Alaska Dems Join Alaska First Unity Party - Daring or Desperation?

What Just Happened?

Alaska's Democratic candidate for governor Byron Mallot on Wednesday became the running mate for a lifelong Republican Bill Walker who is running as an Independent.  There will be no Democratic candidate for governor and Mallot has taken the number two spot on the Alaska First Unity Party ticket.

Mallot's Lt. Gov running mate, Hollis French, and Walker's running mate, Craig Fleenor, both agreed to withdraw.

The ADN has a page looking at how things got to this point.

So Who Is Bill Walker?

Bill Walker is a Republican running as an independent against the sitting Republican governor Sean Parnell.  From Walker's "Why I'm Running" statement:

 “It is time to pull together in order to move the state forward and seek not what is in the best interests of the Republicans or the Democrats, but aggressively pursue what is in the best interests of Alaskans,”. . .  

“I am not running for governor to advance a political career. I am running to assure that Alaska regains control of our resources and our future without bowing to party or special interests.”

People I've talked to say he's a straight-up guy and that this is genuine, not posturing



So, Daring or Desperation?

First, never accept simplistic binary options like this.  Either/or statements, especially about human relationships, are almost always gross simplifications.  There are lots of options between the two poles of the continuum. And there are other continua you could lay over this situation.

Second, I'd say it was both.  Let's start with the desperation part and then go to the daring.

The Desperation Part
 
Mallot has an incredible resume of service to Alaska:

• life-long Alaskan who's held high level positions 
• in most administrations since Statehood, including Executive Director of the one sacred agency in Alaska, the Permanent Fund, 
• in banking, heading several banks and serving on the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
• in Alaska Native leadership positions including CEO of Sealaska Native Corporation and President of the Alaska Federation of Native
• in local politics as Mayor of Juneau

But as a campaigner, he's failed to light up audiences. Republicans will claim this abandonment of a Democratic candidate on the ballot just shows how weak the Mallot's campaign is and they wouldn't be wrong.   Polls showed Republican governor Sean Parnell way ahead in a three way race against, it's closer in a two way race.  


The Daring Part

Daring:  : "willing to do dangerous or difficult things"

The Democrats are making a number of unprecedented moves and putting their fate in the hands of a Republican who lost in the Republican primary in 2010. There are a number of open questions:

• What will be the long term effect of not having a Democratic candidate - the first time since statehood in 1959?
• What influence will the Democrats have from the second spot on a team headed by a Republican. [Actually Walker changed his affiliation to Undeclared just before this went down.  But that doesn't change his long held conservative values.]
• Will a Walker/Mallot coalition in Juneau be better than Parnell/Sullivan?  [It's hard to ask that question with a straight face, but it's true the election will be between two Republicans.] 
• Will Democrats field a candidate against Walker in 2018, if the Independents win in 2014?
• Will Walker stick by his non-partisan rhetoric after the election?  After four years?
• How will this affect the next redistricting in 2020 if Walker is reelected?  Will he let his Lt. Gov pick one of the two governor picked members of the board?

While the agreement includes Walker promising not to push for more abortion restrictions, there's no guarantee of what will actually happen if he gets elected.

What I see as significant about this move is the willingness of the Democrats to marry outside their religion - so to speak - in order to defeat Parnell.  Third party candidates have impacted Alaska gubernatorial elections in the past, and with Walker and Mallot likely to split their voters if they compete, people expected that Parnell would cruise to reelection.

So, What Are The Answers?

Were they desperate?  I don't know that that's the right word, but unless something quite remarkable happened, they weren't going to win the election.  The odds for the Walker/Mallot team are much better.  I would say that Mallot has the experience and knowledge and integrity that would be great in a governor, but not the skills that are great in a candidate.  Some of this may be cultural.  Modesty, not trying to bring attention to oneself, speaking slowly and deliberately have all been mentioned as characteristics of traditional Alaska Native cultures.  But modern American electioneering - the self-promotion, the need for snappy sound bytes - don't favor that style. 


Were they daring?   To the extent that they broke with politics as usual?  Absolutely.  They weren't hung up about not having a Democratic candidate running for governor.  They accepted Mallot running for Lt. Gov with a conservative Republican.  (Who changed his affiliation to Nonpartisan just before this happened.)  I was surprised by the reporters at the press conference who harped on Walker's changing to Nonpartisan and on Mallot's 'abandoning' the people who voted for him as the Democratic governor candidate.  Yes, there might be a few people who aren't into daring, but there will always be people who can't handle change. 

I think that the 89-2 vote by the Democratic central committee suggests that they felt it would take them from a certain Parnell victory to a good chance of a Parnell defeat.  And I'm sure they would say that was more important than some hypothetical obligation to primary voters in this instance. 

And it's daring in the risky sense, because if Walker is elected, there's no telling what he will actually do as governor.  Lt. Govs have been left out in the cold before.  I wonder to what extent Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell's speedy approval of this plan was partly in reaction to how he's been treated by Parnell.  And Walker promised that Mallot would be in the governor's office, not 300 feet away. 

People have had time to watch Walker.  Mallot said that on the election trail the last year, he's grown to know and respect Walker, and Walker said the same of Mallot.  My sense is that Walker's zeal is for energy issues and a gas pipeline and he can live without pushing conservative social issues.  But that does remain to be seen. 

I think the most attractive part of this ticket will be the bold action they've taken to break from traditional partisanship.   They aren't just talking nonpartisan - they've done it.   If the people who complain about how bad partisan politics has become are serious, then voting for Walker/Mallot is a way of showing it. 

And while Republicans have a large edge over Democrats in voter registration, more people are registered as Nonpartisan and Undeclared than as Democrats and Republicans combined.  (If you register as Independent in Alaska, that's really the Alaska Independence Party that's at times advocated for Alaska to secede from the US.  Nonpartisan means you aren't connected to any party, and Undeclared means you don't want to say.)


So, I'd say this was a daring act spurred by the belief that there was not way the Democrats or Walker, both running separately, could defeat Parnell.  It will stir up an election already packed with initiatives (legalizing marijuana, raising the minimum wage, and  protecting Bristol Bay salmon ostensibly from Pebble Mine) and one of the most expensive US Senate races in the country between Sen. Mark Begich and Dan Sullivan.  There's also an Anchorage Municipal referendum to repeal a controversial labor ordinance.    



Below is video from the Tuesday (September 2, 2014) announcement at the Captain Cook Hotel.  First, Mallot, and then Walker.  So you can get a sense of these two candidates yourselves.




Here's Walker.






More photos of the press conference are at this previous post.

Gamble Asks Board To Review $360K Retention Bonus

UA Outreach sent a heads-up email (see the whole email below) yesterday to "Dear University Employee" about a press release entitled "UA’s Gamble requests board to review retention incentive."

This is a positive development.  There's been a lot of backlash both inside and outside the university to the $320,000 retention bonus the board of regents voted to give the president.  The board president has strongly defended the bonus as the right thing to do, making it hard for her to back down now.  So the president's asking them to review it is a way for them to do so and save face.  But it sounds so half-hearted.

As I read the release, I noticed that the president danced around the issue.  He doesn't ask the board to withdraw the bonus.  He doesn't say he won't take the bonus.  And most importantly, he doesn't assure that board that he will stay to finish the Shaping Alaska's Future project that board president Jacobson touted as key evidence of the exemplary work the president was doing. 

“I very much appreciate the board’s support, but this issue will remain the elephant in the room every time we meet with faculty, staff, a donor or a legislator,” Gamble said. “The decision ultimately is up to the board, but the timing isn’t right and I think the board is very sensitive to that now.”
Gamble made the remarks during a noon presentation of the Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce today. He said he couldn’t predict what the board will do, but feels certain the board will consider the situation with the public sentiment in mind."

 "The decision ultimately is up to the board."   As I see it, it is ultimately up to President Gamble.  He can refuse it.  He can return it to one of the various funds and foundations at the university. In an earlier post, I cited the example of Raymond Burse, interim president of Kentucky State University who gave $90,000 of his salary to raise the salary of minimum wage employees at KSU.

One could argue this phrasing is simply a reflection of the president's long military career and he's following the university chain of command, deferring to the board at the top. (And his wording suggests the board was out of touch when he says, "the board is very sensitive to that now.") 

But that's one of the problems many at the university have with the president.  The university isn't a military organization with a rigid chain of command.  It's a collaborative organization where governance is democratic and collegial.

Most vexing to me is the lack of assurance from the president that he will stay to finish the work he's begun, at least until June 2016.  I understand the board's concern that they might have to conduct a search for a new president.  Searches can be expensive and finding a good candidate who will accept the position is not assured.

This retention bonus covers three years, starting in June 2013 when the last contract ended.  There's no explanation of why it took a year to renew the contract, but the practical consequence is that over one-third of the retention bonus time has already passed, and as of today, there are only 22 months left in the new contract.  Surely the president could assure the board, for the sake of a smooth and well planned transition, that he will stay until then.   That would give the board the security of knowing he plans to stay and remove the need for such a bonus.  Does he not plan to stay?  Is that why he doesn't say it?

Instead, he says "the timing isn't right."  Does that mean they should wait for a better time? 

OK, as someone who writes every day, I know that it is easy to misinterpret what someone says. Every reader reads the words differently.   I'm just saying that as a retired faculty member with 30 years at UAA, I felt that the president could have made a statement that was more in tune with the university culture.  He needed to send several messages to several constituencies (the regents, the university community, the state), both with what he said and how he said it:

1. I've learned about the university culture, I've learned your language and values
2. I assure you I'll finish the work I started and stay until June 2016, and so there's no need for a retention bonus
3. Given the state's and university's budget problems, giving me a bonus big enough to pay for three senior faculty is inappropriate.  
4. I urge the board to rescind the bonus and use that money to save programs we have had to cut instead.  [I'd note though, that this is future money, not current money.]

Of the four statements above, the only one he made was #3, and that was supported this way:

"The retention incentive has become a negative distraction at a time when there is a great need for all levels of the university community to pull together."

The problem, he says, is that the bonus is a distraction.  He doesn't say it was wrong.  It seems he still doesn't get it. 



Here's the whole email sent out:

Dear University of Alaska Employee:

Please be aware that the following media release is being issued this afternoon. We wanted you to know about this prior to reading it in the press:
________________________________________________

For Immediate Release
Tuesday, Sept. 2, 2014

UA’s Gamble requests board to review retention incentive

University of Alaska President Pat Gamble has requested the 11-member Board of Regents revisit the issue of a $320,000 retention incentive approved in June.

The board is scheduled to gather in a special meeting Sept. 8 in Anchorage, largely to meet in executive session to discuss financial and budgetary issues. However, Gamble said he anticipates the regents will take another look at the retention incentive, which would be payable at the end of his current three-year contract in May 2016.

The timing of the retention incentive, while offered with good intentions, has been difficult to justify in the public eye as UA works to meet current and expected budgetary and enrollment challenges, Gamble said. It comes at a time when higher education nationally is undergoing rapid change, as students and parents expect greater results, more efficiency and more accountability from public colleges and universities. The retention incentive has become a negative distraction at a time when there is a great need for all levels of the university community to pull together, Gamble said.

“I very much appreciate the board’s support, but this issue will remain the elephant in the room every time we meet with faculty, staff, a donor or a legislator,” Gamble said. “The decision ultimately is up to the board, but the timing isn’t right and I think the board is very sensitive to that now.”

Gamble made the remarks during a noon presentation of the Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce today. He said he couldn’t predict what the board will do, but feels certain the board will consider the situation with the public sentiment in mind.

The regents approved the retention incentive at the June 5-6, 2014 meeting. It was intended to reward performance, with a powerful inducement for Gamble to remain on the job through the end of his contract in May 2016 and to continue forward momentum on the Shaping Alaska’s Future initiative.

“I’d like to put this issue to rest, and for myself, my administration, all of our campus leaders and the regents to focus on the tough tasks ahead, moving the University of Alaska into a stronger, more efficient and highly effective student-centered institution that is worthy of the highest expectations of Alaskans,” Gamble said.
 

Walker and Mallot First Public Appearance As Running Mates

Mallot and Walker

Time doesn't wait for lazy bloggers and my post about the unprecedented abandonment of a Democratic candidacy for governor wasn't finished when it was time to get to the Captain Cook to see the new election team.

So I'll put up some pictures here and give a few highlights.  Then I'll go back to the original post and finish it. [UPDATE Sept 4:  Here it is with video.]





Craig Fleenor, Walker's original running mate, opened things up with what would be one of the themes of the day - this is not about me, it's about what's best for Alaska.  Hollis French was not there, but Walker said he was part of the discussions leading to this decision and he had been invited. 

The audience

Judging from the number of media in the audience at the Captain Cook's Quarterdeck, you'll be seeing and hearing plenty of video and getting lots of accounts of what happened.


Mallot spoke first, surrounded by his wife and son. He spoke of how this came about - the polls strongly said he couldn't win if both he and Walker ran.  He said that the two had become friends at debates where Gov. Parnell did not show up. 

It was a hard decision and if the Party hadn't approved, he would have kept on as a Democrat. 

Mallot did allow that while the two were sitting in the back of a four-wheeler in Gamble, he did wonder what would happen if Walker fell out. 


Walker, surrounded by his wife, some of his kids, and Mallot,  said that Wally Hickel had introduced him in this very room when he ran for Governor last time.  He noted that Hickel told him he should run as an independent, not as a Republican.  "He was right."

He called himself a conservative, and in response to questions, said they were running on fiscal and energy issues, not social issues.  He would leave abortion laws as they are and he had no interest in vouchers.  He's not running on social issues.



The major theme seemed to be:  end to politics as usual, end to partisanship, his government would be peopled with qualified candidates regardless of political affiliation.

He also said that the Lt. governor's office would be in with the governor's office, not 300 feet away.  They would work as a team.

Another theme was integrity and honesty - at one point Mallot said people would have to trust him, that they should look at what he's said in the past and what he's done.  This skeptic, based on what I've heard about these two candidates in the past and saw today, these are two, as Mallot said, "very principled men."

When asked what this administration would be known for in after their first term, Walker listed:

• Lowering the cost of energy in Alaska
• Education improvements
• An administration that went where other were uncomfortable to go
• Infrastructure improvements
• The gas pipeline
• Action, not so much talking and studying

When asked about the difference between Walker/Mallot and Parnell, Walker said:

• Leadership - there isn't any now
• Putting Alaska first
• Listening, reaching out
• No party lines - if it's good for Alaska, we'll do it

He also made the state deficit a key focus.  The governor's budget office foresees deficit spending for the next ten years.  We have to acknowledge it, do something about it, stop studying.  There were no vetoes of the capital budget by the governor.  We can't keep doing that.  No more no-bid contracts for work like the LIO remodeling.

"We need an owner of the ranch, not a ranch hand, as governor."


There was a sense of excitement in the room.  This decision - a Republican and a Democrat joining together - certainly is a dramatic action rather than just words. 

& Sons

I heard an interview with David Gilbert, the author of & Sons, on the car radio this summer in San Francisco, where I was headed to the hospital to see my son's new baby boy.

& Sons is about the relationships between fathers and sons - Gilbert saying he was dealing with an elderly father and a teenage son.  Well I'd just been in LA visiting my 92 year old mom and was now headed to my son and grandson.  It seemed like a book I could relate to and might be a good birthday present for my son who was in the middle between his dad and his son.

Sometime later I saw a woman on the Bainbridge Island ferry with a copy of the book and asked her about it.  She was midway through and her comment wasn't ecstatic, but she was going to finish it.

I finally got a copy from the library and for the first 150 pages I couldn't decide if I wanted to finish it or not.  I liked how Gilbert used words, but my reaction was similar to my reaction to A Serious Man.  I didn't particularly like the characters, most of whom live in a very privileged New York life where money is no object.   If Schadenfreude is you thing, then maybe you'll like this.

As a blogger, I deal with the task of trying to weave together different themes, and moving from one to the other without losing the reader completely.  It's not easy and I was often impressed with how Gilbert told this story.  Lots was going on.  There's the main story - the reunion of the father and sons in New York after a plea from the father for his estranged son to come back to New York from California.  The father is a famous novelist whose most well known work, Ampersand (remember the title?), is a loosely fictionalize account of things that happened in the author's life.  There are individual stories of the three sons and the father before the New York meeting and during it.   AND there are the excerpts from Ampersand and other novels, that give us some of the back story.  Using the novels is a neat way to remind us that the 'real story' is just an account of what happened and not necessarily a truer account than the fictional account.

All these are woven together and it took me a while to figure out how this worked and who was who.  I didn't mention the father/author's best friend - at whose funeral the book begins - and that best friend's son, whose voice shows up as the narrator unexpectedly throughout.  I say unexpectedly because his voice weaves in after we hear stories he couldn't have known about the others.

This works spectacularly well when (yet another character I haven't mentioned yet - the mother of two of the sons and ex-wife of the father) is called by her two sons to check on their dad because they're sure he's losing his mind.  Her real time journey from her Connecticut home by train into the City is interspersed with excerpts from Ampersand which involve how she met the best friend and then the author/husband to be.  Just before she rings the bell at the New York apartment she abandoned 17 years earlier to see her ex-husband for the first time in maybe as many years, we get the story of how she first met him when she was 14 and he was 17.  Then back to now and the third son, the one whose birth precipitated her departure, and whom she has never met, opens the door, and she is seeing, once again, her ex-husband for the first time.

There is a lot about family relationships to mull over in this book.  Friendship is another key theme.  And, of course, there's the issue of writing fiction and fame.  Maybe if I grew up in New York City this would have more appeal.  Or if I'd gone to a prep school.  Or if my parents had so much money that it was never an issue and they hobnobbed with the rich and famous regularly - were the rich and famous - I'd be able to relate to this more.  It was a hard read.  And I'm still trying to decide whether the father-son issues that come up in this book are relevant enough to my relationships to recommend this book to my son. 

The ability to develop a complex structure that reflects and reinforces the themes of a novel is one of the factors that can move it from merely a good book to literature.  Gilbert does offer us this sort of complexity and it often works well as in the passages of the ex-wife's journey to see the author.  But other times I wondered how much was attempting to hard to be clever and complicated and how much really worked.  To give an easy example, just look at the book's cover.  Three letters are white.  The author/father in the story is N. A. Dyer.  It's an added layer, I felt too much was just a clever gimmick rather than rich,  meaningful, and intrinsic.  It felt put together rather than a naturally coherent whole. 


 And  going back and forth at times between what was happening now in what would be assumed the main story line - the coming together of the all the brothers and father in New York - with separate stories both before and during the New York reunion of each of the characters, AND with their history as portrayed in the novels of the father.  I should say, the father is a famous author whose most well known book, Ampersand (remember the books the title?)

Unexpected Art Gallery - Cedars-Sinai Hospital Hallways

[I'm putting this up as a new post because I've added so much since I posted a preview before catching a plane yesterday.  All images get better if you click on them.]

We ran across an unexpected art gallery in the halls of Cedars-Sinai hospital in LA visiting with my mom who had an infection.  There were a lot of great prints and lithographs from world class artists on the walls of her floor.  The knife is part of a Claes Oldenburg called The Knife/Ship.

You can see the hospital setting here.

OK, this is just a preview.  I have to board now.  I'll add more when I get home.

[UPDATE Sunday Aug. 31 11 am]  I'm home, well we got home a little after midnight, and here are some more form the hospital art gallery.








I'm a big David Hockney fan and there were three of his works.  This first one "The Wind" is particularly cool at this location because the hospital is very close to Melrose Avenue.

I can just imagine him driving in a convertible when the wind suddenly blows his sketches off into the air. 

 This one is called James.

I'd never heard of this artist, Philip Guston, but I thought the lithograph interesting.  It's called "The Curtain."




















This poster wasn't labeled other than it was in Albany, New York.

















A couple of Roy Lichtenstein posters:

The small print says it was paid for by the Democratic National Party in 1992.

This is Point by Sam Francis.  His bio suggests that it's very appropriate for his work to be in a hospital corridor:

"In 1941 Francis enrolled at the University of California, Berkeley, to study medicine, but joined the U.S. Army Air Corps in 1943. Because of a spinal injury sustained during flight training, Francis spent most of his military life confined to a hospital bed. While recuperating, he began to paint in watercolors. David Park, who taught painting at the California School of Fine Arts (now the San Francisco Art Institute), visited Francis in the hospital, bringing with him paintings from a local private collection, including examples by Miró, Klee, and Picasso."

 A few of the hospital employees asked me questions about the art work, why I was taking pictures, did I like the pieces.  They were quite surprised when I said that some of these pieces were done by some of the most well known artists of the 20th Century.  One asked how the artists related to Van Gogh, the only name she could think of and who had no idea when he lived and painted.  She eventually came up with another name - Picasso.
I pointed out this one, which is a Warhol, but the exhibit includes Picasso.

"From Picasso to Warhol  - Art Gallery Cologne

These would probably be characterized as minor pieces and all seemed to be posters or lithographs, but still, passing through these halls everyday and taking a few seconds to check the names, would be like taking a short art class.  They'd at least learn to recognize the pieces and the artists.

This was just one wing of one floor.  Every floor, I was told, had similar works of art.  Unlike, say Providence Hospital in Anchorage, where most of the art work is feel good art, mostly pretty scenery, these are much more intellectual and experimental.  Not the kind of stuff I expected to see in the hospital.

All the Cedars' art seems to have been donated, which explains the eclectic collection.  At Providence it looks more like the art was purchased by an interior designer.  That doesn't mean there aren't serious pieces of art at Providence, but I don't recall ever seeing a challenging piece of art there. 

One could make the argument that feel good art is appropriate in a hospital.  But I'd say challenging art that make you think is maybe more appropriate in a space where people are dealing with life threatening situations - both the patients and the visitors. 

While art dominated the walls, there were also poster like displays as well relating to medical research and findings.  Again, these were more than simple warnings to wash your hands.  They also explained why.  Some examples:

University of Alaska President Retention Bonus Part 3: The Salary Survey

In response to my request the other day to Board of Regents Chair Jacobson, the UA Public Affairs  office sent me a page from the salary survey the Board used to determine President Gamble's salary.  I'm adding it at the bottom of this post, so people have more information with which to understand the Regents' decision.  I haven't had time to do research on the comparable universities, but I thought I should put it up so others could review it.

First, though, let me preface the data with a discussion of salary surveys and executive pay in general.

Salary surveys are routinely used by organizations to determine the 'market value' of  various positions.  This is then used to set the pay for the positions in the organization.

A"pay philosophy" is what the organization uses as a standard to determine how to use the salary survey to set pay for their positions.  These usually relate to how close to the prevailing wage they want to set their salaries.  Some want to be known as paying above the average, others below.  In the email to me, Kate Ripley wrote:

"The regents' goal for some time now has been to pay at 10 percent below the market median. "

For some job categories, where there are large numbers of incumbents who do relatively the same functions - like different categories of nurses -  surveys are pretty easy to do.  In cases like nurses, geographic area may be a key factor.

For job categories where the population is much smaller - like university president - nationwide salary surveys are more likely.  For executive jobs that are more unique, the trick is to compare institutions that are similar in important ways, where the job has more or less the same challenges.  For CEO's things get pretty tricky trying to identify comparable organizations with comparable CEO roles.

Even in one sector, like education, picking comparable institutions is not easy.  Some factors to consider:

• Private versus public institutions.
• Size of the student body and the makeup of the student body.
• Institutional mission:  research or teaching or combo;  urban, rural; undergraduate, graduate;  fields (science, medical school, law school, etc.)
• Role of the president:  external or internal;  importance of fund raising; etc. 

 Another question, that I think is worth considering, and seems to play a role in the criticisms the Regents are receiving, is the explosion of executive salaries in recent years that is self perpetuating when you use salary surveys to find an appropriate salary.  There's been a lot of media coverage of the wealth gap in the US and the growing economic power of the "1 percent."

From a 2010 Economic Policy Institute study:

The wages and compensation of executives, including CEOs, and of workers in finance reveal much about the rise in income inequality:

• The significant income growth at the very top of the income distribution over the last few decades was largely driven by households headed by someone who was either an executive or was employed in the financial sector. Executives, and workers in finance, accounted for 58 percent of the expansion of income for the top 1 percent and 67 percent of the increase in income for the top 0.1 percent from 1979 to 2005. These estimates understate the role of executive compensation and the financial sector in fueling income growth at the top because the increasing presence of working spouses who are executives or in finance is not included.
• From 1978 to 2011, CEO compensation increased more than 725 percent, a rise substantially greater than stock market growth and the painfully slow 5.7 percent growth in worker compensation over the same period.
• Using a measure of CEO compensation that includes the value of stock options granted to an executive, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 18.3-to-1 in 1965, peaked at 411.3-to-1 in 2000, and sits at 209.4-to-1 in 2011.
• Using an alternative measure of CEO compensation that includes the value of stock options exercised in a given year, CEOs earned 20.1 times more than typical workers in 1965, 383.4 times more in 2000, and 231.0 times more in 2011.

Now, private sector CEO's get a significant amount of their pay in stock options, which is not the case for public sector CEO's.  However, the inflation of private CEO salaries surely has impacted public sector and non-profit CEO salaries as well.


Edward E. Lawler III , distinguished professor of business at the University of Southern California (USC) Marshall School of Business writes at Forbes:

"The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor.

Which is exactly the argument that Board Chair Jacobson makes.  From the letter she sent to the faculty and staff Thursday:

Pat Gamble is an accomplished, nationally known and exceptional leader, who could readily take his skills elsewhere or simply decide to retire. The retention incentive approach addresses market issues while creating a powerful incentive for President Gamble to stay on board.

But Lawler continues:

There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.

Market data are a constantly escalating and flawed indicator of what executives should be paid. Few boards are willing to pay their executives below market. There are several reasons for this. Board members typically want to be looked upon positively by the CEO and other senior executives in order to get on and remain on corporate boards. A board member who argues for paying individuals below the market is not likely to be a respected or valued board member, at least in the eyes of the executive team of the company."

Private sector and public sector CEO's are a bit different and the board dynamics are a little different.  Lawler argues that many board members are CEOs of other corporations.  As CEO's, they benefit when other CEO salaries rise.  That's not the case for the Board of Regents.  However, these other dynamics he mentions in the previous paragraph. apply to public boards, like the Board of Regents, as well.

Enough context.  But it helps explain why I'm just giving you the raw data they sent me.  And why I'm not analyzing it.  Because at this point I don't have enough information about the comparable institutions to evaluate how comparable they are.  The information they sent me did not explain how they chose these institutions or what their characteristics are that make them 'comparable.'  But maybe others reading this will have more information about the institutions they compared UA with.

It's a little small, but if you download it, you should be able to read it easily. And you can enlarge it, but it seems to be a little bigger where I uploaded it at Scribd.

U of Alaska President Salary Survey Spreadsheet by Steve

Ripley's email said:

"Attached is a copy of UA peers for presidential compensation purposes. This salary information is collected in house on an annual basis by Human Resources and Institutional Research."  

 The colors indicate:

green - "Quatt identified presidential peers"  (Quatt is a DC based management consulting firm which lists the University of Alaska as a client on their website.)

blue - IR identified UA peers  (IR is University of Alaska Institutional Research)

orange - Quatt and IR identified

Other abbreviations:

Chronicle = Chronicle of Higher Education, the basic trade journal of higher education
CUPA = College and University Professional Association for Human Relations
SHEEO = State Higher Education Executive Organization
OSU = Oregon State University

All the organizations do salary surveys in higher education. 

Do Not Feed The Pigeons And Other Signs In San Francisco

 

We went by when there was no tour, but you can find out more here.

This last one was in front of an exercise place. 

From Udon to Gargoyle: San Francisco Shots On A Beautiful August Afternoon

Some pictures from an extended San Francisco walk.  (These will all look better if you click on them.)




Making udon noodles.

Laying pipe.

Lychees.

Someone lost their brochure.

We were aiming for the water, and I suppose I have to have at least one shot of the bridge.  So here it is.  I'm reading David Gilbert's & Sons at the moment, and one of the characters who loves the Brooklyn Bridge, in a long riff about great bridges around the world, says, 

"By the way I think the Golden Gate is totally overrated.  It's a good bridge, an iconic bridge, and the color in that coastal light is genius, but it's not a great bridge.  A great span, I'll give you that, but not a great bridge."

The brochure might be amongst the leaves on the sidewalk, but the island and the prison remains are still out there.

The face is at the Legion of Honor. 

A loan from the Galleria nazionale di Parma in Parma, Italy, provides a rare opportunity for viewing Parmigianino’s masterpiece Schiava turca (ca. 1531–1534). Heralded as an originator of Mannerism, Parmigianino developed an expressive style with elongated forms that was also indebted to the work of Raphael and Michelangelo. The title, which translates to “Turkish slave,” derives from the subject’s elegant balzo, a fashionable headdress worn by elite Northern Italian women, which was later mistaken for a turban. The Legion of Honor displays this painting following its exhibition at The Frick Collection, New York.

The Frick reference also connects to the book & Sons.  The protagonist's home is across the street from the Frick and a number of events take place there.

I'm sure when she posed for this portrait, she never thought her face would be flying all over San Francisco 500 years later.  Actually, Columbus had only recently made it across the Atlantic and there was no city where San Francisco is today.









I couldn't help wonder about, first,  a time when a building in the US with an Islamic style was cool, and second, the story of this recycled theater. Luckily, everything is on the internet. 


From NoeHill in San Francisco:

"The Alhambra Theater, built of reinforced concrete with unprotected steel trusses, was designed by Miller & Pflueger in the Moorish Revival style which became popular after the 1915 Panama-California Exposillon in San Diego and quickly replaced the Mission style.
Timothy Pflueger derived the flamboyant ornamentatio from Mexican sources which, in turn, had been derived from Spanish sources. The Castro Theater and Mission High School are two other examples of this style.
In the 1920s, movie palaces created fantasy environments to match the movies on screen. The Alhambra's Moorish castle decor was part of a trend to build theaters that conjured romantic, far away places: Mayan temples. Oriental palaces, ancient Egyptian tombs.

From Cinema Treasures:

Having met with a slightly more fortunate end than the more than 30 other single-screen theaters lost in San Francisco since 1980, the Alhambra Theatre found a new life as a Gorilla Sports gym, and from 2006 it had become a Crunch Fitness gym..
Amazingly, the interior and facade have both been preserved almost entirely, with a much-needed facelift. Fresh coats of paint and leafing in the house have this place looking better than it has in decades.

The Golden Gate's website tells us a little about their beliefs:

"Spiritualism is the Science, Philosophy, and Religion of continuous life, based upon the demonstrated fact of communication, by means of mediumship, with those who live in the Spirit world.
        A Spiritualist is one who believes, as the basis of her or his religion, in the communication between this and the Spirit world by means of mediumship and who endeavors to mould his or her character and conduct in accordance with the highest teachings derived from such communication. "

 The site also has some history of the building and the church.  The building was built for the widow of a California Supreme Court judge in 1895 and bought by the church in 1951.

I couldn't pass up the incredible facade at the top of this building.  I don't know anything about it, but it's pretty amazing.  So many things like that in San Francisco.  And gargoyles too.

I added the & Sons references because I'm always amazed at how everything is connected, even if we don't always see or understand the connections.  I'm still undecided about the book which is billed as a look at father and son relationships, which seemed appropriate as my son has recently had a son.  There are lots of little things I like about the book, but it took me 150 pages before I decided I would finish it - and I almost never abandon a book. 

"If people believe there's an imaginary river out there . . .

 . . .you don't tell them there's no river there.  You build an imaginary bridge over the imaginary river."

Who said that to whom?

It's from a San Francisco Chronicle book review of Rick Perlstein's The Invisible Bridge.

Image:  Invisible Bridge Over Invisible River

I'm just stalling and using up space so you can't peek to find the answer.   Reviewer Kevin Canfield explains the bridge in the book's title:

"Reagan's rhetorical bridge - the one that connected him with millions of likeminded voters, and later delivered him to the White House - was built on a foundation of uncompromising patriotism and smoldering resentment. It was a message that aggrieved conservatives (and, curiously, more than a few Democrats) found irresistible."

The New York Times reviewer, Frank Rich, explained it this way:

The key to Reagan’s political success, in Perlstein’s telling, was that he recognized what many Republicans did not — that Americans craved “a liturgy of absolution” and “an almost official cult of optimism” postulating “the belief that America could do no wrong” or “that if America did it, it was by definition not wrong.” That’s why Reagan stubbornly insisted on minimizing the crimes of Watergate even though polls suggested he might be punished for it and even after most of his ideological soul mates jumped ship. That’s why Reagan never stopped insisting that we came home from our humiliating defeat in Vietnam “as winners.” He propped up such illusions by ignoring facts or inventing them. But the will of his listeners to believe — and his gift for making them feel good in his presence — conquered all.

As you can tell, it's a book that people will like or hate depending on their political beliefs.  The SF Chronicle liked it.  So did the New York Times.

Ariel Gonzales' review in the Miami Herald, though, is titled:

"Liberal bias permeates Rick Perlstein’s time capsule of the pre-Reagan era"

But the review itself seems to have more respect for Perlstein than does the title:

But the camera is brutally honest and unforgiving in Perlstein’s hands. Expect no balance from this author, who never attempts to hide his liberal bias.
Regardless of your party affiliation, you may still enjoy his observations, which are often revealing and insightful.  .  .
If you hold Reagan in semi-divine status, however, this book is not for you. While Perlstein admires his “gift” for reducing complex problems to easily digestible partisan soundbites, he regards Reagan as a divider — a much more genial character than Nixon, yet just as culpable for widening ideological fault ines.[sic]

OK, who told whom to build an imaginary bridge?

Perlstein says it was Nikita Khrushchev to Richard Nixon.

Stand Up And Say No - Monument In San Francisco

While walking the baby today, we passed this little monument in front of a house. A monument to people standing up and fighting the plans the experts had created to build freeways all through San Francisco.

From a Wired post on plans that didn't get carried out:

1948 San Francisco Highway Plan

San Francisco is one of the few American cities that was not completely carved up by the postwar highway building frenzy, but that doesn’t mean no one tried to do so. This 1948 plan details a projected network of elevated freeways throughout the city. Parts of the Central and Embarcadero freeways were constructed, but angry citizens of the city successfully rallied for the cancellation of further roads. This “Highway Revolt” was not limited to San Francisco. Many other cities fought back against plans to raze whole neighborhoods for elevated roads, and today many urban highways are being cut back or demolished entirely. The dismantling of the Embarcadero freeway following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake helped usher in a rebirth of the San Francisco waterfront and the SoMa district.

So people in Anchorage - and anywhere else that has highway and other project planners set on streets and highways and bridges that the people don't want - take hope.  It can be stopped.  Bragaw doesn't have to split the University land.  And the Knik Arm Bridge doesn't have to be built. 

I suspect for Bragaw we could find a list of contractors who are hoping to get a piece of the $20 million allocated and who supported Dan Sullivan (the mayor) who asked Rep. Stoltz to put the money into the budget.  And a list of large Pt. McKenzie landowners might help us identify whose pushing the Knik Arm bridge. 


This is also a monument to little monuments (these are like big action figures) that remind us when we stumble onto them,  that people got out and fought for what they believed.  And won.