Generally Not Seen In Anchorage

I rode my bike down to the beach and did some errands on the way like depositing a check for my mom at her bank.  Here are a few things I saw that you won't see (generally in some cases, or ever in other cases) in Anchorage.


I'm not sure how long this bumper sticker would last on someone's car in Anchorage.  We have quite a few of that ilk that's rabidly anti-Obamacare and would tear down the US government just to stop the program.   If they couldn't get at the government, what might they do you your car instead?

Just under a dozen pelicans over Santa Monica beach.

A new Tesla Model S.   The Tesla website says about this all electric car:

"At the base price of $62,400, including the $7,500 Federal Tax Credit, Model S comes equipped with a 60 kWh battery, 19” wheels, black textile and synthetic leather interior, 17” touchscreen, seven speaker sound system with AM/FM/HD radio, mobile connector, and a J1772 charging adapter."

I don't think we (in Anchorage) have any Municipal Beach and Harbor trucks and just a few artificial palms outside here and there. 

We do have food trucks, but not collections of diverse food trucks like this lunch rally:  Cousins Maine Lobster;  Great American Burger;  Calbi Tacos; Sanjay Patel's Bollywood Bites;   Son of a Bun; and Luckdish Curry.   And there were more trucks on the right and behind me. 

 Blick is a great art materials store my son introduced me to in San Francisco.

Murkowski Shows Some Backbone On Obamacaricide, At Least On Energy Bill

I need to give credit to one of my US Senators, Republican Lisa Murkowski, for calling out her colleagues for blocking legislation with amendments intended to kill or maim Obamacare. 

In this case Murkowski seems to be upset about amendments to kill the Affordable Care Act added onto an energy bill to require the government to be more energy efficient and require more energy efficient building codes.  I suspect some of this the Obama administration could and would do without legislation.

I don't want to make too big a deal about this because her voting record on the government funding bills appears to be less daring.  Looking at her voting record for the last week, it appears she voted the Republican Party line on the government shut down.  The key vote that was not split on party lines was the 79-19 vote to end Sen. Cruz's filibuster.    Murkowski voted with the 79 to end the filibuster.  That vote allowed the Democrats to pass an amendment to cut out the House attempts to kill the Affordable Care Act and then to pass the Senate  bill to keep the government running. (Which the House then rejected.)  Those last two votes were split on party lines too. (Does that mean that all but 19 Republicans really wanted the government funding to pass so they helped end the filibuster to give the Democrats the room to pass it, but they didn't want their constituents see a yes vote on the actual bill?)


From The Hill:

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on Wednesday called out Republicans who tried to pile ObamaCare amendments onto bipartisan energy efficiency legislation that recently stalled on the Senate floor.

“What we need to reckon with is the fact that you have got a process that is being used for political advantage and gain rather than to advance policy,” she said.

Of course, if they are willing to shut down the whole government to kill Obama's health reform, a little energy bill is no big deal to them.  

“Maybe we need to embarrass those in the leadership that it is high time that you focus on the policy side of this,” Murkowski said at an energy forum hosted by the group Center Forward.

She expressed hope that, if the bill returns to the floor, an agreement could be struck that only allowed energy-related amendments. .  .

While Murkowski criticized efforts to link the bill to ObamaCare, she predicted that if it hadn’t been for those amendments, there would have been others that Reid found “equally onerous” and given him “cause to pause.”

The underlying energy bill contains measures to encourage better building codes, train workers in energy efficient building technologies, help manufacturers become more efficient and bolster efficiency in federal buildings."

Here's a link to the whole piece, "Sen Murkowski Calls Out Her Party For Energy Riders."

Got A Suspicious Job Announcement From World Economic Forum? Forward It To itsecurity@weforum.org

I got a suspect email this morning.  It began:

"Hello Dear Sir/Madam,Good day to you.
The World Economic Forum ® (WEF®)  is looking for competent and motivated
persons with a strong belief in its purpose and mandates, who are willing
to dedicate themselves to a rewarding international career in different
locations around the world.  The World Economic Forum ® (WEF®) provides
an opportunity to serve in a dynamic, multicultural environment in a
variety of jobs in the support of global causes.
World Economic Forum ® (WEF®) staff uphold the principles and core values
of the Organization, including integrity, professionalism, efficiency and
respect for diversity.  The World Economic Forum ® (WEF®) welcomes
applications from nationals of all Member States and strongly encourages
women to apply. Applicants with disabilities are considered by the World
Economic Forum ® (WEF®) for employment under all types of contracts in
full compliance with the World Economic Forum ® (WEF®) Charter. World
Economic Forum ® (WEF®) offers a variety of ways to join its workforce.
It also offers university students opportunities to serve as interns.
 
A.Position: Environmental Officer
Location:Belgium/USA
Salary: $180,600.00 USD.
Contract: Full time . . ."

It goes on to offer 15 more well paid positions in great locations, mostly in Europe.

The Signs of Fraud:

1. Not addressed to me by name.  Why me?  Why would I get an email out of the blue from this organization that I don't know anything about?
2. Too good to be true.  Why do they need to email these job announcements?  At these salaries and in these locations, there'd be no shortage of well qualified applicants without a mass email.
3. Format is tacky.  I didn't spot any obvious English errors as I scanned it, but it looks 'wrong' on the page.  I could explain that, but I just as well not spell it out tol other potential scammers.

What's in it for them?  Step 2, if you responded, would likely ask you to fill out and send in a job application that would require all sorts of personal data they could then use to do any number of things.

This was enough for me to google World Economic Forum, which does exist.  Down on the bottom of the page where there are lots of links I found, under MEDIA, "fictitious email warning."

"Alert on Fictitious 'Forum' E-mails

It has been brought to our attention that fraudulent e-mail messages are being sent by individuals purporting to be representatives of the World Economic Forum.
These messages have in the past used the names of the Forum’s management team, with "Reply To" addresses that do not end in "@weforum.org". They may use Yahoo, Gmail or Hotmail accounts, and occasionally addresses which are similar to Forum ones (e.g. @weforum-jobs.org).
Typically, though not exhaustively, the messages take the form of invitations offering membership, the possibility to participate in Forum events (e.g. “Davos 13”) as an individual or as part of a ‘delegation’, or offers of employment. They often ask the potential ‘victim’ to respond for further information.
Ultimately the recipient will be asked to provide passport, bank and other personal details, and finally payment (usually via Western Union or MoneyGram) to the fictitious Forum representative.
These e-mails are not legitimate World Economic Forum communications, and are in most cases a form of advance fee fraud. Their objective is to mislead victims into paying for a fictitious membership, event registration or "training course" prior to an offer of employment. 
Please note:

• E-mails from the World Economic Forum are only sent from addresses ending in: @weforum.org. 
• To assist "webmail" providers and your IT team in the identification and filtering of fraudulent messages, the World Economic Forum maintains an up-to-date SPF (Sender Policy Framework) record. 
• Participation in the Annual Meeting is by invitation only and is reserved exclusively for Members of the World Economic Forum and invited guests. 
• Employment opportunities are published on the website of the World Economic Forum and are never advertised via unsolicited email communications. 
• The World Economic Forum does not use Western Union or MoneyGram to receive payments. 

If you have received one of these e-mails or have any doubts about the authenticity of a message you have received from the Forum please forward the message to itsecurity@weforum.org for verification.
The World Economic Forum disclaims all responsibility with respect to any expense, loss, and/or damage of any kind, which might have occurred in connection with any fraudulent membership or event registration invitation."

And there it is.  Pretty easy to check out.  But I suspect the people who fall for this stuff overlap with people who think that Ted Cruz is a hero.   And buy lottery tickets every week. 

How Many Years Did The Pony Express Last? And Other Tidbits From The Autry Center For The American West Part 1

Spurred on by the New York Times review last week of the Autry Center of the American West we decided to check it out while we were with my mom in LA.  It said this was no longer a place to glorify the Hollywood cowboy.  It had become a serious museum.

The cowboy stuff is still there, but so is a lot of other stuff.  And it's beautifully displayed.  And as I look deeper into some of the things we saw, this post is getting longer and longer.  Maybe it will be two. 

So, let's start with some cowboy stuff.  This sculpture at the entrance is of Pony Express riders by Douglas Van Howd.  Specifically, the plaque says, this one depicts the carrying of Abraham Lincoln's inaugural address in record time from a telegraph office in Nebraska to newspaper office in Sacramento - seven days and seventeen hours.  There was something about the Pony Express that caught people's imagination, because it only existed from 1860-1861, but we still know about it.

The museum is now run, according to the NY Times article, by a Native American - W. Richard West, Jr. - who also was the founding director of the Smithsonian's Museum of the American Indian.  So the super macho white cowboy Hollywood sold is being nuanced with other folks who inhabited the West.  Indians play a big role in the Autry now.  And there's some context for paintings of Indians that puts it into some context.

For example, this piece, Ben Examining the Pots by Eanger Irving Couse has this description:

"Couse prioritized romanticism over ethnography, often depicting models from the Taos Pueblo with objects of Hopi, Navaho, or Cheyenne origin.  This painting likely depicts Ben Luhan, a member of the Taos Pueblo who first posed for the artist at age twelve and became one of his favorite models."

Ernest Blumenschein (1874-1960), upper left, was a fellow founder of the Taos School with Ben Couse (above).  The painting "New Mexico Peon" (1942) uses Epimenio Tenorio as the model.  Tenorio, the note says, 

"sold his house to Blumenschein in 1919, working thereafter as his handyman and occasional model."

That sounds like a novel length story right there.

"Iesaka Waken" (1922) by Maynard Dixon (1875-1946)  according to the note:

"Maynard Dixon's art was about the geometry of the Southwest as an open space in which Native peoples once moved freely"

John Sonsini completed Christian and Francisco in 2013.  The note with it says

"Day laborers who congregate throughout the city in search of work, their cowboy dress refers to the ranches and farms of their homeland."

"The Force of Nature Humbles All Men" (2002) by Howard Terpning (1927- ). It's a big picture.  It wasn't until I got home that I looked up Terpning, who was 75 when this was done.  Terpning had quite a commercial career before he turned began doing this sort of work.  Below, you can see that he did some of the most well known movie posters.









Rondal Partridge has an impressive pedigree in the world of photography.  In a small exhibit called "Yosemite After Adams" he's got this grim 1965 photo.

It's called "Pave It and Paint It Green."

His website says:

"Son of the renown photographer Imogen Cunningham, Partridge began helping his mother in the darkroom at the age of five. At seventeen he became Dorothea Lange's apprentice, driving her up and down the back roads of California as she created her well-known images of migrant laborers.
In 1937 and 1938 he worked with Ansel Adams in Yosemite, taking the now-famous photograph, Ansel in the High Sierra, late 1930s."

(The lettering in the center is a reflection of the title of the exhibit.)

Part 2 later. 

Is an Attorney General a General? “Sticklers will abstain. Others will blithely persist. And the militarization of high legal offices will march forward.”

The gist of this is:

1. An attorney general is NOT a general.
2. An attorney general is an attorney.
3. The general part is an adjective that describes what kind of attorney she is.  One that handles all general law issues.  
4. Calling an attorney general "general" makes no sense at all.  
5. The plural of attorney general is 'attorneys general.'

This all started when I checked that I was spelling attorneys general correctly. 

I got a NY Times blog post that was campaigning to change the official plural from 'attorneys general' to 'attorney generals.'

Whoa, I thought, we're say attorneys general because we're talking about attorneys we're not talking about generals.

 So I dug a little further.  "General" in attorney general doesn't mean a top ranking military guy.  It isn't even a noun.  It's an adjective.  It means 'not specific.'  It's an attorney who does general law rather than specializing in a particular area.

In this case the adjective comes AFTER the noun because it's borrowed from a Romance language where adjectives normally come after the noun. 

The Grammarist gives a good explanation of this plus other examples:

"Postpositive adjectives

Postpositive adjectives are adjectives that follow the nouns they modify. Such constructions evince the influence that Romance languages, especially French, have had and still have on English. French, Spanish, and Italian all use postpositive adjectives as a rule.
In general, postpositive adjectives sound unnatural in English, but there are a few set phrases that conventionally comprise modifiers following nouns—for example:

• accounts payable
• attorney general
• body politic
• court martial
• God almighty
• heir apparent
• notary public
• poet laureate
• postmaster general
• time immemorial
• words unspoken

.  .  .  To pluralize phrases that conventionally use postpositive adjectives, we usually make the noun plural—for example, poets laureate, attorneys general, courts martial—but some writers treat such phrases as compound nouns and put the s at the end."

Etymology Online gives a little more of the history of the word

attorney (n.)

early 14c. (mid-13c. in Anglo-Latin), from Old French atorné "(one) appointed," past participle of aturner "to decree, assign, appoint," from atorner (see attorn). The legal Latin form attornare influenced the spelling in Anglo-French. The sense is of "one appointed to represent another's interests."

In English law, a private attorney was one appointed to act for another in business or legal affairs (usually for pay); an attorney at law or public attorney was a qualified legal agent in the courts of Common Law who prepared the cases for a barrister, who pleaded them (the equivalent of a solicitor in Chancery). So much a term of contempt in England that it was abolished by the Judicature Act of 1873 and merged with solicitor.

Johnson observed that "he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney." [Boswell]

The double -t- is a mistaken 15c. attempt to restore a non-existent Latin original. Attorney general first recorded 1530s in sense of "legal officer of the state" (late 13c. in Anglo-French), from French, hence the odd plural (subject first, adjective second).

My browsing on this led to the issue of people addressing the attorney general  as "General."  Whoa again.  I'd looked this up when Committee Chair Jay Ramras addressed Acting Attorney General Dan Sullivan as "General."  The Virginia State protocol manual - a state with a strong military tradition - said you call an attorney general "Mr."   Grammarphobia  gives probably the ultimate answer to this.  It even talks about people Supreme Court Justice Kagan, insisting, when she was solicitor general, that people call her general!  But that turned out to be an equal rights thing.  If solicitors general who were men were called 'general' than she insisted that she be treated the same way.  It's also the source of the "Stickler" quote in the title of this post.

The ultimate essay on this topic that they all refer to seems to be this one by Michael Herz.

But does it even matter?   Language changes every day.  Who cares?  People today, one might argue, don't even know what a noun and an adjective are.

A cynical response to that would be:   that's why Fox News has a loyal following. 

There are a number of reasons it matters.

•  It's wrong grammatically and it's wrong in meaning.  We don't make adjectives plural.  And here 'general' means 'wide ranging, not specific.'  It doesn't mean the top rank in the army here.  Changing the meanings of words to suit the ignorant and lazy is what Fox News does.  I say we should educate them and show them the benefits of working a little harder. 
• English has a rich heritage and has many complexities.  It's like a modern computer program that is packed with possibilities that most people will never use.  English has words and grammatical functions that, for people who have mastered them, can allow one to say things precisely enough to communicate accurately with someone who also has mastered them.  The grammar can help reinforce the meaning of a sentence.  Just like the many hidden functions of a computer program add complexity, they also give people the ability to do more sophisticated things.
• Good communication among human beings is critical to better understanding and less fighting and more cooperation.  We have a remarkably rich language.  The words and grammar are tools to help us think and help us convey those thoughts to others.  Adding new words as we develop new concepts is great.  Modifying old words so they make sense today is also great.  Such things add complexity and more tools to think and communicate well. But changing the general in attorney general from an adjective to a noun changes the whole meaning of the word.
• Along those lines, the Michael Herz essay raises the concern that changing an attorney general from an attorney to general moves us subtly from a nation that reveres the rule of law to one that is ruled by military. 
• Attorney general, as the Grammarist citation above points out, is an unusual construction in English.  It's because the term is borrowed from a Romance language.  Having words that are different from the norm help remind us that the norm isn't the only way.  And leaving borrowed words a little odd, help remind us of their heritage and our long standing relationships with other cultures.  English owes a lot to German, to French, to Latin, and many other languages.  And it's good to be reminded that 'pure' English isn't pure.  

Does this really matter in the big picture of the universe?  Not really.  But it matters as much or more than knowing the name of some celebritie's last three husbands or the lyrics of the number ten hit song this week.  Or how many strike outs a baseball player had.  The words of our language help us communicate with each other - they are the tools of peace and harmony.  Not knowing them and how to use them lowers our chance of good communication.  Moving the 'S' from attorney to general totally changes the term, what it means, and to a much smaller degree changes who we are. 

Things Hanging In The Air

This huge spider didn't like me getting close to its web and ran off quickly so this was the best shot I could get. 

Later, there was a helicopter sitting as stationary as it could above my mom's house for a ten minute period or so.  Then after a while it was back.  Making a lot of noise.  No search lights.  Just sitting there.  

What was going on?  Was this security for VIPs flying to or from the Santa Monica Airport two blocks away?  When the electrician called to finalize coming out today to rewire my mom's house, he asked if we'd seen the big plume of smoke that seemed to be in Santa Monica.  We hadn't.  And we didn't connect the helicopter and the smoke until just now when I found this LA Times story online. 

Coroner's officials have yet to sift through the charred wreckage of the crash of a small plane at Santa Monica Airport this weekend as they await special equipment to clear the heavily damaged site.
Fire officials said the crash -- which occurred about 6:20 p.m. Sunday when a twin-engine Cessna Citation coming from Hailey, Idaho, veered off the right side of the runway and slammed into a nearby storage hangar -- was unsurvivable.

Both the hangar and the jet burst into flames, officials said, and the hangar collapsed.
The jet holds up to eight people, according to Cessna and registration information, but authorities have not said how many people were on the plane.
Early Monday morning, David Goddard, chairman of the Santa Monica Airport Commission, estimated that the crash site was about 150 feet from residences. Had the plane not hit the hangar, it could have gone up an embankment and gotten over a wall before slamming into homes, he said. . .

The hangar fire burned at a relatively high temperature because jet fuel was involved, fire officials said. The flames then spread to two hangars nearby and caused minor damage.
The intensity of the fire and the collapsed hangar made it hard to access the wreckage of the plane or read its tail number, making it difficult to identify those on board, sources told The Times.

 The complete story is here.

My condolences go out to the families of those killed in this accident.  People die every day in all sorts of ways.  We don't have the time or emotional energy to invest in every death.  But we should be respectful to those who are immediately impacted and then review our own lives to be sure we're doing what's really important with people we really love. 

Was Lewin Contracted By Alaska To Find Fault With Medicaid Expansion Under Affordable Care Act?

I posted the other day about Sen. Bill Wielechowski's unsuccessful attempts to get a copy of the Lewin Group's completed report on the impacts of Alaska expanding Medicaid under the  Affordable Care Act.  It was finished last April but, apparently in violation of the state's public access laws, the Parnell administration has not released copies of the report.

The original press release that alerted me to this, did, however, have a copy of the contract the state had with the Lewin Group.

As I read this contract, I only see them being asked to identify the potential problems, not the benefits of expanded Medicaid in Alaska.   Look for yourself:


[Sorry, the PDF was in a format that didn't allow copying text.  These are screen shots - rather than writing it all out.  You can see the original contract here.]

You can click on the images to enlarge them considerably

 

(A) through (I) ask for costs.  

(E) is particularly cynical.  It asks for the costs of people who will lower their income to become eligible.  I do know a few folks who are forced into keeping their income low to stay qualified.  One is a graduate student at UW who was paralyzed from the waist down in a motorcycle accident and has other accident related problems.  His parents are not alive.  He's pretty much on his own.  He had to turn down a job because it would put him at an income level that would make him ineligible for Medicaid and his medical expenses are huge.  The job didn't offer insurance, but would have made him ineligible.  

I also know an FAS kid who has some serious deficits  which make living a normal life difficult.  But he also has some great skills which means he can hold down a low level job, which he has done for a number of years now.  But he has to watch how much he makes or will lose his Medicaid eligibility which would end any health care.  

Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe they're just trying to calculate the costs of this sort of person.  But I have a hunch they believe there are all these welfare cheats out there who love being poor so they can live on government handouts.  I know such people exist, but most people would love to have a good paying job that had health coverage.  

There's only one item in the list of deliverables - #8 - that looks for positives.  #8 is cost savings due to reduction or elimination of existing programs.


As I mentioned in the previous post on this, the Lewin Group's study on the same topic for New Hampshire lists the costs to the state of New Hampshire to be around $100 million.  BUT it then goes on to explain that New Hampshire will get about 20 times that much (about $2 billion) in Federal revenues to the state.   It also says that 22,000 fewer people in New Hampshire will UNinsured.

This Alaska contract doesn't seem to call for these positives.  It doesn't ask for how much federal money will come in or how many people will become eligible for Medicaid and sign up.  Well, that's not exactly true.  It does ask for different categories of folks who will likely sign up - but the focus of the contract is not on the benefits of more people being covered.  Rather it seems to be on the liabilities to the state of more people being covered by health care.  My sense is they see people who have Medicaid as deadbeats. 

I always try to acknowledge that I might be missing something.  I might, so if my thinking here is overlooking key points, I hope readers will point that out to me.  But from what I see of the contract, the Parnell administration was contracting for a report that would support their position against the state expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.  An honest study would look at the costs AND the benefits and then determine the right policy. 

We Leave Our Seattle Sunshine for LA Sunshine

I'm beginning to feel like a yoyo on a string that stretches from Anchorage to LA and does a pause trick now and then in Seattle.   See video below for the yoyo trick.

Seattle sunshine

Yesterday (Saturday) it rained and rained on Bainbridge.  The three boys had soccer games at different times and different places, all in the rain.  When it was time for us to head out to the ferry terminal, an easy ten minute walk, there was a lull and we went.  But soon it was raining hard and a good hearted soul stopped and offered to take us the rest of the way.  I kind of liked the feel of the cool and and wind and the rain, but I also liked the idea that someone stopped to give us a ride.

Of course, Z provided all the sunshine I needed.  She's growing fast.  Crawling around, pulling herself up to a standing position, crawling up a couple of steps, picking up little pieces of food and putting them into her mouth.  Little pieces of other things too.  And she's also a little more cautious about letting her mom get out of sight.  But so far I'm still on her ok list.  

It seemed that the ferry was a lot more crowded inside than usual, but I'm guessing it was just that all the people who normally would be outside on the deck were inside.  There were warnings about choppiness and wind making the doors tricky to open and close.  I'm pretty sure that is the Bremerton ferry headed out as we headed toward Seattle.

The six or seven blocks to the Pioneer Square train station weren't too wet and soon we were headed for the airport.  Fare control came through, but everyone on our car had a ticket or pass.

I didn't try to read on the ride this time and noticed a wide variety of religious institutions including a Chinese temple and what looked like a Thai Buddhist temple.

Once above the clouds we saw natural sunshine and this shot beckoned somewhere I figure over northern California.  It was 7:30 pm, about 90 minutes out of Seattle.








LA was warm, even in the evening - low 70s I'd guess.  And totally clear.

This morning we went over to the Mar Vista market and this blue berry tic tac toe caught my eye.  Below are some other market shots.

And here's a video of the yoyo trick these trips are making me feel like.  But it's clear our visits are good for my mom so we'll keep visiting frequently.  J's going back to help with Z in a week and I'll stay here a little longer. 


365yoyotricks.com - Sleight from Steve Brown on Vimeo.

Reinterpreting "Like A Deer In The Headlights"

The phrase "Like a deer in the headlights" suggests a person who is so startled and afraid that they cannot respond to a threatening situation.

However, looking at this deer oh so carefully holding herself still as soon as she saw us, with only her eyes moving, tracking us; it makes me wonder.

Might it be that deer have survived by holding themselves still?  By making themselves hard to spot, and thus evading the eyes and teeth of predators?

If so, then might it also be that the deer may not actually be frozen with fear, but rather just practicing a strategy that in nature is exactly the right thing to do when faced with a threat.  But which just so happens to be exactly the wrong thing when the threat is not a wolf, but an on-coming car or train?

If these speculations are on the mark, then the phrase "like a deer in the headlights" should really mean:  Someone who is taking a strategy excellently suited for one situation, and using it in a different situation where it is exactly the wrong thing to do.

[This is a guest post.  My daughter and I saw a deer on our walk yesterday.  The deer was moving until she saw us.  M suggested a blog post on the 'deer in the headlights' idiom.  I suggested a guest post.  The picture is the deer we saw.]

Public Records Act Says "Shall Give On Request" NOT "Shall Give When They Get Around To It"

I get press releases every day and I don't usually do anything with them, but this one appears to demonstrate a case of the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services refusing to obey the law on public records. 

According to part of the press release from the Alaska Democratic Party:

"The report, prepared with nearly $80,000 in State funds by the Lewin Group for the Department of Health and Social Services, has been complete since April 12, 2013.  Several individuals and organizations have requested release of the report, including at least one news organization, but the Department has refused to release it.  This refusal violates the Alaska Public Records Act, according to attorneys with the non-partisan Legislative Legal Services Division." 

The Alaska Public Records Act is pretty clear.  Here are the guts:

AS 40.25.110. Public Records Open to Inspection and Copying; Fees.

(a) Unless specifically provided otherwise, the public records of all public agencies are open to inspection by the public under reasonable rules during regular office hours. The public officer having the custody of public records shall give on request and payment of the fee established under this section or AS 40.25.115 a certified copy of the public record.

Note:  It says:  "shall give on request."   It doesn't say, "shall give when they get around to it"

So, what are the exceptions?  Read through them.  I think you'll agree that none of these apply here.  Then read the bolded section at the end.  It repeats the message above, but instead of staying 'request' it says 'demand.'

AS 40.25.120. Public Records; Exceptions; Certified Copies.

(a) Every person has a right to inspect a public record in the state, including public records in recorders' offices, except

(1) records of vital statistics and adoption proceedings, which shall be treated in the manner required by AS 18.50;

(2) records pertaining to juveniles unless disclosure is authorized by law;

(3) medical and related public health records;

(4) records required to be kept confidential by a federal law or regulation or by state law;

(5) to the extent the records are required to be kept confidential under 20 U.S.C. 1232g and the regulations adopted under 20 U.S.C. 1232g in order to secure or retain federal assistance;

(6) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of the law enforcement records or information

(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings;

(B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;

(C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of a suspect, defendant, victim, or witness;

(D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source;

(E) would disclose confidential techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions;

(F) would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law; or

(G) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual;

(7) names, addresses, and other information identifying a person as a participant in the Alaska Higher Education Savings Trust under AS 14.40.802 or the advance college tuition savings program under AS 14.40.803 - 14.40.817;

(8) public records containing information that would disclose or might lead to the disclosure of a component in the process used to execute or adopt an electronic signature if the disclosure would or might cause the electronic signature to cease being under the sole control of the person using it;

(9) [See delayed repeal note]. reports submitted under AS 05.25.030 concerning certain collisions, accidents, or other casualties involving boats;

(10) records or information pertaining to a plan, program, or procedures for establishing, maintaining, or restoring security in the state, or to a detailed description or evaluation of systems, facilities, or infrastructure in the state, but only to the extent that the production of the records or information

(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with the implementation or enforcement of the security plan, program, or procedures;

(B) would disclose confidential guidelines for investigations or enforcement and the disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law; or

(C) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual or to present a real and substantial risk to the public health and welfare;

(11) the written notification regarding a proposed regulation provided under AS 24.20.105 to the Department of Law and the affected state agency and communications between the Legislative Affairs Agency, the Department of Law, and the affected state agency under AS 24.20.105.

(12) records that are

(A) proprietary, privileged, or a trade secret in accordance with AS 43.90.150 or 43.90.220(e);

(B) applications that are received under AS 43.90 until notice is published under AS 43.90.160 .

(b) Every public officer having the custody of records not included in the exceptions shall permit the inspection, and give on demand and on payment of the fees under AS 40.25.110 - 40.25.115 a certified copy of the record, and the copy shall in all cases be evidence of the original.

(c) Recorders shall permit memoranda, transcripts, and copies of the public records in their offices to be made by photography or otherwise for the purpose of examining titles to real estate described in the public records, making abstracts of title or guaranteeing or insuring the titles of the real estate, or building and maintaining title and abstract plants; and shall furnish proper and reasonable facilities to persons having lawful occasion for access to the public records for those purposes, subject to reasonable rules and regulations, in conformity to the direction of the court, as are necessary for the protection of the records and to prevent interference with the regular discharge of the duties of the recorders and their employees.

Why withhold documents?

Aside from the legally valid reasons, officials withhold information that makes them look bad.  Some examples:

• It refutes what they have told people.
• It doesn't support the position they espouse.
• It confirms what their critics have charged.
• It reveals incompetence or otherwise is embarrassing

Public records acts, in general, often have provisions that allow an agency to withhold documents while a policy is being formulated.  Section 11 above seems to be for that purpose and the link goes to the kind of information that would be exempted.  It's more about communication between the Department of Law or the Legislative Affairs Agency.

However, this is an independent report that is complete and will not change.  It's been paid for with State money.  The people have a right to see what it says.  If the Governor were really open to the best options for the people of Alaska he would share the report so it could be studied and its strengths understood and its weaknesses found. That's why the Public Records Act was written.  

I can't think of legitimate reasons for withholding such a document this long.  Yes, the agency is still working on its policy but that policy won't change this report.  

My guess is that the report doesn't support what the Governor wants to do.   [This accidentally got left out of the original post:  In 2009 The Washington Post quoted Lewin Group Vice President John Sheils

"Let's just say, sometimes studies come out that don't show exactly what the client wants to see. And in those instances, they have [the] option to bury the study -- to not release it, rather," Sheils said.

Except when they are a government that has public disclosure laws.] 

Who is the Lewin Group?

The Lewin Group, the company that did the report, is based in Falls Church, Virginia.

They tout their integrity and independence,  and they acknowledge they are owned by UnitedHealth Group:

"The value we place on accuracy, independence and objectivity is reflected in the trust our clients place in The Lewin Group. As such, The Lewin Group must safeguard its integrity, and address any appearance of conflicts that may stem from the organization’s relationship to other health care businesses owned by our parent company, OptumInsight, and its parent entity, UnitedHealth Group."

Sourcewatch writes:

Despite its corporate ownership, opponents of health care reform often cite the Lewin group as an impartial, non-partisan or independent source of information. House Rep. Eric Cantor (Virginia), has referred to it as "the nonpartisan Lewin Group." Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee have called it an "independent research firm." Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, the second-ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, referred to the Lewin Group was "well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country." They do not mention, however, that the Lewin Group is owned by UnitedHealth Group.
The Lewin Group has a reputation as the "go to" firm for beleaguered organizations in need of reports and research to support controversial positions and issues. In one example, in 2005 the American Hospital Association hired the Lewin Group to study the causes of skyrocketing health care costs. The study results blamed increased hospital spending on the rising costs of goods, a workforce shortage and greater demand for hospital services, but did not mention health insurance company profits, stock values, shareholder returns, etc. (Aug. 29, 2005, p. 8).^[3]

So, the Parnell administration went to a firm that is endorsed by Eric Cantor, a powerful House opponent of Obamacare.  He should expect a report that's favorable to his position and have no problem releasing it.  But they've held it since April.

We can guess that the report would have been released already if it concluded that the Affordable Care Act would be a disaster for Alaska - as the Governor has claimed:  

"The state of Alaska will not pursue unlawful activity to implement a federal health care regime that has been declared unconstitutional by a federal court,” Parnell told the Juneau Chamber of Commerce, to applause, Thursday."

But what if a company endorsed by Cantor said the Affordable Care Act would be ok for Alaska?  The Parnell administration wouldn't be able to blame the company's "liberal bias.' The Lewin Group's website has a summary of a study they did on expanding Medicaid in the State of New Hampshire:

The report they did for the State of New Hampshire concluded that while there would be a modest reduction in state spending over six years if the state did not expand Medicaid, if it did it would be a huge improvement in health care access for people in New Hampshire and it would bring billions in federal revenues to the state. 

"This report provides estimates on Medicaid enrollment and costs under the option of not expanding Medicaid compared to the option of expanding the program under various program design options. We find that if the state does not expand Medicaid, it could reduce state Medicaid spending by $66 to $114 million over the 2014-2020 period. However, expanding Medicaid would (1) reduce the number of uninsured in the state by an additional 22,300 people, (2) provide subsidized coverage for low income adults in the state, who would not have access without the expansion, and (3) increase federal revenues in the state by $1.8 to $2.7 billion over the 2014-2020 period."      

 If that's not clear, it says

• if you don't expand, you'd save around $100 million BUT
• lose 20 times that much in Federal revenues and
•  cut out 22,000 uninsured people. 

Senator Bill Wielechowki's most recent request to see this report was linked in the press release.  It's dated September 25, 2013, but it also refers to previous requests for the report - one in March and one in August.  It also goes into much more legal detail than I have.  You can read it here.

Here's the Department of Health and Social Services response to his August request.

From:  Hooley, Jason M (GOV) [jason.hooley@alaska.gov]

Sent:  Tuesday, August 20, 2013 3:34 PM

To:  Michelle Sydeman  [Wielekowski's staff]

Subject:  Re: Request for contract re: actuarial analysis of Medicaid expansion

Hi Michelle,

Thank you for your request for a copy of the contract with the firm completing the actuarial analysis of Medicaid expansion costs and effects.  A copy of the contract is attached.

Like many other states, Alaska looks to move cautiously and deliberately towards a decision on this issue. The Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) has reviewed actuarial analyses of cost estimates and effects that sketch out what Medicaid could look like in expansion scenarios.

  

The report is not meant to advocate for or against a particular position, rather it will be used as one point of data as we develop our recommendation. DHSS’s actuarial study completed by the Lewin Group on April 12, 2013 entitled “An Analysis of the Impact of Medicaid Expansion in Alaska,”  is not yet available for distribution.

It will be made available once DHSS has completed its analysis and submitted its recommendations to the Governor.

Jason Hooley

|

Legislative Liaison

Office of the Commissioner

| Department of Health and Socia

l Services

3601 C Street (#902) | Anchorage, AK 99503

(o) 907.269.7806 |

(c) 907.341.7806

What about the language that says "Shall give on request?"  It's been available since April 12.  The key reasons I can imagine that it has not been released is to prevent Sen. Wielechowski from having enough time to review the data.  Or because the report is not favorable to the governor's position.  

If you go to Wielechowski's request, you'll see it spells out the specific legal reasons why the document should be released and shows why it doesn't qualify for any of the exceptions. 

It would appear that the State is illegally withholding information that the people of Alaska bought and paid for.