Board of Regents Give U of Alaska President $320K Retention Bonus - Part I

[I wrote this post two weeks ago and then decided I should probably get more information from the Board of Regents.  I got their response yesterday (my mailbox was too full for their first try).  This post is already fairly long, so I've decided to post this pretty much as is.  Part 2 will look[s] at the questions I sent the Board and their response, including the President's new contract.  There may be a Part 3 which [posts the salary survey the Board commissioned and looks in detail at why organizations do salary surveys] would probably analyze their response and the contract.] [To check all the posts on this topic, go to University President Bonus page.]


A bunch of issues here:

1.  How much should the president of a public university get paid?
2.  What other options are there?
3.  Why would the Board of Regents do this?


First, the facts. 

From the Alaska Dispatch News:

Amid budget cuts and campus layoffs, the top executive of Alaska’s public university system has been offered a $320,000 retention bonus.
The University of Alaska Board of Regents in June voted to offer a contract extension to president Pat Gamble that includes the bonus.
Gamble will receive the money, equal to one year of his salary, if he stays at the helm of Alaska’s public universities until 2016.

From the University of Alaska website:

Patrick K. Gamble became the University of Alaska's 13th president on June 1, 2010.
Prior to joining the university, he served Alaska for over 9 years as president and chief executive officer of the Alaska Railroad Corporation. He currently serves as chair of the Alaska Aerospace Corporation Board of Directors.
Gamble served as a fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force, retiring as a four-star general in command of U.S. air forces throughout the Pacific Region.

How much should the president of a public university get paid?

There are two basic approaches to salary:

• Pay is related to the value of the work to the organization
• Pay must be competitive to other organizations employing similar positions

And then there are all the people who work simply because they love the work - some in this group get paid well; others almost nothing

From what I can tell, the Board of Regents is mostly using the second criterion.  Again from the ADN article:

• "Six-figure retention or performance bonuses are increasingly standard for university presidents, said McConnell."
• "Gamble’s pay package is modest compared to his peers, said Kate Ripley, a university spokeswoman."

But there is some comment about performance:

• "Ripley, the university spokeswoman, said the Board of Regents 'strongly supports his leadership and the work he's doing, specifically with the Shaping Alaska's Future initiative, improved graduation rates, mandatory student advising, better service to students and working more closely and effectively with the state, the K-12 system, and all of Alaska's employers.;”

I don't know if there are any measures that compare his salary to his contribution to the university.  It was easier to determine that with the former President Hamilton because he clearly got large budget increases from the legislature while under President Gamble the budget has been cut and programs are being cut.  


What alternatives are there?

There have been a couple of different perspectives on the rising salaries of university presidents.

In Canada, four faculty members applied as a group, for the $400K president position at their university. One of the four asks:

". . . should university boards be spending $400,000 and more on any one person, when so many faculty lines are frozen, and earning well below one-fourth of such a salary?"

In their application, they wrote:

"As you can see, four people can manage this job far more effectively than any one single person, however qualified that person might be for a half-a-million in compensation. We can spell off the dreary business of Convocation, with one person attending/presiding while the other three continue on with the much-needed work of the president/vice chancellor's office, rather than having to take a week's hiatus every April. Sick days will be irrelevant, since three other people will be available to fill in if one person is ill or on leave. Most importantly, we each pledge to teach one undergraduate class per year - which we would bet none of your other candidates are proposing to do! - both as a way of "walking the talk" about the "importance of higher education" and our "world class students," and as a means of contributing to the current climate of austerity at the University of Alberta, in which everyone - even in the highest levels of administration! - is called to pitch in and do their bit."

Another approach was recently offered by Kentucky State University interim president Raymond Burse, who is giving back some of his salary.  From Kentucky.com:

Raymond Burse, interim president of Kentucky State University, has given up more than $90,000 of his salary so university workers earning minimum wage could have their earnings increased to $10.25 an hour.
"My whole thing is I don't need to work," Burse said. "This is not a hobby, but in terms of the people who do the hard work and heavy lifting, they are at the lower pay scale."

So, what about here in Alaska?

"I don't need to work" is true of President Gamble as well.  He retired as a four star general after 34 years.  According to USA today in 2011:

"Now, a four-star officer retiring in 2011 with 38 years' experience would get a yearly pension of about $219,600, a jump of $84,000, or 63% beyond what was once allowed. A three-star officer with 35 years' experience would get about $169,200 a year, up about $39,000, or 30%."

So let's assume he's getting somewhere between $150,000 and $200,000 a year from his military pension.  And with nine years as president of the Alaska Railroad he's surely got some pension coming in there too.  With his UA salary of $320,000 it's a good possibility he's got half a million dollars coming in each year.   So, President Gamble, by most people's standards, doesn't need an extra $320,000 to stay on as president. [Just after I originally wrote this, but before I posted it, Marcelle McDannel had an opinion piece in the ADN pointing out that Gamble's salary puts him into the 1% and raises questions about the spirit of public service.]

My belief is that someone serious about improving the University of Alaska - or any public university - should be embarrassed by making so much more money than most of his employees.  I know that my years teaching at the university were not in pursuit of a high wage, but because I had a job I believed was important and I worked hard to do the very best I could at it.  I personally don't see how anyone really dedicated to his work would just drop it midstream because someone offered more money to start anew in a different organization.  Especially at a time when the university's budget is being cut.  I'm not even asking him to give up a quarter of his salary like President Burse, though that would be nice too.

Sure, there will be many who say that he earned his military pension - and I agree.   I'm distinguishing between what is legal, reasonable, and decent.  He's not hurting financially in any way, but the institution he's leading is.  Someone who is truly dedicated to the University and was already earning about half a million a year, wouldn't accept taking that extra $320,000 for himself.  It makes me think of the time when women were paid much less than men because it was felt, their husbands were supporting them and this 'second' job was just gravy anyway.  One could argue that this second job is just gravy anyway here too, without the residue of gender discrimination.  He could use it to support improving the university. Perhaps ask the Regents to put it into a fund he can use at his discretion for programs or students.   But different people see the world differently.  That's my take on it. 


Why did the Board of Regents do this?

Let's look at who is on the Board.  I've taken information on their education and work experience from their bios on the University website. 

Regent Dale Anderson:

• currently works in the financial services industry and owns Auke Lake Bed & Breakfast. He brings to the board extensive life experiences from both the private and public sector. He has owned and operated numerous enterprises as well as served as a member of the City and Borough of Juneau Assembly, legislative aide for the House Finance Committee in the Alaska State Legislature and as commissioner of the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. 
• holds a certificate of judicial development in administrative law from the University of Nevada and a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration from Oral Roberts University. He is a member of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Alaska Travel Industry Association, Juneau Chamber of Commerce and the Juneau Convention and Visitors Bureau

Regent Timothy Brady:

• president of Ken Brady Construction Company, where he has worked in various positions over the past 30 years. 
• holds a bachelor of science degree from Arizona State University's School of Engineering, Division of Construction.

Regent Fuller Cowell:

• He completed his bachelors of business administration with an emphasis in marketing at National University, Sacramento, California graduating Summa Cum Laude. Cowell completed the Advanced Executive Program at the Kellogg Business School, Northwestern University, in Chicago, Illinois.
• Cowell’s newspaper career took him from a newspaper carrier at the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner to director of operations of the McClatchy Company and ultimately publisher of Alaska’s largest newspaper, the Anchorage Daily News. He spent ten years commercial fishing in Area E, which includes Prince William Sound and the Copper River Delta. 

Student Regent Courtney Enright:

• working toward a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering and master’s in business administration at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
• currently is interning for Baker Hughes Inc. In the past she has worked as a research lab technician for the Alaska Space Grant Program and as an intern for Alaska U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski

Regent Kenneth Fisher:

• is an Engineer Officer with the U.S. Public Health Service currently working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 in Juneau, Alaska, where he serves as the Senior Representative to the State of Alaska. 
• graduated from Michigan Technological University in 1982 with a Bachelor of Science in engineering. In 1998, he completed a Legislative Fellowship with the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C.

Regent Jyotsna Heckman:

• earned a bachelor's and master's degrees in Business from the University of Alaska Fairbanks and has also attended graduate school for financial studies at Georgetown University and Southern Methodist University
• retired as the President & CEO of Denali State bank in December 2011 after twenty six years of service with the bank. She currently serves as a director on the bank's board

Regent Mary Hughes

• graduated from the University of Alaska with a BBA in Management in 1971 and earned her juris doctorate from Willamette University College of Law in 1974.
• A partner in the law firm of Hughes, Thorsness, Gantz, Powell & Brundin until 1994, she served as the Anchorage Municipal Attorney from 1995-2000 and Of Counsel with the firm until May 2005 when she became Alaska State Director for the Office of U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, a position she held until January 2008

Regent Pat Jacobson:

• graduated in 1969 from the University of Arizona with a BA in Elementary Education, and from the University of Alaska in 1972 with an MA in Elementary Education. Regent Jacobson taught various elementary grades, primarily gifted classes, for 26 years, 25 of which were in Kodiak. 

Regent Gloria O'Neil:

• President and CEO of Cook Inlet Tribal Council (CITC) since 1998, Gloria has led the organization’s growth in becoming one of the major social service providers in Alaska, currently offering more than 50 essential programs that serve more than 14,000 Alaska Native and American Indian people each year.
• earned her Master of Business Administration degree from Alaska Pacific University, and received her Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology, with a minor in Business Administration from the University of Alaska Anchorage.

Regent Michael Powers:

• Chief Executive Officer for Fairbanks Memorial Hospital and Denali Center in Fairbanks, Alaska.   He first served at Fairbanks Memorial as its Chief Financial Officer in 1986 and was named CEO in 1995. 
• earned a master's degree in Healthcare Services Administration from University of Wisconsin/Madison, and a bachelor's degree in English Literature from Lawrence University.  He earned a higher diploma in Anglo-Irish Literature at Trinity College – Dublin, as a Rotary International Graduate Fellow.
  

Regent Kirk Wickersham:

• is an actively retired attorney and real estate broker. He is the developer and owner of FSBO System, Inc. a company that provides professional coaching to home sellers, and a former chair of the Alaska Real Estate Commission.
• a graduate of the University of Alaska, Yale Law School, and has a master’s degree from the University of Colorado.  

There are a number of folks here who look like they should be interesting and thoughtful.  It's probably a little unbalanced in terms of educational and professional diversity.  And I suspect political diversity. 

• Sixty percent work in high level private sector positions and five have business degrees.  These might be expected to be comfortable with high corporate salaries. 
• Five were appointed by Sarah Palin (one of those had originally been appointed by Tony Knowles.) 
• Five were appointed by Sean Parnell  

But we shouldn't jump to conclusions based on such little data.  Though we know that the Board did make this offer.  They all have email addresses and phone numbers at the linked bios if you want to ask.  I suggest you email them and ask them to explain the decision.

I went to the Board of Regents' page that has minutes of their meetings.  The latest they had was a Summary of Actions for the June 5-6, 2014 meeting.  So they're two months behind

Part II will cover my questions to the Chair of the Board of Regents and her response along with a copy of the President's contract. 
[UPDATE:  You can see a list of all the posts on the President's bonus here.]

Mr. Rooter Makes Alaska Plumbers Seem Like A Bargain

We got into LA at midnight, got to my mom's and went to bed.  The next morning when I got up the plumber was coming in.  The caregiver had called because the shower knob wasn't working right and the kitchen faucet was leaking.  I'm thinking, I could do this myself, but, ok, let the plumber do it.

He shows me the agreement to sign.  $988! 

"What?! This is for real?" I asked.  "Even in Alaska this would be very high."  They were going to go buy the parts and come back. 

"The parts don't cost that much.  I'll go to the hardware store and get them."

"OK"  he says, "that will make it much cheaper.  I'll refigure the estimate."

He comes back after a while having recalculated the bill.  Now it's only $488. 

"It was $500 for parts?"  I asked incredulously.  "That leaves almost another $500 for labor?  Even if it takes you an hour for each faucet, that's almost $250 an hour."

He points out that since my mom is a member of Mr. Rooter, there's a discount for that, and also a 15% senior discount.  That was already taken off the bill!

"OK, I'll get the parts and call you back."

Silver faucet pops up out of pipe and leaks

I drove to B&B Hardware.  They're a crazy old time hardware store.   I ask for the someone to help with plumbing and they point me to guy who's helping another customer in Spanish.  He turns out to be from Peru. When she's done, I explain what I need.  I took pictures so I show him the kitchen sink issue first.  This part pops up when you turn the water on.

He pulls out a demo of that wall mounted fixture and shows me the part.

"Mine doesn't have this red o-ring."
"That's what keeps it from popping up."   Long story short, he finds an o-ring that sells for 40 cents.   Yes, 40 cents.  Then he gets what I need for the shower.  That's a lot more expensive - $8.95.

In the picture you can see two grooves.  The lower one has a black O-ring.  The upper one has nothing.  That's what was missing. 

I go home and get the kitchen sink fixed in eight minutes.  The shower is a little trickier because an old screw is rusted into the old fixture.  So I can't secure the new faucet handle in with a screw. But I made a few adjustments and the shower handle fits on and works.  I may do a little more work late.

But for under $10 and less than two hours, this amateur plumber, fixed what the 'professional'  plumber said would cost $988.

In my opinion, that borders on criminal.  Get little old ladies (my mom's 92) and get a cute young, sweet talking salesman to accompany the plumber, and presto, lots of bucks.  Add in guarantees - for who knows how much extra - and senior discounts, and you quickly convince these folks who really don't understand plumbing, that you are giving them a bargain when you're making huge, evil profits. 

I don't even want to think about how much my mom has paid to Mr. Rooter before.

On the up side, I saved her $990, which is more than cost of our trip down here.  And I met Fernando, who was very helpful, and he will come out to my mom's if she has any other plumbing problems.  He said he was flying several times a year to Peru when his mom was older, so he understands. 

A Different View Of Election Day - Part 2

As we flew out of Anchorage yesterday, I couldn't help but think about how the mudflats and glaciers and clouds, were doing their own thing, oblivious to the decisions Alaska voters were making.

 Are they affected by our decisions?  Definitely.  Glaciers are shrinking, the water is growing more acidic and changing the flora and fauna.  Human decisions about energy play a big role here.  But whether Alaskans get a few billion dollars more or oil companies do, affects nature minimally.

The first three pictures are closeups from the following picture.

Wait, you say, we're changing the landscape.  Yes, but it's always changing.  The mountains rise and fall and other mountains rise.  That's what our natural environment does.

And this is a wider angle view of the previous picture.

And I won't even address those who deny that climate change is impacted significantly by human action.  Those folks are willfully ignorant - they have personal reasons for rejecting what most scientists believe.  For those who still believe the Koch brothers' drivel on climate change, check the skeptical science website. 

 

For those who don't know the flight out of Anchorage I'm not putting these up in chronological order.  First we passed over the mudflats across the inlet from Anchorage.

 

This appears to be the shortest distance between Anchorage and Matsu (the bit of land next to the engine) approximately where the proposed Knik Arm bridge would go.  There are lots of people in our state (and around the world) who love to build things, but they aren't so good at funding the maintenance of what they build.  In the background is most of the "Anchorage Bowl".

At first I was worried I'd only see clouds as we got into the Chugach range.  Nice clouds for sure, but I'm always awed by the views of the mountains and glaciers and water around Anchorage and Prince William Sound.

 The serious impacts of climate change will be on humans and other species that will find their way of life disrupted by the rapid changes that human-generated climate change causes.  We're already seeing it in fiercer storms, rain concentrated in some areas and missing in others.  Rivers changing courses.  Northern oceans, without the ice cover, erode the shorelines.  No problem, just natural changes, unless you live there.

People opposed to immigration will have to figure out what to do when the people of Florida and Manhattan start leaving as the water laps higher and higher. 

We were further south here - I'm guessing over coastal British Columbia. 

Looking-into-the-sun photos do distort the colors a lot.  It was beautiful, but the contrast between light and dark wasn't so stark. 





People opposed to giving women birth control choices  have to consider how climate change will impact many of those babies born around the world because women had no access to birth control. Agriculture and housing will be devastated by severe weather events.  The ensuing struggles for food will lead to human violence even more brutal, because it's conscious violence, as people fight just to survive. 

But the mountains and glaciers and mudflats and oceans will adapt to new chemicals, new weather patterns, new organisms. 

A Different View Of Election Day - Part 1

These backyard visitors weren't at all interested in the election.

 

This steller jay was looking for the bag of peanut shells we had on the deck.  (I didn't do anything to enhance this photo.)

My presence didn't deter him at all.  He scolded me and told me to leave so he could go about his business.

This black capped chickadee was keeping more to itself in the trees.

 

Political Sign Battles

Seward Highway, between Northern Lights and Benson, was one of the battlegrounds in the fight over Proposition 1.  On the Benson corner, were the No folks.

On the Northern Lights corner were the Yes folks.








I couldn't help thinking this was like going to a college football game.  There were the good guys (your team) and the bad guys (the other team.)  You sat on different sides of the stadium and yelled for your team and against the other team.

The political sign version includes cars driving by the sign holders and honking if they like the political message, sometimes even waving.  Sometimes showing a thumbs down.

What strange ritual is this?  I thought about it while I was there.  First, Alaska has no billboards, so yard signs and corner demonstrations take the place of billboards.  But the level of discourse between the two sides and between the sign holders and the drivers was the same level as the Bruins and the Trojans.  Or Palestinians and Israelis.

Signs don't expand the rational debate.  But I suspect they impact the emotional debate.  Clearly seeing a group of people holding signs for what you believe must give a sense of solidarity.  And if your position is an underdog position, it's probably encouraging to see your side represented - the more signs, the more encouraging.  I suspect people weigh how the election is going by the number of sign wavers for each side.  And, the ability to get folks out onto the streets is an indicator of how much support each side has. It's about winning and losing, about power, not really about the impact of the different tax schemes on the state. 

Any Proof Signs Matter?

Not a lot.  One professor, Costas Panagoloulos,  did some experiments in New York that say they do, but I'd like to see his findings replicated in other places before I whole-heartedly accept his findings.  Here's an excerpt of a 2012 NPR interview:

SIMON: How did you measure the effectiveness of yard signs?
PANAGOPOULOS: What I designed was a randomized field experiment that randomly assigned to different voting locations in Manhattan during the 2005 mayoral election - to be treated with street signs that said, Vote Tomorrow, that encouraged people to vote. These were nonpartisan signs held up by groups of volunteers at strategically selected precincts. And then after the election, we measured voter turnout, and compared those places where we had volunteers with street signs to those places where we did not have volunteers with street signs. And we found that turnout was significantly higher in those voting locations and precincts where we did expose voters to street signs.
SIMON: But isn't getting someone to vote different and, in a sense, easier than getting them to vote the way you want to because of a street sign or yard sign?
PANAGOPOULOS: Well, I think what we wanted to demonstrate was that this particular technique - holding up some type of sign - can be effective. Now, we had a nonpartisan message. We assume that a partisan message could have been as effective - perhaps it would have been more effective, if anything. But our first cut at this was to see if they could be effective. And given that we found that they are effective, we now presume that they can be effective as partisan messages to promote a particular candidacy.

Instead of waving signs at corners, I'd like to see the active campaign volunteers of both sides sit down for dinner together - six per table - and let voters see videos of their dinner discussions.  That would give a lot more information than signs with slogans.  And the volunteers would find out that 'the enemy' was more rounded and human than they expected.

For instance, I suspect the assumption held by some that oil company employees are all going to Vote No isn't all that accurate.  It's probably true that the most vocal opponents of Prop 1 work for oil companies or subcontractors.  When I went to the public testimony for HB 110, an early version of SB 21, all the people speaking in favor, identified themselves as connected through work or family to the oil industry.

But no employer is universally loved by their employees, who see all the warts of their bosses.  And even though the oil companies, as reported in the ADN, have been sending out emails telling their employees to vote No - I imagine a lot of the employees might disagree or just resent their employer telling them how to vote.  (In today's paper, it says,

"Companies supporting the tax cut were shuttling workers to the polls in vans . . . but officials said they had not told the employees how to vote."

While I was looking for evidence of the effectiveness of sign waving, I found this anti-sign waving blog post that included this tidbit:

I actually have been a sign waver in the past, but only when strongly encouraged to do so by an employer with substantial financial interest in a certain candidate. I did so begrudgingly and hated every minute of it as I tried to fake a smile at drivers who mostly just wanted to get to home as soon as possible without having to send a half-hearted greeting my way.

People with the Yes signs wondered how many of the No sign holders were there as part of their job.  And when someone waved an Alaska flag among the Yes signs, it was suggested the No folks should have a British flag.  See, what I mean?  It's like football fans finding ways to out do the fans of their opponents.


I did see a man near the Yes signs who looked familiar.  Then it hit me - he looked like Vic Kohring.  I don't think I've talked to Vic since the trial.  We had a brief but cordial conversation.  I realized later that I didn't ask why he was standing with signs in mid-town Anchorage if he's running for a Senate seat in the Valley. I checked, now.  He's running for US Senate, not state senate, for the Alaska Independence Party slot.





And I met one of Don Young's Republican primary opponents - John Cox.  Forrest Dunbar, the Democratic house candidate who's unopposed in the primary, came up to say hi and I got this picture of the two of them.

I asked Cox about the gun he's wearing.  He told me he's a strong open-carry advocate.


I should be done now, but after my afternoon in the sign battles I couldn't resist posting this picture I ran across when I got home by Polish artist Pawel Kuczynski published (with other pictures) at The Mind Unleashed.

While there are a lot of informed voters, this picture depicts some of the uninformed.  Not to mention those who have dropped out of voting because they don't see the point.  We'd have a lot different country if they voted.

Art by Pawel Kuczynski; image from The Mind Unleashed

 The election equivalent of the grass these days is "JOBS."



NOTE:  For those wondering - especially after the previous post - I was holding a Yes sign.  I'd been called and asked to help out and I don't believe that blogging should cause me to give up participating in the political process.  Pretending I don't have a position on issues doesn't make my blog more objective.  It's better to be upfront about about my beliefs and activities, write as objectively as I can, and let the reader sort things out. 

Vampire History of Alaska - Why You Should Vote Yes on Prop 1 - UPDATED

[UPDATE Sept 25, 2018:  This November there is a new Prop 1 on the Alaska ballot.  This one would restore the public's ability to have input on projects that would impact them and the environment.  Input that was taken away, in part, when Republicans eliminated the Coastal Zone Management projections that every other coastal state still has.  Naturally (not the best choice of words here) the mineral and oil extraction industry is strongly opposed to this Proposition.  This post explains the historical patterns of non-Alaskans exploiting Alaska resources and taking most of the profits out of the state, so it's appropriate for understanding why we are having this battle yet again.  Mining and oil (particularly) companies - most headquartered outside of Alaska - don't want to have to deal with pesky locals who don't want their water and air and fish messed with unless there are careful reviews and guarantees that the project will be done right.

Go ahead and read this.  Once again the right response, from my perspective, is to vote yes.  Construction companies along with the extraction industry are making doomsday predictions how this proposition will stop all development dead.  Same arguments they made against environmentalist fighting the original oil pipeline.  All the environmentalists did was make the pipeline safer, though even that hasn't stopped oil spills here and there, not to mention Exxon-Valdez.  THIS POST"S DISCUSSION AT THE BOTTOM IS FOR THE 2014 PROPOSITION 1.  BUT THE VAMPIRE HISTORY IS STILL RELEVANT TO THE 2018 PROPOSITION 1, ]

[UPDATE Feb 21, 2018:  Note, this post is dated 2014 and this is a very different Prop 1 than we have an the ballot in April 2018.  Definitely Vote NO on this year's Prop. 1.]

Everyone knows vampires don't show up on photos.

"According to many tales a vampire will cast no reflection when in front of a mirror; in addition, a vampire's image can not be caught on film. So what then of digital cameras?

Before we tackle that question, we should first know why the myth exists in the first place. Mirrors were thought to show a person's soul. As a vampire has no soul (unless he is Angel) we must logically conclude that there will be no reflection. The same hold true for film and photographs - they too were thought to be creating an image of the soul. (Interestingly enough, some people were even afraid to have a picture taken of them, for fear of having their soul stolen!)

Based on these assumptions we must then conclude that a vampire would not show up in a picture taken by a digital camera for any mechanical device that reproduces an image of a being is actually only capturing their essence or soul. "  (From Everything2)

But I  frequently warn readers not to believe everything they read online.  In fact, this post is made possible by recent advances in vampirology and in technology.  It's been discovered that vampires actually have a negative soul. (Sorry, the link keeps crashing, and as you read on, you'll understand why.)  That vampire knowledge along with new technology that can find the vampire traces left in old photos,  allows historians to reprocess historical pictures (and even drawings) to reveal the vampires who were actually there all along.  This process is not yet available to the public, but through a friend of a friend,  I was able to give them five photos and one picture. That's all I can tell you.

Timber Vampires

The most successful of the ones I submitted has to be this Timber Vampire picture.  I used an historical photo I got from
AlaskaNativeStudies.  Other images came back looking like shoddy photoshopped work.  But the technology is in its infancy.  Additional sources for this and the other images are at the bottom. 


Of course, we all know that famous phrase, often attributed to Churchill, "History is written by the victors."  And so it is, that while vampires have been involved in much of world history, they have done a great job in scrubbing their malicious presence from the history books.  Of course, vampires do not die of natural causes, so they live a very long time.  That gives them a great advantage over humans.  They understand the rhythms of history.  They understand the weaknesses of human beings.  And they exploit them with deadly precision.

Currently Alaska is under a massive vampire attack as they use every trick in their arsenal to get Alaska voters to vote no on Prop 1.  This proposition would overturn SB 21 that gives oil companies a huge tax break and cuts the benefits Alaskans would get from their ownership of state oil.  It's vastly complicated and in this post I just want to put this particular human/vampire encounter into the context of the vampire history of Alaska. 

The basic pattern of vampire invasion of Alaska goes like this:

• The vampires sense an Alaskan resource is currently worth exploiting.
• They use any means necessary.  Earliest attempts used great violence, but that was before Alaska was well connected to the world and before media covered what was happening.  

Their schemes became more subtle as mass media and communication evolved.  Typically,

• they use the legal process to lay claim to resources
• they disguise themselves inside corporations 
• they infect a select and useful group of Alaskans such as legislators, business people, Republicans, and media to work for them
• they brain wash as many of the remaining Alaskans as possible to believe the vampire corporation(s) is 
• creating jobs, 
• bringing wealth to Alaska, 
• retrieving natural resources critical to US security
• that anyone opposing them is a communist, liar, environmentalist, or a combination of all the evil terms their focus groups discover, and 
• those evil opponents' agenda is to destroy Alaska and the civilized world
• they cause discord between urban and rural, Alaska Native and Non Native, public employees and private employees, etc.
• they deviously convince the poor and undereducated that the interests of the rich are their interests
• they destroy the land, the water, the flora, the fauna to get what they want as cheaply as possible
• they get their infected legislators to pass laws to restrict citizen participation, to hamper environmental protections, to build infrastructure needed to exploit the resource
• they sprinkle crumbs from their bloody profits on public buildings and on arts and charities leaving them indelibly marked with their corporate logos
• and they send the blood of Alaska back Outside to their vampire bosses

Some examples of vampire invasions in the last several centuries of Alaska history:

Seal Hunter Vampires

Among the first vampires to come to Alaska were those from Russia who killed seals and otters and Aleuts to enrich themselves in the fur trade.


Vampire Miners

Gold Mining Vampires

Minerals have been a favorite target of vampires in Alaska.  Above are some gold mining vampires.  Remember we can trace the pattern of blood sucking listed above in each of these waves of vampire.

Vampire Miners

Copper mining is another example.  In the case above, JP Morgan and the Guggenheim family vampires managed to mine $200 million (1930 dollars) of copper blood out of Alaska.  I'd note that I discovered, doing this post, that there's a whole special class of vampire miner  that tend to look more like computer game icons: 

Vampire Miners appear in cavern-level biomes and follow the Fighter AI. They wear (but do not drop) a Mining Helmet, which provides a small amount of light around them. This light can sometimes reveal sealed caves, much like blooming Blinkroot. Vampire miners can break down doors. Vampire Miners also have a brighter hue of red.  Vampire Miners are immune to the Poisoned debuff.

Fishing Vampires

Then there are the fishing vampires who have sucked the fish blood out of Alaska and sent it all Outside.  They infected some Alaskans, but many were - and still are - brought in from Outside. 





Timber Vampires

Getting the government to build roads, they clear cut forests, destroyed salmon streams, and generally sent raw timber away to be processed elsewhere. 










Oil Vampires

The largest current vampire invasion has been ongoing for over forty years.  The most visible damage of this invasion happened in 1989 in Prince William Sound.

Exxon Valdez Oil Vampire Work

Alaska's Current Vampire Threat Level

Image from here.

You can also see and hear the vampire handiwork today in newspapers, on television, on radio, on lawn signs as they use their huge corporate profits to convince Alaskans that if they don't vote no on Prop 1

• Alaskans will lose their jobs, 
• the oil companies will leave the state, 
• oil production will collapse, 
• income and sales taxes will be law
• everything that is good in Alaska will disappear.  

By Tuesday they'll be telling people Prop 1 will cause guns and penises to stop firing.

Just vampire business as usual in Alaska, as well as in their corporate colonies around the world.

Image from here.

The TRUTH?

If Prop 1 passes, none of those things will happen.  ACES will get revised in the next legislative session so that the tax rate at the high end will be adjusted.  And there will be enough money in the state budget to support schools and even reformed vampire support groups.  Sean, there's a way out.  The first step is

"admit to [your]self that something is seriously wrong in [your] life."

And where does Sarah Palin fit in here now that she officially supports Prop 1?  All I can say is there is a big difference between vampires and zombies.


Image sources:

Timber Vampire:
AlaskaNativeStudies
MLP Wikia
The Loneliest Vampire

Seal Hunter Vampire:
St. John's College, Cambridge

Gold Miner Vampires:
Media-Cache-AK

Copper Miner Vampire:
AlaskaDigitalArchives
Needcoolshoes
Zazzle

Fish Vampire:
Carmelfinley

Oil Vampire:
NOAA
AntiqueImages 

What Would You Do If Your Fiancé Bought Wedding Insurance?

I didn't know such a thing existed until we passed this banner last night.

How does one go about buying this insurance?  Does the couple buy it?  How do you bring this up?  "I love you and here's a fancy ring, but I bought wedding insurance just in case we change our minds"?  Does one person buy insurance without telling the other?  Does the wedding planner offer it in the wedding package?

Essentially, this sounds like bad decision insurance.  We could all use that.

"Hello, Allstate?  I just saw a really bad movie, could you send me a refund on the admission price?  Oh, and the dinner before the movie wasn't very good either."

"Geico, we've been in our new house three months now and we know it was a big mistake.  Please send our check to this new address."

"State Farm, I really thought an English major would be fantastic, but I'm graduated now and my unemployment runs out next week, so could you please refund me my tuition?"

Lots of opportunities.  "Travelers?  Look, our kids are turning 13 and 15 this year and it's clear we never should have had kids.  Could you please send the check?  Where should we drop off the kids?"

And you know how there are people who stage accidents or burn their businesses down to collect insurance?  Well, I'll bet there are guys who ask women to marry them so they can cancel and collect the insurance.

As is my wont, after writing all this, I decided to google and see what this is all about.  I was much too cynical.   Here's what Travelers' says:

Is your wedding at risk? Not to worry.
Travelers has covered customers through many wedding-day mishaps, including:

• Postponement due to family illnesses, untimely deaths, and travel delays

• Flowers and wedding photography that failed to arrive when promised

• Bakers, caterers, bridal boutiques, and wedding venues that went out of business

• No-show photographers and DJs

• Lost or damaged wedding rings, dresses and attire

• Damaged wedding cake, spoiled food, and other glitches in catering and entertainment

• And more…

Travelers starts at considerably more than $300.  

Title IX Training Suggests Big Changes On Campus: Being A Jerk No Longer Acceptable At UAA

I used to have to tell faculty, when I was a faculty union grievance rep, that simply being a jerk was not a grievable offense.  A supervisor had to violate a specific provision of the contract, the university policies and procedures, or the law before an action could be grieved.  The rules against harassment were very vague.

But if yesteday's Title IX training at UAA is serious (and I have no reason to question it), then being a jerk, if it manifests itself as bullying or other harassing behaviors, is now grievable.  This is big.  (Other jerk behaviors that are irritating, but not mean or intimidating are probably still ok.) And, of course, unwanted sexual advances have been taboo for a while now, but victims have a lot more with which to fight back.


This was mandatory training for faculty.  As people walked in, they had to sign the list of names that they were there.  If your name wasn't on the list - mine wasn't since I'm retired and not teaching this semester - you signed another elsewhere.  I don't know what happens to faculty that didn't get the training yesterday or earlier in the summer.  But the auditorium was pretty much full.




What I Thought Was Significant

1.  This is serious.  

• It was mandatory.
• Chancellor Tom Case opened it and supported the idea of treating everyone with respect, but also said there were significant consequences for universities that are not in compliance.
• The United Academics (the faculty union) president Abel Bult-Ito was down from Fairbanks to say the union was co-sponsoring the event, emphasizing protections are in place not only for students, but for faculty and staff as well.
• Faculty Senate President Diane Hirschberg then briefly discussed national and local cases.  She said that Jerry Sandusky had cost Penn State, just in fees and fines, $69 million.  Hirschberg's own alma mater Berkeley had its own recent case, and UAA's women's volley ball coach was our own recent incident.  She also talked about a New York Times story about how badly a new student's rape by football team members was handled by campus authorities
• This training was happening because UAA is on a list of school being investigated on their Title IX implementation.
• And she told the faculty that new legislation has been introduced that includes fines up to 1% of a school's budget and $150,000 per incident.

• And the Clery Act.  From the Clery Center:

"Originally known as the Campus Security Act, the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (20 USC § 1092(f)) is the landmark federal law that requires colleges and universities across the United States to disclose information about crime on and around their campuses. The law is tied to an institution's participation in federal student financial aid programs and it applies to most institutions of higher education both public and private. The Clery Act is enforced by the United States Department of Education."

2.  There are people to back this up and these folks appear to be good

Whaley, Micek, and Trew

The three main presenters - Stephanie Whaley, Jerry Trew, and Mandee Micek - are key people in the team of investigators and support staff for faculty and students.  Jerry and Mandee are both former police officers and are attorneys.  The presentation was straightforward, the content was to the point, and I got the sense that these people knew what they were doing and did it well.

And there are others on campus.  There is a web of different offices and as I look at my notes and pictures and what's on the web, I'm a little confused.  This needs to be more straightforward.  I know they talked about a Care Team yesterday and there's a Title IX team, and there are others doing overlapping work in different parts of the campus.  Stephanie Whaley came to the Title IX team form Residence Life which handles things in the dorms.



The sense I got was that there now are people on campus whose job it is to:
1.  investigate complaints
2.  advocate for victims
3.  help faculty and staff and students report problems
4.  help potential offenders get help to modify their behavior

And there are requirements to report violations.  It doesn't have to include a name, but if someone finds out about a sexual assault or about harassment, they have a mandatory duty to report.

I had a chance to talk to Jerry and Stephanie afterward.  I came in with some skepticism based on over 30 years at UAA.  But I'm impressed with these folks.  They could disappoint me down the line, but I suspect that will only happen if they don't get the support they need from the administration. It's encouraging to learn that two colleges rescheduled major functions so faculty could attend this training yesterday. 

3.  It includes various forms of harassment including bullying.  

Faculty and supervisors and students who bully, who intimidate, who create a hostile environment are no longer just jerks, they are in violation of university policy and (if I understood this right) federal law.  They can be complained against and there are people who are there to advocate for the victims.

This is big.  I can tell lots of stories I've experienced, witnessed, and heard over the years at UAA.  Bullying had plenty of practitioners. There is now an avenue for correcting these folks who make working and student life miserable for others.  Administration is no longer looking the other way, no longer saying "he's just that way, don't let it bother you."  This is big.


4. If You Can't Remember What All Was Covered (highly likely) Call  The Office of Campus Diversity And Compliance 786 4680

There was too much information, much of it was general and putting it into practice is a lot easier said then done.  People need to do role-playing to develop scripts for responding to students who are in trouble or to confront harassers.  You can't just tell people to not be emotional.  If it were that easy, we'd all get along fine.  But I talked to Jerry and Stephanie afterward and they understand this.

There's still a lot of conversation to be had.  During the break, three different people touched me when the talked to me.  This was right after a discussion about touching others.  There was nothing wrong with the pats on the arm, but I suspect discussions on welcome and unwelcome touching would be useful, because there's a big gray area here where people could conceivably get into trouble for what they thought were innocent touches.  (And I want people to be able to continue touching.)

The reporting requirements need more explanation - like what to report, when to report, how to report, and to whom to report.  All that was discussed, but people need to walk through this.  It's all new territory for many.

But that's why I say, a key point I took out of the meeting was just to call.  And there will be other options to get more specific behavioral training on all this.

All in all, this was an auspicious start.


My Conclusion 

This is BIG!  This is bigger than the end to smoking in classrooms and then in buildings completely.  And that was huge.  This sets in place people who are trained to deal with sexual assault victims.  This makes campuses accountable to the federal government with large potential fines for violations.  It sets in place more training and education for potential victims and potential perpetrators.

But within the package here, yelling and bullying are no longer acceptable behaviors.  I'd suggest buying stock in anger management training, because people in authority who have been used to bullying their staff will now be sent to anger management classes and if they don't learn, they'll be out.

Of course, this all requires enough resources and follow through.  And some of the worst offenders are those in positions of authority.  There will be resistance.  And smoking was a much more tangible behavior - it was clearly visible and the odor lingered long after.

But with everyone carrying around a audio and video recorder in their phone these days, and with text messages recorded as well, I don't think there will be any lack of evidence.

When I think of the oppressive environment I moved into here in 1977, this is huge. I can think of a number of women faculty who suffered from the arrogance and power of male colleagues and supervisors.   Power is still power though, even if it is more polite.  But life should become a lot more pleasant on campus.  And as people learn to see their own behavior as unacceptable, they may even grow as human beings.

One final note.  It will take time for folks to work out the difference between acceptable and unacceptable behavior.  When is something legitimate disagreement and when does it become intimidation?  When is touching a means of communication and when is it just creepy or menacing?  Those who see things in black and white will want clear-cut descriptions of what is and isn't ok.  And that won't be possible.  These folks who have trouble reading non-verbal communication will need to err on the side of very conservative interpretation.  If they aren't sure, they shouldn't do it. 

Happy Birthday Party In Absentia For Walt Parker Monday Night

I always thought I had a special relationship with Lydia Selkregg.  We'd both started teaching at UAA the same semester, though she'd been in Anchorage a long time and I'd just arrived.  She treated me like family and we even shared the same birthday.  When I went to her memorial at the Fourth Avenue Theater I listened in as person after person said they had a special relationship with her.  I was a bit chagrined to find out that so many other people had their own special relationship with her.  But I quickly realized what a great reflection  that was on her as a human being.  It was a quality I wanted to strive for even though I'm much more introverted than Lydia was.

I thought of Lydia Monday night at the Hilltop Ski Area chalet as people great and humble gathered to celebrate what would have been Walt Parker's 88th birthday.  Walt shared that quality with Lydia - everyone felt they had (and did have) a special relationship with Walt.  Including the Selkregg family.

There were a number of notables there, including former Democratic Governor Steve Cowper who appointed Walt as head of the Exxon-Valdez Oil Spill Commission.  Also there was Republican Lt. Governor Mead Treadwell.  A number of Walt's sled dogs were outside.  They've all found new homes.  Someone said that when Walt died, they all began to howl and Monday evening's festivities ended with everyone howling for Walt.

Prop 1 Boils Down To: Who Do You Trust?

This truck was parked outside the Bear Tooth when I came out of the  Alaska Dispatch News and UAA sponsored debate on Prop. 1. 

It seemed to sum up the question that voters have to answer to vote on this.  Do they trust the oil companies that worked hard to pass SB 21 (that Prop. 1  would overturn)?  Or do they trust those who are saying SB 21 is a giveaway to the oil companies?

Wielechoski and Croft

Speaking for Prop 1 (to repeal SB 21 and return to ACES) were Senator Bill Wielechowski and former Senator and University Regent (when the Board hired Mark Hamilton) Chancey Croft. 

Smith and Hamilton

Opposed were Mark Hamilton,  President Emeritus of the University of Alaska and Doug Smith, CEO of Little Red Services.

It cost $15 a head to get in, but the theater was full.










The debate was moderated by Steve Johnson, speech professor and director of the amazing UAA debate program.  And much of the proceeds were to support the UAA debate program.

Even though this was probably the debate with the most well prepared presenters I walked out still scratching my head over the facts.  Wielechowki went through a history of broken oil company promises and asked why we should trust them now.  Hamilton said it wasn't about trusting the oil companies, but about trusting facts.

But what are the facts?  Both sides cite facts that support their position and both sides say no one can predict the numbers when the facts don't support them.

• Did state oil revenue go up under ACES?  Both sides agree it did.  
• Will SB 21 raise our oil production to 1 million barrels a day as the governor predicted?  Both sides agree that isn't going to happen, but the No side says SB 21 will produce more oil than ACES.
• Would a return to ACES destroy incentives to develop more oil in Alaska?  The two sides disagree strongly here.  The No folks say the high taxes when prices are high scare away oil companies and at low oil prices SB 21 brings in much more.  The Yes folks say the high taxes in ACES are paired with high tax write-offs that spur new production.  
• Did ACES cause oil companies to leave Alaska for North Dakota and other states?  The No folks make this argument strongly.  The Yes side say it wasn't the taxes but the lower costs of extracting shale oil in locations closer to markets. [I heard that in other places, they didn't actually say that tonight.
• Will ACES or SB 21 give Alaska more revenue in the future?  That's where both sides differ greatly.  It depends on whether oil prices stay above a certain level and how much production there is.  And no one can predict that.  

Doug Smith said SB 21 should be given a chance and if, in a few years, the predicted new development doesn't happen, then he will be right in front of the line to get the legislature to change the law.  But with oil companies helping to elect legislators, is that really going to happen?  However, if Prop 1 passes, I guarantee that ACES will be amended in the next session to deal with some of the tax issues when oil is at a very high price.

Other issues that came up:

The Yes side raised the ethical issue of two legislators who are highish level Conoco-Philips employees who recused themselves, but were then told they had to vote and ended up voting in favor of SB 21. Without their votes it wouldn't have passed. The No side said these were honest and honorable men and wouldn't have voted against the state's interests and that not voting disenfranchises their constituents.
The Yes side countered with:  Can you see an oil company employee going back to his Conoco-Philips bosses and saying, "I thought it through and decided against saving you $600 million a year"?
Now, I suspect that an oil company employee probably thinks that changing to SB 21 is a good idea anyway and that their constituents knew they were oil company employees when they elected them.  On the other hand, if legislators who had this kind obvious sort of conflict-of-interest were not allowed to vote on issues they had a direct vested interest in, then voters would know that if there were a lot of oil bills, then a particular candidate would not be able to vote.

Both sides agreed that ACES earned more revenue for the state than SB 21 would have in the last few years - though they didn't agree on how much more.  And they completely disagreed on what would happen in the future.  And since that depends on the price of oil and the amount of oil, we can only guess on that.


It was pointed out that the oil companies very legitimately work to maximize their profits and that bargaining with them requires state negotiators to be doing the same thing for Alaskans.  The Yes folks didn't think having a former Conoco-Phillips attorney/lobbyist act as the state's negotiator was a good sign. 

Wielechowski said that the Norwegian Fund which began in the late 1990s now has $900 billion while our Permanent Fund, begun well before, only has about $51 billion.  Smith countered that Norway continues to tax its citizens at a high rate and uses only a tiny percentage of the fund each year.  He personally didn't want to pay that kind of tax.

But I thought about that.  Since Norway is a country.  Leaving it means changing one's nationality.  Alaska is but one state in the United States and a large percentage of oil company employees either moved to Alaska from other states or commute from their home states to work in Alaska.  Having a state tax and a large fund for the future would weed out people coming to Alaska to make a quick fortune and leave from those who plan to stay.  It would also weed out people who come to Alaska to get the Permanent Fund dividend.  Personally, I'd rather have people here who plan to stay and who are interested in investing in Alaska's future.

There was more, but you get the gist.  I agree with Mark Hamilton that we should focus on facts, to the extent that we can.  The historic facts seem to say that ACES was a better deal for the state than SB 21 would have been - even if people disagree on how much better.  Looking to the future, the facts are more slippery.  It depends on a number of things:

• the future price of oil
• the amount of oil produced
• the cost of recovering Alaska oil compared to the cost of recovering oil elsewhere
• the impacts on large and small producers
• the impacts on old and new fields

In my mind, it really does boil down to Who Do You Trust?  The 'facts' are too complex for most voters to determine, and too dependent on assumptions about the factors listed above for anyone to know with certainty. 

Should the public trust the oil companies who had behind-closed-doors meetings with Gov. Murkowski to come up with PPT which crashed when the FBI found Bill Allen paying legislators to vote for the oil bill?  Who send huge profits out of the state each year?  Who were unwilling to make any promises in exchange for the huge tax cuts they got  in SB 21?  Who are spending millions to defeat SB 21?

Or should they trust those Alaskans who are working on their own time with their own money and who stand to gain no more than any other Alaskan?

There are well known and respected people on both sides.  Some of the difference in opinion can be traced to different world views - Republicans tending to trust business more than government and Democrats leaning the other way.  But the key players on the No side are oil companies, oil industry related companies, and their employees.  Their payoff from the tax cuts are immediate.  


Doug Smith said we should give it a chance (which reflects the latest oil company ads and is far different from the governor's certainty when he was pushing this in the legislature) and come back in three years if it isn't working.  I think the odds of that happening are pretty slim.  After the last round of redistricting we're likely to have strong Republican majorities at least until the next census data in 2020 and redistricting, and they're not going to repeal SB 21.  But, if Prop 1 passes, there's no doubt in my mind that ACES will be on the table for changes in Juneau next session. 


What I think everyone should agree on, is looking at what Alaska will do when the oil runs out.  We've been kicking that barrel down the road since the oil began to flow.  Both sides pointed out that our (Republican-controlled) administration and legislature have spent wildly the last couple of years.  And since we don't have $900 billion, or even $100 billion, in our Permanent Fund, we need to start thinking seriously about the future.