while to figure out how to connect.  It said there was a number if I wanted to testify, but not just listen.  They turned out to be the same numbers. So I got in midstream and assumed it was Michael Wallerie, the attorney who represents the Riley Plaintiffs and who I heard via telephone in the Fairbanks court and saw when he appeared before the Supreme Court.]

Wallerie:  Using Borough lines
Boroughs designed to,…
Factor under state constitution
Integrity of Borough lines gets high integrity factor in Constitution
Every borough less than a district is in a single district.
Eery borough that has surplus population - is only split once.
Some discussions about that in the courts and we think the court made it clear, that the courts made it clear that preserving that representation is important. 

Biggest problem is treatment with Lake and Pen - if you look at our D38, the Aleutians are kept intact, but are pared with Dillingham area and Bristol Bay which raises issues of contiguity.  To maintain integrity of design of plan, it is possible to slip the Lake and Pen district in. . .

One of the problems is logistics of Kodiak B.  Surrounded by other boroughs, Lake and Pen, Kenai.  Trying to maintain the integrity and representation and rights of Kodiak and L&P.  This is a demonstration that it is possible to come up with a Hickel values.

Second part is to demonstrate the treatment of Fairbanks.
A&B - originally decided to ‘shed Democrats” out of Goldstream area.  That is no longer an issue any more.  Historically, never any ???  in litigation, putting Ester and Goldstream is probably not consistent with Constitution.  Justification for the Board was VRA and that is no longer a factor. 
Socio-Economic integration is an issue.
Way to deal with Fairbanks problem - ½ district surplus population.  We believe that board does not have discretion to assign parts of the borough willy-nilly.  A&B Ester and Goldstream placed with ??? region.  Problem with SE integration.  Our understanding of SE I - Math formula - A+B=C???
No question, rarely examine the issues in depth, because dominated over litigation.  Fairbanks is a hub and SE connections with surrounding areas.  True and not true.  Not about commonalities, but the economic interplay between areas.  Not about commonality, but about interplay. 
When we look at it - historically - transportation, health care, shopping, common media, educational services - lead to problems with A and B.  While Fairbanks is a transportation hub, people in Kaltag go to Fairbanks airport, but not ???
When go to Fairbanks for health go to Fairbanks hospital, not to Ester clinic.  Shopping in Fred Meyer and Sam’s Club.  People in Ester don’t go to Kaltag to go shopping and vice versa.  Family and ethnic connections.  Majority of people Ester and Goldstream are non-native and vote on urban lines.  They elected Rep Guttenberg.
In rural area, no question that Dick was the preferred candidate - shows these two groups in opposition.
Calista has problems with including Native groups that are not integrated with Ester.
Common media - Fairbanks most tv and radio systems.  Some outreach, but not Ester and Goldstream.  shared with Ester, but not a direct relationship between Ester and Kaltag. 

Ester and Goldstream have ,,,,, [break another phone call]

Borough ?? and your plan B
Prior 2010 in effect plan.  Configuration in Anchorage.  Where do we need to change the lines to reflect changes in population.
Our understanding that Sullivan and Ruedrich want to scramble the district.
Purpose to adjust the population and not to politically change the districts.
Posible to do whole plan D all basically, when you gt to Anchorage and adjust it for population, not to scramble a district to create new political situations, which has profound partisan implications.

If Board has questions. . .

Torgerson:  D39 - Yakutat to Nome? 
Wallerie:  Areas do follow regional boundary, but what we’ve done there is preserve the line that hsa been in effect since 1990 redistricting.  Line that divides the Ahtna region.  In your plan D? you don’t do that and may be a better option.  Ours is about demonstration.  The line was to accomplish VRA goals and not the Hickel process to say. 

Torgerson: Questions?
thank you very much for your presentaion

Wallerie:  And we look forward to working with you.

Torgerson:  We go into public testimony until 4pm, please limit yourselves to 3 minutes.  Please spell your name for transcriber.

John David Ragen?:  Going to read article in Fairbanks paper yesterday  From Ester.

Lance Roberts: 

Bolen?  Attorney From Fairbanks North Star Borough - goal oriented - interested in contiguity and SE Integration. 
Excess needs to be in non-road system should be in SE Integrated
B and Gazewood and Wiener plan work - put NSFB Borough into five districts and surplus into ok district.  Assembly will support any other plan that meets the same overall goals

Sorry, that's all I have for you.