$17.50

Well, they were going to fill this parking lot at Rose and Venice Beach today no matter what they charged.  And for all day, I guess that's not too bad.  But it's the highest I remember seeing. It was supposed to be pushing 100˚F downtown and the beaches were supposed to pretty warm as well. 

I got my bike ride in before ten and you could feel the beach was drawing people towards it.  But the breeze from riding the bike felt nice and it seems to have turned out not quite so bad as expected.  Weather.com says it's only 84˚ in downtown LA now (about 4pm) and 79˚ in Santa Monica.

But it got pretty warm in my mom's house.  Being pretty close to the beach means that you almost never need air conditioning.  I closed most of the windows as the day warmed up, but I've opened them now and there's a "cool" ocean breeze coming in. 

"Money's capacity to turn morality into a matter of impersonal arithmetic . . ."

I'd been reading David Graeber's Debt: The First 5000 Years so I had a newly focused understanding when I read this sentence from the LA Times story on the pending Detroit bankruptcy settlement:

"The creditor was frustrated that a deal had been reached to transfer the works in Detroit Institute of Arts to a public trust and use foundation money to nearly make city pensioners whole, while other creditors were expected to receive pennies on the dollar."

The unusual part of this story is that the pensioners would be paid before the money creditors and their insurance companies. 

Why is this unusual?  Because usually the bankers get paid first - as we know from the housing crash when the bankers, who pushed lenders [borrowers] into loans the bankers knew the lenders [borrowers] couldn't pay, got paid, while homeowners lost their houses.

Graeber argues that our unquestioned moral certainty that "people must pay their debts" makes it easier for bankers and other lenders to enforce collection of debts, even if the conditions were impossible for the borrower from the beginning. 

He discusses how to distinguish between moral obligations and debts.  This is, he says, the basic question of the book.

"What, precisely, does it mean to say that our sense of morality and justice is reduced to the language of a business deal?  What does it mean when we reduce moral obligations to debts?  What changes when the one turns into the other?  And how do we speak about them when our language has been so shaped by the market?  On one level the difference between an obligation and a debt is simple and obvious.  A debt is the obligation to pay a certain sum of money.  As a result, a debt, unlike any other form of obligation, can be precisely quantified.  This allows debts to become simple, cold, and impersonal - which, in turn, allows them to be transferable.  If one owes a favor, or one's life, to another human being - it is owed to that person specifically.  But if one owes forty thousand dollars at 12-percent interest, it doesn't really matter who the creditor is;  neither does either of the two parties have to think much about what the other party needs, wants, is capable of doing - as they certainly would if what was owed was a favor, or respect, or gratitude.  One does not need to calculate the human effects;  one need only calculate principal, balances,  penalties, and rates of interest.  If you end up having to abandon your home and wander in other provinces, if your daughter ends up in a mining camp working as a prostitute [he'd given such an example from Nepal], well, that's unfortunate, but incidental to the creditor.  Money is money, and a deal is a deal."

Thus when the bankers call on the City of Detroit to pay up, the public outside of Detroit is primed to assume the city has been deadbeat and even though it's unfortunate, the banks have a right to take over the art at the Art Institute and get paid before retirees get their pensions.  

The Art Institute raises other issues to be argued about, but not here now.

But the retired employees also had a deal with the city.  They worked for years with the knowledge, based on a written contract, that after they worked a significant part of their lives they would get a pension. For many - particularly those in professional positions - they gave up the immediate higher pay and bonuses they could have gotten in the private sector for the pension.

Graeber's point is that by adding the moral imperative to pay one's debt to the business impersonality of 'a deal is a deal' lenders have gotten away with insisting on being paid, even if the lending conditions and paying consequences are inhumane.  Because humanity has been taken out of the equation.

"From this perspective, the crucial factor, and a topic that will be explored at length in these pages, is money's capacity to turn morality into a matter of impersonal arithmetic - and by doing so, to justify things that would otherwise seem outrageous or obscene. The factor of violence, which I have been emphasizing up until now, may appear secondary. The difference between a "debt" and a mere moral obligation is not the presence or absence of men with weapons who can enforce that obligation by seizing the debtor's possessions or threatening to break his legs. It is simply that a creditor has the means to specify, numerically, exactly how much the debtor owes."

I already knew something about how the language of instrumental rationality has taken over the language substantive rationality.   Very simply that means that the rational thinking processes we use to achieve a goal or solve a physical problem (say build a highway) are different from the rational thinking processes needed to consider moral questions (if the highway through a neighborhood is a good a good thing.)   I studied under Alberto Guerreiro-Ramos while he was writing The New Science of Administration, in which he argues that the distinction between the two different rationalities has been lost as people use instrumental rationality to resolve moral questions.  As when economists are called into court to help determine the value of the deceased's lost life, so the family can be paid off.     Guerreiro-Ramos

"was one of the earliest scholars to point to the risks of a social science that took homo economicus as its referent. A solution that he offered for this dilemma was to recognize the importance of non-market settings in which people could pursue other, non-materialist interests."

But I hadn't thought about - and that is Graeber's point - how the moral weight of paying one's debt assists international lenders in collecting their money even though the both the terms of the original loan and the consequences of collecting payment are unjust, even inhumane.

He does point out that the financial crisis of 2008 did loosen people's firmly held beliefs enough to get a conversation about this started.  But that has faded.  But the terms of the Detroit settlement seem to suggest that maybe there's been at least a little shift.

I do think this is an important book.  The previous post on it gave an example of international lenders unconscionable actions in Madagascar.  Here's another one from the book about Haiti.

But debt is not just victor's justice; it can also be a way of punishing winners who weren't supposed to win. The most spectacular example of this is the history of the Republic of Haiti - the first poor country to be placed in permanent debt peonage. Haiti was a nation founded by former plantation slaves who had the temerity not only to rise up in rebellion, amidst grand declarations of universal rights and freedoms, but to defeat Napoleon's armies sent to return them to bondage. France immediately insisted that the new republic owed it 150 million francs in damages for the expropriated plantations, as well as the expenses of outfitting the failed military expeditions, and all other nations, including the United States, agreed to impose an embargo on the country until it was paid. The sum was intentionally impossible (equivalent to about 18 billion dollars) , and the resultant embargo ensured that the name "Haiti" has been a synonym for debt, poverty, and human misery ever since. 

The whole book is online and I would encourage readers to at least bookmark it, but even better, read the first chapter.  It reads far more interestingly than people would expect from a book on finance. You can find the passages in this post by cutting them here and pasting them into the search at the pdf file of the book.

 

So Predictable

August 20, 2014  (after Prop. 1 which would have repealed the big oil company tax break lost):

"Gov. Sean Parnell says it’s now time for the oil industry to increase its investment in oil field projects that create jobs for Alaskans."

September 8, 2014

"ExxonMobil told state regulators again last week not to expect an increase in oil production on the North Slope, arguing it is a “reasonable approach” to conclude that a long-term decline is continuing."*

That this was going to happen was so obvious that 89,608 Alaskans voted "Yes" on Prop. 1 on August 18.  That's only 10,147 fewer than those who voted "No" despite the stars being lined up for the "No" campaign:

• There were no real contests on the Democratic ballot to get Yes votes out.
• There were a number of interesting contests - particularly the Senate race - on the Republican ballot

Thus many more Republicans were likely to vote

• The "No" campaign spent 30 or 40 times more money than the "Yes" campaign

So Gov, a question.  What are you planning on doing when the other oil companies do not increase their investments in oil fields?   You going to say you need more proof like you did with the National Guard?  Even if you have proof, what will you do?  Being loyal to your friends is a virtue, Gov, but only if you have better quality friends. 

*To be fair, the article also said that Tesoro challenged Exxon's prediction. 

Jelly Fish, Puffins, And Starfish Lunch

jelly fish

jelly fish

early morning over Seattle

tufted puffin

starfish eating a fish

Got to go with my granddaughter and daughter to the Seattle aquarium between flights today. 

When I flew in, just the peak of Rainier was showing in the distance.

And when I left in the afternoon.

And a little closer as we flew by.

Debt: The First 5,000 Years

"But,"  she objected, as if this were self-evident,"they'd borrowed the money!  Surely one has to pay one's debts."

This comes on page 2 in the book - Debt:  The First 5000 Years - as author David Graeber is describing an encounter at a London party with a woman who works for a non-profit that helps the poor.  [You can read the book online at the link.]

He then goes on to explain this misconception that people have to pay their debts and how this allows banks and international financial organizations to screw over developing nations to the advantage of big banks.  He goes on:

"Where to start?  I could have begun by explaining how these loans had originally been taken out by unelected dictators who place most of it directly in their Swiss bank accounts, and ask her to contemplate the justice of insisting that the lenders be repaid, not by the dictators or even by his cronies, but by literally taking food from the mouths of hungry children.  Or to think about how many of these poor countries had actually already paid back what they'd borrowed three or four times now, but that through the miracle of compound interest, it still hadn't made a significant dent in the principal!  I could also observe that there was a difference between refinancing loans, and demanding that in order to obtain refinancing, countries have to follow some orthodox free-market economics policy designed in Washington or Zurich that their citizens had never agreed to and never would, and that it was a bit dishonest to insist that countries adopt democratic constitutions and then also insist that, whoever gets elected, they have no control over their countries policies anyway.  Or that the economic policies imposed by the IMF (International Monetary Fund) didn't even work.  But there was a more basic problem:  the very assumptions that debts have to be paid."

 He then goes on to explain that banks charge interest based on the amount of risk of a debt and they expect many to not be repaid because of things like bankruptcy laws and LLC's. (limited liability companies.)

Then he goes on to talk about how the austerity polices forced onto the countries to force them to repay the debts caused the cut of basic services and infrastructure to deteriorate.  He gives the example of Madagascar, where he lived two years.  There was an outbreak of malaria

"It was a particularly virulent outbreak because malaria had been wiped out in highland Madagascar many years before, so that, after a couple of generations, most people lost their immunity.  The problem was it took money to maintain the mosquito eradication program, since there had to be periodic tests to make sure mosquitoes weren't starting to breed again and spraying campaigns if it was discovered that they were.  Not a lot of money.  But owing to IMF-imposed austerity programs, the government had to cut the monitoring program.  Ten thousand people died.  I met young mothers grieving for lost children.  One might think it would be hard to make a case that the loss of ten thousand lives is really justified in order to ensure that Citibank wouldn't have to cut its losses on one irresponsible loan that wasn't particularly important to its balance sheet anyway.  But here was a perfectly decent woman - one who worked for a charitable organization, no less - who took it as self-evident that it was.  After all, they owed the money, and surely one has to pay one's debts.

This is a 391 page book (not counting the notes) that I first saw in a bookstore a year and a half ago and wanted to read.  I've got it now, thanks to my son, and I'm hoping to get well into on this trip - yet again - to LA to see my mom.  The good news is she's out of the hospital and back home.  I also get some between flights time in Seattle with my daughter and granddaughter.  The little one recharges my batteries even better than walking in the woods.

As I recall, the book looks into the history of debt and how the bible even had jubilee years where all debts were forgiven.  Not a bad idea.  But reading these first few pages and how banks forced nations into austerity measures that destroyed lives, made me think about all the austerity measures some Republicans are arguing for now because - we have to pay our debts.  Graeber says in this early part of the book - paying debts is not an economic issue, it's a moral one.

So for those of you who still feel strongly that everyone has to pay their debts - even in the kinds of situations like the ones above (which sounds a lot like a payday lender with killer interest rates that the borrower didn't understand) hold your breath and assumptions and check back.  Or even better, check out the book at your library.  

New Books Set Off Brain

After the Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) meeting Saturday morning I went to the UAA library.  I didn't intend to but first I was reminded that the bike trail is now blocked so they can build a new parking garage.  After taking the detour, I found the rest of the bike trail full of runners and didn't think I should try to bike through them.  So I gave up and looked through the new books at the UAA library.

As I perused them a phrase from the CCL meeting repeated by the guest speaker, Rear Admiral Len Hering (ret), Adult Conversation, came to mind.  He was referring to people in the United States talking seriously about climate change.

But in the library's new books section, there were so many books on a variety of different topics.  What I suspect they had in common was Adult Conversation.  That is, people had spent a lot of time researching the topics before and as they wrote their books, and they were offering more than just platitudes.

One of the first books I picked up was nobody's business  by Brian M. Reed.  A book on modern poetry.  Stuff that the author says doesn't look like poetry even.

"I confess that during the first George W. Bush administration I poked fun at these assorted un-poems when talking with colleagues in private and when advising students about what they should be reading.  I was startled when the later began to push back.  The first rebels were independent-thinking upper-division undergraduates and charismatic incoming MFA's who had seen poems such as Rodney Goenke's "Pizza Kitty" on YouTube and who reverently passed around  scarce copies of books such as K. Silem Mohammad's Dear Head Nation (2003) as if they were saints' relics.  I was mystified." (p. 130)

He goes through some poems.  One is a series of lines from a computer.  He wonders how this can be poetry.  They've simply lifted part of something from the internet.  One of the poems seems to be a bit better..

  This is "Eaten by Dogs."  He writes more:

"It can be difficult to say for certain, but this passage seems to be a list of captions that originally accompanied photographs by a leftist journalist name Dahr Jamail.  One can still find photos by Jamail with the captions "Man making "Shubada' sign  . . . about to be shot" and "No comment" on the the Fifth-Estate-Online website, as well as another of his photos captioned "Iraqi insurgent partially eaten by dogs -- November 2004" on Apacheclips.com. 16  The statement "viewed X times" replicates a common format for reporting a Web page's hit count."

You might well be wondering what this is all about and why I'm pointing it out.  Well, Dahr Jamail, at one point lived in Anchorage and spoke several times here of his journalism.  I wasn't sure if I was blogging yet at that time, and apparently not.  The only post I can find that mentions him is this one.  

And then back to the question about whether this can be considered poetry:

". . . As so often happens, the question contained within itself the answers.  Certain of my best students were innately suspicious of the self-aware, erudite authors held up by cultue czars and well-meaning professors as models for them to admire and emulate.  The radical gestures of negation that most irritated me about post-9/11 anti-poetry -- its blank indifference to liteary history, its scorn for conditional markers of craft, and its disdain for politsh and perfection -- were in fact the very attributes that appealed to them.  Moreover, they read these gestures as profoundly political in inspiration, that is, as calculated attacks on institutional norms and practices that not only shape literary careers but also preside over the formation of obedient, well-disciplined neoliberal citizens-subjects.  Watching their nation plunge headlong into overseas wars on dubious pretenses, these youthful men and women were angry  They did not understand their fellow Americans who, although they might loudly express their dislike for their government, would never dare break windows, march without a parade permit, or endanger their chances for a glowing letter of recommendation.  Here at last were poets whose outrages against decorum were extreme enough to give voice . . ." 

 On the one hand, this is the kind of extensive examination of minutiae that made me leave English after I got my undergraduate degree.  Yet, it also points out what isn't obvious - to the author himself at first even.  He finds profundity in these seeming non-poems.  At least they speak profoundly to his students.  And as I looked at other books (which I'll try to cover in less detail in other posts), it was clear this was simply another example of similar topics, but in this case expressed in poetry.

Reed teaches at the University of Washington which added one more personal connection for me since one of my kids graduated from there and I've spent more time there in recent years than any other campus besides UAA. 

 [It's late.  I'm falling asleep as I write.  But I want to post and I'll check for typos in the morning.]

Sergei Khrushchev Visits Anchorage

Nikita Khrushchev loomed large in my younger life.  I was still young enough to be caught up in the Cold War propaganda about the crazy Soviet leader who threatened annihilation of the world.  I remember the tense drama of the Cuban missile crisis, though in LA we felt out of the reach of possible attack.  It would be the east coast.  Khrushchev, as I think back now, was a larger than life figure.  In a way, he was like a fictional character I only saw in photos or television.

So it seemed imperative to head over to UAA to hear his son talk the other night.  To be reminded that Khrushchev was just a human being.  And Professor Sergei Kruschev of Brown University did a good job of making a childhood super villain into a human being.  A lot of other people felt the need to come as well. The auditorium was packed with people standing in the hallways. 


The first part of his talk had been reported in some detail in the ADN that day.  It was little things that struck me - that when Krushchev went to meet Eisenhower in Geneva in 1955, it was his first time out of the Soviet Union.  Earlier, people were afraid to go abroad because such trips could be used to accuse one of being a spy.  It wasn't so much what he said, though he was a thoughtful speaker, who could talk about this larger-than-life figure as "my dad."  The mere fact of his being there, in the flesh was the critical thing for me.  My mind is still readjusting. 

I'm still trying to understand what it means that the daughter of Stalin and the son of Krushchev both became American citizens, though she  eventually got a Russian passport and then a British passport.  

Gov Finally Sacks Katkus After National Guard Bureau Office of Complex Investigations (OCI) Report On Sexual And Other Abuse

From the Governor's website:

 "September 4, 2014, Anchorage, Alaska – Following the conclusion of a six-month independent review and assessment of open and closed investigations related to reports of sexual assault, rape and fraud among members of the Alaska National Guard, Governor Sean Parnell released the findings today, and took the resignation of the adjutant general, Major General Thomas H. Katkus. The governor originally requested the assessment from the National Guard Bureau Office of Complex Investigations (OCI) in February."

I first came across Tom Katkus at his confirmation hearings in 2010 at the State Affairs Committee in Juneau, but kept my personal reactions to myself.  As I look back at that post, it's ironic that after they approved Katkus, the next topic was sexual abuse in Alaska.  And my personal instincts were reinforced soon when I got an email after that post from a spouse of someone at the National Guard telling me how corrupt the Guard and Katkus were.  She wouldn't give me her name or fill in details, but she talked about intimidation of people in the guard who noticed all the things going wrong, of favoritism, and cronyism and did nothing.  It seemed serious and her anonymity seemed more fearful than a way to vent. And I had lots of other things to keep me busy.

More recently (January this year) someone put up this comment on that post:

"Funny that MG Katkus is leading the charge against rape and sexual assault, considering the fact that he's been the person in charge of covering up the numerous sexual assault cases that have been reported to the Governors office over the years."

Someone also had sent me a link to the 2012 twelve page list of allegations from retired Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth T. Blaylock that starts out:

KENNETH T. BLAYLOCK
LIEUTENANT COLONEL (RET) AKARNG
529-XXXX
Illegal Activities within the Alaska National Guard
Murder, Sexual Assault, Narcotic Trafficking, and other violations are reported. It’s not that any proper investigations are performed and the results produced. But rather they are not investigated. The only actual investigations conducted are against the whistleblowers themselves.

I mention all this because if I, as a blogger was getting this sort of stuff, no doubt people responsible - like the governor - were also getting it and probably more.  Clearly there was something seriously wrong at the Guard and whenever it came up, I felt a bit of guilt for not looking into it, but I mollified myself because there were official studies being done that would have more access than I could ever get.

Parnell is quoted in a Becky Bohrer article the Army Times:

“I’ve been extremely frustrated over the years because it seemed like we’ve been chasing a vapor,” said Parnell, who has been criticized for not doing enough in response to allegations of sexual assaults within the Guard. He said when his office heard concerns, it would go to Guard leaders and be assured the matter was being handled and be given a description of how it was handled. He said he had no evidence that he was misled.

I learned an organizational lesson long ago: Employees often look very different from above than they do from below.  I can understand that Katkus could probably act the perfect employee to the governor, so that the charges against the Guard would bring cognitive dissonance to the governor.  The stories he heard about Katkus didn't match his personal experience with the man.  But good leaders should see through those facades.

Given that this governor made fighting violence against women a high priority, including leading a Choose Respect march every year, his "no evidence that he was misled" sounds like total incompetence.  Instead of spending all that time marching, he should have been having conversations with guard members who were complaining.  Even I had evidence coming to me that made it clear things were bad.  Both our US Senators had enough evidence to call for investigations. 

So what does the report say?  You can see the whole 229 page report here. [UPDATE Oct 19, 2018 - I see this link no longer works, but the Scribd link below where I also posted it still does.] [Anon left a comment asking if I could post this report somewhere other than at the governor's website.  So I've posted it at Scribd and you can get it here.]

Below is the Executive Summary which doesn't have the detailed findings that convey how bad things were, so I'll add some selected quotes to give you a sense.  But you should then go to the report and read them in context.  To find my excerpts in the report, you can copy five or six words from each passage and search the document.

Here's the synopsis and executive summary:

National Guard Bureau Office of Complex Investigations

Report of Assessment: AK1401

Synopsis

The National Guard Bureau’s Office of Complex Investigations conducted a statewide
assessment into the Alaska National Guard and made findings and recommendations in the areas of sexual assault, EEO/EO matters, coordination with local law enforcement,
Alaska National Guard member misconduct, command climate and the administration of
justice.

I. Executive Summary
On 28 February 2014, Alaska Governor Sean Parnell submitted a letter
to the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, General Frank J. Grass, requesting that the National Guard Bureau’s Office of Complex Investigations (NGB-JA/OCI) investigate “open and closed investigations related to reports of sexual assault, rape, and fraud among members of the Alaska National Guard [(AKNG)].” The request highlighted concerns over reports of sexual assault and allegations of a hostile work environment within the AKNG. The Governor’s request also sought an overall assessment of the AKNG’s command structure and its responses in cases of sexual assault that were otherwise referred to civilian law enforcement for disposition.
    A. Findings

• The AKNG’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program is well-organized, but victims do not trust the system due to an overall lack of confidence in the command;
• The AKNG leadership has failed to provide the resources, emphasis, and oversight in the implementation of the AKNG EEO/EO program; • The AKNG does not have a formal mechanism to facilitate coordination with local law enforcement regarding cases of misconduct committed by members of the AKNG;
• There were several instances of fraud committed by AKNG members and leadership at the facilities level, but that this fraudulent activity did not have an impact on the reporting of sexual assault. Examples of fraud included embezzlement of money from a NG family programs account and misuse of government equipment for personal gain. On 27 August 2014, Governor Parnell requested that the National Guard Bureau conduct a further assessment into the management of federal fiscal resources in the AKNG;
• Actual and perceived favoritism, ethical misconduct, and fear of reprisal are eroding trust and confidence in AKNG leadership; and
• The AKNG is not properly administering justice through either the investigation or adjudication of AKNG member misconduct.

    B. Recommendations

• The NGB-JA/OCI Team provided seven separate recommendations to improve the management of sexual assault matters within the state;
• The Team provided five separate recommendations to improve the State Equal Employment Opportunity program;
• The Team recommends that allegations of misconduct under investigation by law enforcement be tracked by the AKNG Office of the Staff Judge Advocate or a law enforcement liaison, such as a Provost Marshall Officer;
• The Team recommends that the National Guard Bureau conduct a separate assessment into the management of federal fiscal resources in the AKNG;
• The Team recommends that all levels of command in the AKNG reevaluate their approach to leading soldiers in a positive manner and provided seven recommendations to address the concerns raised during the Team’s visit and through the climate survey; and
• The Team identified nine areas that the AKNG and AK legislature may want to consider to improve the administration of justice within the state.

Some of the specific findings:

"The AKNG provided a matrix of all reported incidents of sexual assault  since the DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) program was initiated in 2006. There were 37 reports of sexual assault; of those, 17 were unrestricted and eight identified sexual assault perpetrators. Some of the allegations reported were investigated by the AKNG; however, most of the allegations involved civilian perpetrators and were referred to AK local law enforcement officials for investigation."

Thirty seven reports of sexual assault in eight years.  That's a little more than one every three months.  Surely that is a sign of serious problems in any organization.  And that's only the ones reported.  This report says that many people didn't report because they didn't trust the leadership and feared retaliation.  Note, Wikipedia says there were 1850 people in the Alaska National Guard in 2006.  Let's use that as an approximate figure and then consider how many of those were women . . .

"Prior to 2012

The Team learned that records regarding reports of sexual assault were not properly maintained or tracked, and in some cases were never completed. As a result, victims and leaders were not properly informed regarding the status of their cases, victims were not offered treatment services, and victim information was not adequately treated in a confidential manner as required by DoD Policy"

"Victim Confidentiality

Most of the individuals interviewed stated that they knew who their Victim Advocate was and understood the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program; nonetheless, most individuals also indicated that they would not report a sexual assault due to concerns over confidentiality. The Team noted that prior to 2012 there had been instances wherein commanders either obtained the names of victims who made restricted reports of sexual assault or distilled that same information from the “sanitized” reports that were made in contradiction to DoD policy.7 Additionally, victims reported that in some cases they were ostracized and even abused by fellow service members after making their restricted reports. Such conduct is in violation of DoD policy." [restricted reports were not supposed to be shared beyond the person taking the report.]

After 2012, a new officer, according to the report, seems to have turned this around, but the report also said that a lot of people didn't know that and still acted as though the pre-2012 situation was still in place.

 "The Team learned of several examples of inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature in its interviews with AKNG personnel, including a report of pictures of male genitalia drawn inside aircraft panels at an ANG Wing, flight instructors having sex with flight students, and senior leaders sending harassing and inappropriate text messages. Witnesses reported that AKNG internal inquiries into their complaints failed to substantiate the harassing behavior and as a result no action was taken. Indeed the information provided by the ANG Wings did not reflect that any administrative action occurred as a result of the complaints made."

"Team also learned that there were recent allegations of sexual harassment that had not been referred to EEO/EO; rather, the AKNG leadership was aware of these allegations, which were handled through internal investigation. Leaders should be directly involved in the EEO/EO program and they should collaborate with EEO/EO personnel to provide appropriate lawful recourse for both the complainant and the subject of the complaint. In several instances leaders attempted resolution without the assistance of EEO/EO personnel, this is not optimal. Service members interviewed by the Team perceived leadership efforts at internal resolution as an attempt to cover up sexual harassment allegations. This perception was reiterated in the OCI climate survey, which highlighted fear of reprisal and lack of support from the chain of command as the primary barriers to reporting discrimination."

"Disparate Treatment

A large number (50+) of Puerto Rican Army National Guard members moved from Puerto Rico to Alaska to supplement the AKNG Military Police unit at Ft. Greely, AK. Several members discussed disparate treatment towards the Spanish-speaking members of this unit. They related that their leadership told Puerto Rican soldiers that they were not allowed to speak Spanish in the “operational” area, which some consider the entire installation. Under Army Policy, commanders may not require the use of English for personal communications that are unrelated to military functions.
Command emphasis on the language issue has created a negative environment within the remote location, where members report that some military spouses are even posting derogatory comments about Spanish speaking spouses on social media sites."

 "C.  Analysis of Fraud

The Team reviewed reported incidents of fraud that had occurred over the past 10 years. Most of the incidents involved the improper use of the government travel or purchase card. One incident involved the embezzlement of money from a NG family programs account and another incident involved the misconduct of a senior officer who misused federal equipment and personnel for his own personal gain. In each instance the Team noted that there was a lack of oversight in the AKNG to prevent and detect fraud when it occurred.

"The Team noted a high level of misconduct occurring within the AKNG Recruiting and Retention Command. Several command directed investigations initiated in 2012 found that, during the time period of 2008-2009, several non- commissioned officers within this command were engaged in misuse of
government vehicles, fraud, adultery, inappropriate relationships and sexual
assault. Several of these cases are pending administrative action.
The Team’s interviews conducted with the FBI, CID and local law enforcement revealed that the Recruiting and Retention Command had been the target of multiple investigations for crimes such as weapons smuggling, rape,and drug trafficking; however, none of these investigations resulted in prosecution of the
crimes under investigation due to jurisdictional issues or lack of evidence.

Some Army and Air National Guard witnesses testified that when they approached the leadership regarding misconduct, they were specifically told to stand down."

I think this is enough to give you a sense of the findings.  This gets us only to page 19 of a 229 page document.

Surely the governor who has made Choose Respect (and ending sexual abuse and violence) the slogan of his administration knows the severe long-term impacts of sexual assaults on the victims and even their families.  If Katkus is responsible enough to fire (ok, the governor accepted his resignation - even here, Katkus got the option not to be fired), then surely he bears responsibility for the damage done not only to those assaulted, but also those upstanding members of the Guard who tried to point out such problems and were retaliated against with missed promotions and other such administrative punishments.

Will anyone be charged with any crimes?

If the governor didn't see any evidence of wrong doing in this area what else hasn't he seen in his administration?  I've learned that we are all guilty of seeing what we want to see and not seeing what we don't want to see.  But someone in a position of power should be able to see what he has to see to do his job well.  And what does this say about his ability to judge people?  And other issues?  He stood loyal to Katkus until today.  Four years.

The study will go to other agencies and presumably there will be charges.  But don't hold your breath.


According to the Bohrer article, the governor apologized.

"Parnell apologized to those who had been victimized.
“Our Alaska Guard members deserve better. The victims who have been hurt deserve better. And those who have brought complaints forward deserve better,” he said."

Is that it?  Sorry guys, but I was asleep at the wheel?  Or does he plan to help victims to regain their emotional health and repair the damage to their careers?

He's quoted in this morning's ADN:

“This culture of mistrust and failed leadership in the Guard ends now,” Parnell said.

No Governor, as the various surveys cited in the report show, there's still a lot of mistrust.  It doesn't go away because you declare it over.  It still lives in the hearts of the victims, in their nightmares, in their flashbacks, in the people still in the Guard who didn't believe them or help them.  It doesn't end now.  Changing it begins now.  And if the governor's actions to change the culture are as wishy-washy as his actions have been in response to all the complaints over the years, it will be a while before there is trust.  (I can imagine the governor reading this and sincerely saying, "I did everything I could."  And I think he believes that.  But someone with better skills at reading people (Katkus and the victims) and a bigger heart that could feel the pain of the victims, would have started repairing this long ago.)

I don't mean to suggest that the governor takes this lightly.  I believe he's sincere in his belief that domestic violence and sexual assault are terrible things.  But this report indicates that though these issues were called to his attention, his response was inadequate.   I do appreciate that the governor did call for this study  and published it. (Unlike other studies he held back for so long, like the one on Medicaid expansion.)  But the smoke has been here for years, even if the previous studies couldn't find the actual fires.   Had he just moved Katkus to another position while things were uncertain, things might have been better.  But his loyalty to his appointee was greater than his loyalty to the members of the guard who had been complaining for so long.  In the Catholic Church complaints piled up, but the leadership found ways to avoid dealing with it.  They didn't have 'proof.'

My normal constraints are obviously not working here.  I wrote most of this last night thinking I could review it more rationally in the morning, but that isn't working.  Instead I'm more upset by the incompetence in handling this.  And probably I'm upset at myself for not pursuing it here on the blog. 

 

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.