Governor Walker has hired a mediator to try to get the two houses of the Alaska legislature to resolve their differences and pass a budget.
The governor has already had to send out layoff notices to state employees and if the budget isn't resolved by, well the new fiscal year this budget is supposed to cover begins July 1. Below is my rough sense of what is happening in Alaska policy unmaking.
Overview of Sticking Points
1. Last year the legislature passed a $2 billion a year tax break for oil companies which includes big tax credits - to the tune of $700 million this year. The Republican majorities in the House and Senate tell us this is contractual and can't be changed. Though they have no problem breaking other contracts such as labor agreements.
2. The price of oil plummeted, sharply cutting the state's basic revenue source.
3. The budget passed by the legislature had a $3 billion gap between expenditures and revenue.
4. The state has a lot of money in different funds - mainly the Alaska Permanent Fund and the Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR). But the legislature needs a 3/4 majority to get into the CBR. Democrats were needed to get to the CBR and they wouldn't go along with the budget unless the Majority approved Medicaid expansion, union contracts whose raises the legislature had previously approved, and a version of Erin's Law to teach kids how to protect themselves from sexual abuse.
5. The majority talked about moving money around in the Permanent Fund which on technical grounds would let them tap the CBR with a simple majority. This move only needed a majority, but six of their own, sensing political suicide (even talking about messing with the Permanent Fund Dividend Checks everyone gets has been taboo) and severe limitations on future budget options, refused to go along.
6. The governor refused to sign a budget that was $3 billion in the red and sent it back to the legislature, set up a special session in Juneau (the state capital), and told them to fund union contracts, pass Medicaid expansion, Erin's Law, and a balanced budget. (The governor is a former Republican who ran as an Independent because he didn't think he could get through a Republican primary. During the campaign, he teamed up with the Democratic gubernatorial candidate who became his Lt. Gov running mate. A major National Guard scandal for the sitting Republican governor helped Walker become governor.)
7. The Republican majorities in the House and Senate threw a hissy fit and refused to meet in Juneau. They held ten and 15 minute meetings - long enough to open and adjourn - and then called their own special session in the newly, and luxuriously, refurbished Legislative Information Office in Anchorage.
8. The House majority and minority caucuses finally came up with a compromise budget - which got a few things the Democrats wanted (no Erin's Law, no Medicaid) along with a promise to vote for access to the CBR, but only IF the senate went along.
9. The Senate rejected the House compromise and sent back their own new budget.
10. This budget was rejected by both the Democrats and the Republicans unanimously in the House.
So that gets us to now. The governor announced that he'd hired a man who mediates business disputes. The governor is an attorney who is used to working through business deals with mediators if nothing else works.
This seems to me like a logical and reasonable approach. The governor says the legislature is squabbling over 1% of the budget and seemingly is willing to risk shutting down the government over what he thinks are really tiny differences. I would guess that while the financial differences are small, the ego differences are still pretty big.
My main question when I heard about the mediation offer was about separation of powers. I would suspect given the already mentioned bruised egos, having the governor meddle with the legislature by hiring a mediator would add even more capsaicin to an already fiery stew.
But it is the kind of thing an adult would do. I think of something I heard during the Alaska political corruption trials in 2007 -2008. I believe it was someone working with the prosecution who observed that the businessmen (there were no women indicted) all quickly came to settlement agreements while the politicians were the ones who tended to go to trial. The businessmen, he hypothesized, knew how to assess their situation and cut their losses while the politicians protested to the end that they didn't do anything wrong.
The governor tends to take more of a business approach than the Republican politicians in power in Juneau (well, in Anchorage at the moment), despite their non-stop pro-business rhetoric. And lest I be accused of picking on the Republicans, let me say in my defense, that they are, and pretty much have been, the folks who call the shots in Juneau. The Democrats are relegated to scraps that fall from the Republican table. They haven't had any power over anything until their votes were needed for the CBR. The Democrats, from my perspective, have still been meek in their demands (maybe requests is a more accurate term) but the Senate seems galled that they have to acknowledge their existence at all.
Tuesday, June 02, 2015
Monday, June 01, 2015
Anchorage Mayor Election - Review Of The Numbers And What They May Portend
As the Republican majority caucuses in the state house and senate act [fill in the blank], it's probably useful to look back at the April general election and the May runoff in Anchorage, and consider what they might mean for future elections.
There are some interesting numbers to ponder.
First, more people voted in the runoff than in the general election. I thought that this was a first, though I'm not sure now. The Municipal election results page which goes back to 1991, shows two runoff elections prior to 2015. In 2009 there were a lot fewer voters in the runoff. But 2000 isn't as clear. The runoff election tally on the Muni website lists two different sets of totals. One is less than the general election total (62,406) and one is more.
You'd think the higher one might include absentee ballots, but election totals have lots of strange numbers so I'm not jumping to any conclusions. Amanda Moser runs the Municipal Elections. She also believed that the prior runoffs had lower turnouts when I talked to her earlier today. In fact, she pointed out that the Municipal Code only requires there to be as many ballots as in the regular election.
The table below shows the results of the general runoff elections.
Second, there were 13,352 MORE votes in the runoff than in the general election.
Third, Berkowitz won by 15,164 votes in the runoff.
Fourth, if you subtract the additional 13,352 votes in the runoff from Berkowitz' total, he would have had 29,164 votes, only 2,212 more votes than Demboski. The percentages would have been
Berkowitz 51.5% to Dembosky 48.5%. A much closer vote.
So, what does this all mean?
We have to be careful about reaching conclusions. I'm speculating here. But my sense of elections for the last ten years or so, has been that there is very low turnout and the only way Democrats have a chance to win when there are more Republicans is to get more people to vote. People who have just given up on the process or don't think their vote counts.
While we don't know how people who voted in the general election voted in the runoff, we do know that there were 13,352 more of them in the runoff than the general and that Berkowitz won by 15,164 votes.
Conservative v Liberal Showdown?
The runoff pitted a 30 something female candidate against a 50 something male. She identified herself as the most conservative candidate in the general election and he identified himself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. She promised to veto a gay rights addition to the Municipal anti-discrimination ordinance and was strongly opposed to abortion. He was pro-gay rights and pro-choice. Gay rights hadn't done well in prior elections in Anchorage. (But then again times are changing.)
We don't know if it was the ideological stands, the name recognition, past experience, preference for a male candidate, or personality, or campaign styles that made the difference here. Probably different things for different voters. But we do know that a liberal trounced a conservative in the biggest city in a generally red state.
My guess is that the extra voters who came out in the runoff made all the difference. And if the Left can get them out again in the future, the state could see big changes.
November 2016 Election Implications
My sense is that the House and Senate Republicans, who have been acting like the trolls who lived under the bridge during our current budget crisis special session, exist in a giant echo chamber. The leaders are told by the oil and construction and other major industry lobbyists how wise and powerful they are. They're told they're doing the right thing and to stand tall because the people of Alaska are behind them despite what the biased media report. And they apparently believe that. Or the lobbyists are making them offers that the public simply can't match.
Now, the 2000 Census redistricting resulted in enough gerrymandering that a number of districts are safely Republican (and safely Democratic.) But in Anchorage, all but sixteen precincts went for Berkowitz, most of those in Demboski territory in Eagle River or Chugiak. That means most Anchorage precincts voted for the more liberal (and also well known candidate). I think this election tells us that with strong candidates, Democrats can win in most of Anchorage, just not the Eagle River/Chugiak area.
Despite the gerrymandering, there are 23 Republicans, 16 Democrats, and one non-affiliated who caucuses with the Democrats. Rural Democrats have traditionally been lured into majority Republican caucus with the promise of pork for their districts if they join and the threat of legislative castration if they don't. Three of the current rural Democrats are part of the current Majority Caucus.
But given this Anchorage election, and the anger that the Republican majorities in the House and Senate are stirring up now, the Democrats could pick enough seats House seats to tie the Republicans. If this happened the three renegade Dems along with the non-affiliated representative from Ketchikan, would likely join. It won't be easy, but if the Democrats had three strong candidates in marginally Republican districts, and could get people who normally don't vote to vote, they could do it. Of course, they would also have keep all the seats they presently have.
People think 2016 is too far away for people to remember, but I doubt next year's legislative session will be much prettier, even if the price of oil shoots back up. And people need health care and they want good schools for their kids. And they see the oil companies being protected in the budget fights while Alaskans are being told "it's time to make hard decisions."
Just some thoughts I had after renewing the Anchorage mayoral election numbers.
[NOTE: When I first went to get the numbers from the Muni election site, I had some questions. I talked to the MOA elections official Amanda Moser, but the numbers she was looking at were different from the ones I had on my screen. It turned out there were different pages on their website linking to different (but very similar) results. They've made some changes since this morning to fix that, but after the phone call, I found other inconsistencies in the numbers and emailed that information. The runoff information I had originally found is now (as I write) gone. Amanda emailed me the numbers and said she'll get the website fixed in the next couple of days. As a blogger, I recognize how hard it is to keep updating old pages and how easy it is to miss bad links, so I'm not too concerned. My dealings with that office over the last few elections have convinced me they're working really hard to keep things as accurate and transparent as possible. You can get the general election (April) numbers at the Municipal Election Results site. Here are some others tallies which may not be linked any longer (or may not be linked yet):
[June 2, 9am Update: I found the original Municipal page with the 2015 election results (it showed up in my history): http://www.muni.org/departments/assembly/clerk/elections/pages/electionresults.aspx]
There are some interesting numbers to ponder.
First, more people voted in the runoff than in the general election. I thought that this was a first, though I'm not sure now. The Municipal election results page which goes back to 1991, shows two runoff elections prior to 2015. In 2009 there were a lot fewer voters in the runoff. But 2000 isn't as clear. The runoff election tally on the Muni website lists two different sets of totals. One is less than the general election total (62,406) and one is more.
You'd think the higher one might include absentee ballots, but election totals have lots of strange numbers so I'm not jumping to any conclusions. Amanda Moser runs the Municipal Elections. She also believed that the prior runoffs had lower turnouts when I talked to her earlier today. In fact, she pointed out that the Municipal Code only requires there to be as many ballots as in the regular election.
“28.40.010 - Form.Fortunately she didn't stick with the minimum and ordered more for the May election.
B2
For each runoff election the municipal clerk shall ensure that the number of ballots prepared equals at least the number of voters who cast ballots in the election requiring the runoff election.”
The table below shows the results of the general runoff elections.
| Gen Election April 5, 2015 | Runoff May 5, 2015 | ||||
| Candidate | # of Votes | Percent | # of Votes | Percent | |
| KERN, | 62 | 0.11% | |||
| SPEZIALE, | 36 | 0.06% | |||
| AHERN | 406 | 0.71% | |||
| BAUER | 223 | 0.39% | |||
| BERKOWITZ | 21,189 | 37.03% | 42,869 | 60,75% | |
| COFFEY | 8261 | 14.44% | |||
| DARDEN | 609 | 1.06% | |||
| DEMBOSKI | 13,796 | 24.11% | 27,705 | 39.25% | |
| HALCRO | 12,340 | 21.57% | |||
| HUIT | 124 | 0.22% | |||
| JAMISON | 48 | 0.08% | |||
| WRITE-IN | 128 | 0.22% | |||
| Totals | 57,222 | 70,574 | +13,352 | ||
Second, there were 13,352 MORE votes in the runoff than in the general election.
Third, Berkowitz won by 15,164 votes in the runoff.
Fourth, if you subtract the additional 13,352 votes in the runoff from Berkowitz' total, he would have had 29,164 votes, only 2,212 more votes than Demboski. The percentages would have been
Berkowitz 51.5% to Dembosky 48.5%. A much closer vote.
So, what does this all mean?
We have to be careful about reaching conclusions. I'm speculating here. But my sense of elections for the last ten years or so, has been that there is very low turnout and the only way Democrats have a chance to win when there are more Republicans is to get more people to vote. People who have just given up on the process or don't think their vote counts.
While we don't know how people who voted in the general election voted in the runoff, we do know that there were 13,352 more of them in the runoff than the general and that Berkowitz won by 15,164 votes.
Conservative v Liberal Showdown?
The runoff pitted a 30 something female candidate against a 50 something male. She identified herself as the most conservative candidate in the general election and he identified himself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. She promised to veto a gay rights addition to the Municipal anti-discrimination ordinance and was strongly opposed to abortion. He was pro-gay rights and pro-choice. Gay rights hadn't done well in prior elections in Anchorage. (But then again times are changing.)
We don't know if it was the ideological stands, the name recognition, past experience, preference for a male candidate, or personality, or campaign styles that made the difference here. Probably different things for different voters. But we do know that a liberal trounced a conservative in the biggest city in a generally red state.
My guess is that the extra voters who came out in the runoff made all the difference. And if the Left can get them out again in the future, the state could see big changes.
November 2016 Election Implications
My sense is that the House and Senate Republicans, who have been acting like the trolls who lived under the bridge during our current budget crisis special session, exist in a giant echo chamber. The leaders are told by the oil and construction and other major industry lobbyists how wise and powerful they are. They're told they're doing the right thing and to stand tall because the people of Alaska are behind them despite what the biased media report. And they apparently believe that. Or the lobbyists are making them offers that the public simply can't match.
Now, the 2000 Census redistricting resulted in enough gerrymandering that a number of districts are safely Republican (and safely Democratic.) But in Anchorage, all but sixteen precincts went for Berkowitz, most of those in Demboski territory in Eagle River or Chugiak. That means most Anchorage precincts voted for the more liberal (and also well known candidate). I think this election tells us that with strong candidates, Democrats can win in most of Anchorage, just not the Eagle River/Chugiak area.
Despite the gerrymandering, there are 23 Republicans, 16 Democrats, and one non-affiliated who caucuses with the Democrats. Rural Democrats have traditionally been lured into majority Republican caucus with the promise of pork for their districts if they join and the threat of legislative castration if they don't. Three of the current rural Democrats are part of the current Majority Caucus.
But given this Anchorage election, and the anger that the Republican majorities in the House and Senate are stirring up now, the Democrats could pick enough seats House seats to tie the Republicans. If this happened the three renegade Dems along with the non-affiliated representative from Ketchikan, would likely join. It won't be easy, but if the Democrats had three strong candidates in marginally Republican districts, and could get people who normally don't vote to vote, they could do it. Of course, they would also have keep all the seats they presently have.
People think 2016 is too far away for people to remember, but I doubt next year's legislative session will be much prettier, even if the price of oil shoots back up. And people need health care and they want good schools for their kids. And they see the oil companies being protected in the budget fights while Alaskans are being told "it's time to make hard decisions."
Just some thoughts I had after renewing the Anchorage mayoral election numbers.
[NOTE: When I first went to get the numbers from the Muni election site, I had some questions. I talked to the MOA elections official Amanda Moser, but the numbers she was looking at were different from the ones I had on my screen. It turned out there were different pages on their website linking to different (but very similar) results. They've made some changes since this morning to fix that, but after the phone call, I found other inconsistencies in the numbers and emailed that information. The runoff information I had originally found is now (as I write) gone. Amanda emailed me the numbers and said she'll get the website fixed in the next couple of days. As a blogger, I recognize how hard it is to keep updating old pages and how easy it is to miss bad links, so I'm not too concerned. My dealings with that office over the last few elections have convinced me they're working really hard to keep things as accurate and transparent as possible. You can get the general election (April) numbers at the Municipal Election Results site. Here are some others tallies which may not be linked any longer (or may not be linked yet):
- Runoff Results (May 15, 2015)
- April General Election Results (May 15, 2015)
- The most recent runoff summary result (May 22, 2015)
- The most recent runoff statement of votes (by precinct) (May 22, 2015)]
[June 2, 9am Update: I found the original Municipal page with the 2015 election results (it showed up in my history): http://www.muni.org/departments/assembly/clerk/elections/pages/electionresults.aspx]
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Summer Time - Urban Conflux
Not sure how I got notified but I got a message from something called Urban Conflux
There were a number of bike ride groups and a tour of Spenard with Steve Heimel sounded interesting. It was nice to see a bunch of other bikers, and riding with 30 or so others changes the bike car dynamics a lot when trying to cross a street. But Steve warned us from the beginning that this wasn't going to be into the heart of Spenard as he'd like. And it wasn't. We wandered from West High, past the Franz Bakery, to Bosco's, along a back street parallel to Fireweed. We heard about the history of the windmill at Chilkoot's, through the Saturday market there, and then along Arctic to downtown. We did stop at Fire Island Bakery on the way for an impromptu concert/singalong.
All the various bike groups that Urban Conflux had organized met at town square where there was music and a little food and bubbles and people. It's nice to have festive stuff going on, but it wasn't all that engaging for me. I checked out the weekend market which seemed to have a lot of empty spaces where booths used to be in past years, but maybe it's just because it's only May.
But it was nice to see old friends I haven't talked to for a while.
And then I took the bike trail home to see where the detour would block me. At the wooden bridge just east of Seward Highway near the Senior Center.
An Urban Conflux is a one day gathering on May 30th, 2015 to discover Urban Anchorage in unexpected ways. We have organized many events happening simultaneously as a celebration of urban life and 100 years of Anchorage. FIND YOUR EVENT HERE: fivethirtyproject.org.
There were a number of bike ride groups and a tour of Spenard with Steve Heimel sounded interesting. It was nice to see a bunch of other bikers, and riding with 30 or so others changes the bike car dynamics a lot when trying to cross a street. But Steve warned us from the beginning that this wasn't going to be into the heart of Spenard as he'd like. And it wasn't. We wandered from West High, past the Franz Bakery, to Bosco's, along a back street parallel to Fireweed. We heard about the history of the windmill at Chilkoot's, through the Saturday market there, and then along Arctic to downtown. We did stop at Fire Island Bakery on the way for an impromptu concert/singalong. 
 |
| Bubble Worship |
But it was nice to see old friends I haven't talked to for a while.
And then I took the bike trail home to see where the detour would block me. At the wooden bridge just east of Seward Highway near the Senior Center.
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Sloppy Headline - Supreme Court Ruled for But Didn't Back Group Fighting Pebble Mine
Alaska Supreme Court backs group fighting Pebble mine
The Supreme Court is NOT supposed to take sides in cases. The justices are not supposed to 'back' one side or the other. They are supposed to make decisions based on the law, not whether they like the one party in the case or another.
To say the Supreme Court 'backs' one party is misleading. From the Oxford Dictionaries:
| verb: Back 1 Give financial, material, or moral support to: he had a newspaper empire backing him go up there and tell them—I’ll back you up Synonyms sponsor, finance, put up the money for, fund, subsidize, underwrite, be a patron of, act as guarantor of informal foot the bill for, pick up the tab for, bankroll, stake |
Even when you use the right words, the listener might not understand exactly what you meant. But when you use the wrong words you give the reader a license to get it wrong.
The Supreme Court may not back one party or the other. It can rule in favor of one side, but that rule should be based on the law, not on whether individual judges or the whole court likes one of the parties. The ruling may be good for one party, one might even say the ruling supports the arguments of one of the parties, but the court itself can't.
And while one could argue that the ruling gave moral support to the folks opposed to Pebble Mine happy, that isn't the Supreme Court's job. And that isn't the main meaning of 'to back.'
There's enough political polarization already without the newspaper adding to it by making readers think that the Supreme Court has taken a position on Pebble Mine. They've taken a position on the law, not the mine.
If, in fact, the court actually made its decision in order to support those opposing the mine and not based on the law, that would be very big news indeed. People argue the US Supreme Court did that in their 2000 election ruling. But there is nothing in the ADN article to support that idea here.
 |
| From October 2013 Post |
I'd note that this brings to a close a huge dispute over the right of private citizens to bring public good lawsuits without the fear of being charged with the lawyers' fees if they lose.
[Reposted because of Feedburner problems]
Friday, May 29, 2015
My Math Says At Least 2000 Kids Will Be Abused Because Of Dunleavy's Changes To Erin's Law
On May 24, Senator Dunleavy posted a long response on Facebook to the critics of his changes to HB 44, now CS HB 44.
I've responded to it already here. But as he continues to defend himself, I thought it would be useful to focus on what I think is the only real issue here: the number of kids who will be molested because of the changes he made to the Erin's Law. He argues he hasn't weakened the bill at all. I truly can't fathom how he has come up with that conclusion. Well, I've tried and I posted one possible explanation. Here, I'm going to address this issue about the number of kids. Then below, I've copied his long Facebook defense with my responses, paragraph by paragraph.
There's only one issue:
(The only other possible issue is that without the changes, the bill wouldn't have passed. But since it's already passed the House and the clean version passed the Senate last year unanimously, I think that argument can't seriously be made.)
In my mind, there is only one issue that matters when discussing the changes in Erin's Law that Senator Dunleavy's committee has made: How will these changes impact the number of kids who will be molested because they did not get taught at school - because of Erin's Law - how to recognize potential abusers and their grooming techniques, how to say no, and that it's not their fault and so they need to tell an authority (parents, teachers, police, etc.) what happened.
Erin's Law, the original HB 44 amended to include teen dating violence awareness education, had the following features:
1. School districts were required to use this program
2. It covered kids in grades K-12
3. If parents did not want their kids to participate, they had to say they did not give permission (opt out)
Now, the Erin's Law section of the Senate Education Committee Substitute for HB 44 has the following features:
1. School districts are not required to implement the program
2. It covers grades 7-12 only
3. Kids cannot get this program unless their parents give them permission (opt in)
Just these changes alone will reduce the number of kids who participate in this program. We can argue about how many kids will be affected. Dunleavy tells us that 20+ school districts of 53 are already offering some version of this training. I've looked at the list and it includes the largest districts - Anchorage, Fairbanks, Mat-Su, Juneau. Thus while it's less than half the school districts, it's more than half the kids. So, well over half the students are in school districts that do some of this. The list doesn't tell us what is content is covered or whether it is K-12 or just 7-12.
Let's do some rough numbers. Census data tells us that as of 2013 25.6% of the 736,732 people in Alaska are under 18. That means in 2013 there were 188,600 kids in Alaska. Of these 7.5% were under five and so not in school. That comes to 133,348 school age kids and there would be more now. For argument's sake (and I'll be conservative with the numbers I offer) let's suppose that 30% of those kids are NOT getting sexual assault awareness training at school now. That would mean about 40,000 kids.
Currently, schools have the power to adopt such training or not. One has to assume that those who are supportive have adopted it. The others, for whatever reason, have not. Now that this bill has been changed from mandatory to optional for schools, there's no reason to think that a lot of them will suddenly change their positions on this. But to be charitable, let's say that 50% of the kids who aren't getting this, will be covered next year because the schools voluntarily adopt it. And, again being charitable, let's assume those schools offer it to kids in K-12.
That still leaves 20,000 kids who won't get exposed to sexual abuse awareness training.
The numbers that proponents of Erin's Law have cited were 1/4 of girls and 1/6 of boys will be molested by the time they are 18. ('Molested' a wide array of actions from being flashed to groped to raped. And these events often continue over years.) I didn't hear anyone challenge those numbers, but again, I'll be charitable and round it off to one out of ten. Among the 20,000 kids not getting Erin's Law training, 10% would be 2,000 kids who will be molested because they were not given access to sexual abuse awareness. I think my number is low because I've been very conservative with my hypotheticals and because Alaska's rate of abuse is higher than the national average. I acknowledge that Erin's Law education won't prevent all sexual abuse of kids. But Erin Merryn testified that she's been given anecdotal reports from police where the law is in place that they have been told by kids that it mattered and that statistics on abuse have dropped. (And given the higher awareness for such crimes, often the numbers go up, not down, because more people report.)
This is the low-ball statistical impact of the changes that Dunleavy has made to the original HB 44. There is a direct relationship between the changes that were made and this figure of 2,000 kids who will not be prepared to evade molestation because of those changes. This is just for the first year. Even if the number were 'only' 1000, it would be horrific. And each of these kids will have emotional and psychological damage that will lead to extra work for teachers, law enforcement, the courts, not to mention their families.
Despite Dunleavy's claims that other parts of the bill make it a better bill, none of those changes strengthen the original intent or will get a single more kid into sexual abuse awareness classes. One could argue (and I do below) that some weaken it.
Because Dunleavy has insisted on watering down the bill and burdening it with 22 more sections, he will bear responsibility for every molestation that the original bill would have prevented. He can say what he wants, but there is a very direct correlation between his actions here and the future abuse of a large number of kids in Alaska. Whether that number is 500, 1000, or 2000, each one is his responsibility.
Dunleavy has not given equivalent benefits that his changes will cause that would offset the damage to these kids. He talks broadly about parental rights, but never identifies specific harm passing the original Erin's Law would have caused.
The only possible way Dunleavy could be excused from this responsibility is if he could prove that the original bill would not have passed the full Senate. Since it the passed the Senate unanimously last year, I think that proving it would have failed this year would be a difficult task.
From my perspective the impact on Alaska kids is the only thing that is important in this discussion. What other states do, abstract benefits of parental rights, unspecified unfunded mandates, and the other things Dunleavy offers are just not relevant.
So that's my case here. If I'm wrong here, show me. My numbers are conservative. It's Dunleavy's job, if he wants to refute this, to show how passing the original HB 44 his committee got for a vote , would have caused greater harm because it didn't have his amendments. I have a good imagination, but I can't see how he can do much more than shuffle words around. Nothing that changes the numbers.
Below are Dunleavy's original Facebook Post and my comments paragraph by paragraph. I've put Dunleavy's words in blue and mine in black.
Pretty straightforward so far. He figures it will be scheduled in the Finance committee "in the next few days." As I publish this on May 29 the HB 44 Timeline still has May 21 referral to Finance as the last date is mentioned.. I can't find where it has been scheduled.
Point 2 - It wasn't simply that there were too many new sections. If they believed the sections strengthened the bill, I believe supporters of Erin's Law would not have objected. In fact they went along with the addition of a new section that mandated teen dating violence curriculum.
The concern was a) that there were so many new amendments (the bill now has 23 sections, one of which is the original bill) that had little or nothing to do with Erin's Law; b) that some of the amendments (in addition to the Erin's Law section mentioned above) that were aimed at parental rights actually hurt kids' chances of getting sexual abuse awareness education; and c) some of the new sections had controversial provisions such as prohibiting schools from contracting with agencies that provide abortions. They even prohibit school service providers from having non-school related contracts with abortion providers. (This seems to conflict with the US Constitution's guarantee of freedom of association.)
Dunleavy rightly points out that a number of school districts (he says 20+) already are doing some form of this training. Then he cites some concerned about:
1. Not having time to prepare. This includes getting appropriate materials and training teachers.
I'd note that all teachers are already, by state law, mandatory reporters. That means they are required to report suspicions of child abuse that they see. So they should already have some fairly detailed training so they know how to do this.
I would also note that I could find no time-line in the bill. Thus one assumes that like most legislation without a date, it goes into effect in 90 days. If having time is the issue, then simply giving schools a year or two to get prepared would seem to solve this issue. Leave it mandatory, but give them a delay option. A school district could apply for a waiver and explain why they needed it. But I don't think this should be an issue. There are already schools doing this training and they have resource materials. One person who testified shared books that are being used that even have
adaptations to Alaska Native cultures. (And I note that there are many different Native cultures so one needs to consider whether these are appropriate for all the cultures.) There was also testimony that the Rasmuson Foundation had pledged to help provide materials and training.
2. The legislative process and the slim chances for this bill. The original HB 44 already passed the House. Last year a clean version of this bill passed the Alaska Senate unanimously. So even if a few people told you they had problems with it, the odds are high that you wouldn't lose half those who voted for it last year. If you had simply passed the bill that was sent to the committee the way it was, I think (and you know) it had every likelihood of passing. But because of the significant changes there are now issues that will cause people who supported the bill to reconsider. Do they support all the new things you've tacked on and is it worth passing them (things you couldn't get passed in the regular session) to get a watered down Erin's Law? Furthermore, t's not likely the legislature would go back and add K-6 in a future session. More likely they'll say, we've already taken care of this issue.
And, if it passes the Senate, because of the many changes, the House has to redebate it. We're in special session now and the state is close to shutting down if the legislature can't agree on a budget. Debating all the changes to Erin's Law is not something they have a lot of time for. Perhaps you thought this would get your pet legislation passed. But it might get everything sunk.
Sen. Dunleavy is either being careless or trying to slip some things by us here. Talking about parental rights could take up half a dozen long blog posts. I'll just say I see there is a national movement on parental rights. Their website and rhetoric remind me of other conservative 'think tanks' like ALEC and Americans for Prosperity. They use a phrase everyone agrees with - parental rights, in this case - to attack government and schools. Parental Rights in this bill includes the right to keep their kids from learning about sexuality, STDs, birth control, and definitely abortion. And sexual abuse awareness.
It's interesting that while the language in Section 2 requires parents to object each time they want to withdraw their child from school activities to which the object, the language for Sexual Abuse Awareness (Erin's Law) requires them to actually give permission BEFORE the child can attend.
I'd note that two of the sections listed - 5 and 17 - have nothing to do with parental rights, at least not as I understand that term. Instead they are aimed at cutting all school contracts with agencies that provide abortions and agencies that don't provide abortions but have contracts with agencies that do. Those were just slipped in there, it seems, on the assumption that most people won't check. While Dunleavy has changed a lot of things to optional, the abortion providing agency blackballing has been made mandatory. What happens if the abortion providing agency also has the best and cheapest training and materials on STD's or pregnancy prevention? Schools will be forced to pay more and get lower quality materials. That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of giving school districts more flexibility and local power. It seems Sen Dunleavy is able to impose his religious beliefs on school districts which might limit the parental rights of parents who would welcome the expertise that, say, Planned Parenthood, has acquired over the years on these subjects.
There are also sections I would support. Section 2.4 allows parents to withdraw their kids from school to observe a religious holiday without penalties to the children and Section 2.5 allows parents to review the content of all classes, programs, performance standard, or activity. These are good things. Kids shouldn't be punished for observing the holy days of their religion and parents should have access to all the content used in schools. But they have nothing to do with Erin's Law.
This is a BIG DEAL. Your intent is not the issue. They say the road to hell is paved, not by bricks, but by good intentions. The outcomes are what matters. Your actions are setting up lots of Alaska kids for abuse because they won't get training on how to recognize abusers and avoid them and report them. For me, this is the bottom line. The number of kids who will be harmed because of your meddling with what was a clean bill, certain to pass. Nothing else matters. The rest is just noise.
You give no evidence except your 'confidence' that the other schools will follow through. And even if they did, you've made it significantly easier for abusers to keep their kids out of these classes.
And since the bill passed the Senate last year unanimously, I'm convinced it would have passed this time if you had simply passed the original bill without trying to tack on a bunch of other things you wanted, no matter how important you think they are. This is a test of a human being - whether you can help others without taking a cut for your help. You failed that test. I understand, because of your time in the legislature, that you consider this standard procedure. I'm just telling you that it's not part of the ethics I practice. I challenge you to find a quote from any ethical tradition that tells you to only help if you get something in return. Show me where Christ tells us to be sure to take your cut when you help others.
Second, if your concern was timing, why not just allow districts to apply for deadline waivers if they can show there's a hardship? But make them explain why they need the waiver, because people testified that the Rasmuson Foundation and others have offered to make materials and training available. Make them specify their reason for a waiver and then let Rasmuson help them overcome the obstacles. We'll see if these are the real issues or not.
If I'm wrong here, show me. My numbers are conservative. It's your job, if you want to refute this, to show how passing on as it was the original HB 44 your committee got, would have caused greater harm because it didn't have your amendments. I don't think you can.
I've responded to it already here. But as he continues to defend himself, I thought it would be useful to focus on what I think is the only real issue here: the number of kids who will be molested because of the changes he made to the Erin's Law. He argues he hasn't weakened the bill at all. I truly can't fathom how he has come up with that conclusion. Well, I've tried and I posted one possible explanation. Here, I'm going to address this issue about the number of kids. Then below, I've copied his long Facebook defense with my responses, paragraph by paragraph.
There's only one issue:
(The only other possible issue is that without the changes, the bill wouldn't have passed. But since it's already passed the House and the clean version passed the Senate last year unanimously, I think that argument can't seriously be made.)
In my mind, there is only one issue that matters when discussing the changes in Erin's Law that Senator Dunleavy's committee has made: How will these changes impact the number of kids who will be molested because they did not get taught at school - because of Erin's Law - how to recognize potential abusers and their grooming techniques, how to say no, and that it's not their fault and so they need to tell an authority (parents, teachers, police, etc.) what happened.
Erin's Law, the original HB 44 amended to include teen dating violence awareness education, had the following features:
1. School districts were required to use this program
2. It covered kids in grades K-12
3. If parents did not want their kids to participate, they had to say they did not give permission (opt out)
Now, the Erin's Law section of the Senate Education Committee Substitute for HB 44 has the following features:
1. School districts are not required to implement the program
2. It covers grades 7-12 only
3. Kids cannot get this program unless their parents give them permission (opt in)
Just these changes alone will reduce the number of kids who participate in this program. We can argue about how many kids will be affected. Dunleavy tells us that 20+ school districts of 53 are already offering some version of this training. I've looked at the list and it includes the largest districts - Anchorage, Fairbanks, Mat-Su, Juneau. Thus while it's less than half the school districts, it's more than half the kids. So, well over half the students are in school districts that do some of this. The list doesn't tell us what is content is covered or whether it is K-12 or just 7-12.
Let's do some rough numbers. Census data tells us that as of 2013 25.6% of the 736,732 people in Alaska are under 18. That means in 2013 there were 188,600 kids in Alaska. Of these 7.5% were under five and so not in school. That comes to 133,348 school age kids and there would be more now. For argument's sake (and I'll be conservative with the numbers I offer) let's suppose that 30% of those kids are NOT getting sexual assault awareness training at school now. That would mean about 40,000 kids.
Currently, schools have the power to adopt such training or not. One has to assume that those who are supportive have adopted it. The others, for whatever reason, have not. Now that this bill has been changed from mandatory to optional for schools, there's no reason to think that a lot of them will suddenly change their positions on this. But to be charitable, let's say that 50% of the kids who aren't getting this, will be covered next year because the schools voluntarily adopt it. And, again being charitable, let's assume those schools offer it to kids in K-12.
That still leaves 20,000 kids who won't get exposed to sexual abuse awareness training.
The numbers that proponents of Erin's Law have cited were 1/4 of girls and 1/6 of boys will be molested by the time they are 18. ('Molested' a wide array of actions from being flashed to groped to raped. And these events often continue over years.) I didn't hear anyone challenge those numbers, but again, I'll be charitable and round it off to one out of ten. Among the 20,000 kids not getting Erin's Law training, 10% would be 2,000 kids who will be molested because they were not given access to sexual abuse awareness. I think my number is low because I've been very conservative with my hypotheticals and because Alaska's rate of abuse is higher than the national average. I acknowledge that Erin's Law education won't prevent all sexual abuse of kids. But Erin Merryn testified that she's been given anecdotal reports from police where the law is in place that they have been told by kids that it mattered and that statistics on abuse have dropped. (And given the higher awareness for such crimes, often the numbers go up, not down, because more people report.)
This is the low-ball statistical impact of the changes that Dunleavy has made to the original HB 44. There is a direct relationship between the changes that were made and this figure of 2,000 kids who will not be prepared to evade molestation because of those changes. This is just for the first year. Even if the number were 'only' 1000, it would be horrific. And each of these kids will have emotional and psychological damage that will lead to extra work for teachers, law enforcement, the courts, not to mention their families.
Despite Dunleavy's claims that other parts of the bill make it a better bill, none of those changes strengthen the original intent or will get a single more kid into sexual abuse awareness classes. One could argue (and I do below) that some weaken it.
Because Dunleavy has insisted on watering down the bill and burdening it with 22 more sections, he will bear responsibility for every molestation that the original bill would have prevented. He can say what he wants, but there is a very direct correlation between his actions here and the future abuse of a large number of kids in Alaska. Whether that number is 500, 1000, or 2000, each one is his responsibility.
Dunleavy has not given equivalent benefits that his changes will cause that would offset the damage to these kids. He talks broadly about parental rights, but never identifies specific harm passing the original Erin's Law would have caused.
The only possible way Dunleavy could be excused from this responsibility is if he could prove that the original bill would not have passed the full Senate. Since it the passed the Senate unanimously last year, I think that proving it would have failed this year would be a difficult task.
From my perspective the impact on Alaska kids is the only thing that is important in this discussion. What other states do, abstract benefits of parental rights, unspecified unfunded mandates, and the other things Dunleavy offers are just not relevant.
So that's my case here. If I'm wrong here, show me. My numbers are conservative. It's Dunleavy's job, if he wants to refute this, to show how passing the original HB 44 his committee got for a vote , would have caused greater harm because it didn't have his amendments. I have a good imagination, but I can't see how he can do much more than shuffle words around. Nothing that changes the numbers.
Below are Dunleavy's original Facebook Post and my comments paragraph by paragraph. I've put Dunleavy's words in blue and mine in black.
The Committee Substitute (CS) for HB 44 known as “The Alaska Safe Children’s Act” by some and “Erin’s Law” by others was introduced in the Senate Education Committee that I chair on Tuesday. [May 19] The CS was heard and adopted by the Senate Education Committee and moved out to the next committee of referral, Senate Finance. A Senate Finance hearing has not been scheduled yet but I do anticipate one will be in the next few days. If the bill is passed out of Senate Finance, it will then go to the Senate Rules committee and soon after most likely to the Senate floor for a vote. If approved by the Senate it would go to the House for a vote as well.
Pretty straightforward so far. He figures it will be scheduled in the Finance committee "in the next few days." As I publish this on May 29 the HB 44 Timeline still has May 21 referral to Finance as the last date is mentioned.. I can't find where it has been scheduled.
The CS for HB 44 has been the topic of much discussion this week. The focus of the discussion seems to center on the following:Point 1 - There were two levels of concern. One, as Dunleavy mentions, changing the requirement for school districts from 'shall' to 'may.' But people were also concerned that parental option changed from allowing parents to opt out (they were required to say they wanted their kids to NOT participate in the program) to opting in (they are required to give permission before their kids can participate.) A third significant change was to eliminate K-6 kids from getting sexual awareness education. These ages are the most vulnerable and least able to defend themselves. They need this the most.
• The belief that the change from the word “shall” to “may” with regard to compelling school districts to mandate the training will make the law, if not meaningless, less effective, because school districts would not be required to implement the training – it would be optional and give local districts local control
• The concern that the CS has too many new sections and topics than what was in the original HB 44.
Point 2 - It wasn't simply that there were too many new sections. If they believed the sections strengthened the bill, I believe supporters of Erin's Law would not have objected. In fact they went along with the addition of a new section that mandated teen dating violence curriculum.
The concern was a) that there were so many new amendments (the bill now has 23 sections, one of which is the original bill) that had little or nothing to do with Erin's Law; b) that some of the amendments (in addition to the Erin's Law section mentioned above) that were aimed at parental rights actually hurt kids' chances of getting sexual abuse awareness education; and c) some of the new sections had controversial provisions such as prohibiting schools from contracting with agencies that provide abortions. They even prohibit school service providers from having non-school related contracts with abortion providers. (This seems to conflict with the US Constitution's guarantee of freedom of association.)
Let me explain why the changes to the CS were made. With regard to changing “shall” to “may”, this change was made at the request of school districts that testified at hearings that we had during the regular session. Their concern was that with potential budgets cuts and possible staff reductions, making the training mandatory in law now before we know what the budget will be could put the districts in a difficult spot in deciding how to use their limited resources. As one school official said, “We agree this training will be good for kids, but will we have the funds to implement it?” Another asked, “With budgets being cut, what do we give up to make room for new trainings such as this?”I'm sure that school districts did complain about this. The words 'unfunded mandate' were mentioned in the hearing. Schools do have a lot of things they are required to do. But my wife, who taught English to non-native speakers in the Anchorage School District and thus saw what happened in a number of different schools, would regularly tell me about how much time teachers spent on things that were not mandated - like celebrating various holidays. If teachers want to make time, they will. More on this below the next section.
Another thing that warranted the change was the issue of which curriculum or program to use, and more importantly, which is most effective? While this issue of identifying available, effective curricula is in the process of being addressed, some school district officials are concerned that they need time to review curricula before implementation in schools.
Currently, there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 20+ school districts out of 53 total Alaska school districts that are already doing some form of the training now voluntarily without being compelled by the state. School districts are asking for time to allow them to identify the resources to implement the training properly and effectively. This is part of the reason for the change.
The other stated issue some folks are having with the CS is that they believe there are too many sections to it, and that the number of sections may jeopardize the bill’s passage.
Hundreds of bills are introduced during legislative sessions, with a fraction of them ever getting passed by both the House and Senate and then being signed into law by the Governor. So there is always a chance a bill may not get the required votes for passage, including this CS. While I have had some legislators say they may not be able to support the CS as it is, others have stated to me that with the changes and additions to the CS they are now more likely to support the bill. It is always difficult to say what the final vote will be. However, I do have a sense that it has a very good chance of passing.
Dunleavy rightly points out that a number of school districts (he says 20+) already are doing some form of this training. Then he cites some concerned about:
1. Not having time to prepare. This includes getting appropriate materials and training teachers.
I'd note that all teachers are already, by state law, mandatory reporters. That means they are required to report suspicions of child abuse that they see. So they should already have some fairly detailed training so they know how to do this.
 |
| Book shared at 5/20/15 Education Committee Hearing |
adaptations to Alaska Native cultures. (And I note that there are many different Native cultures so one needs to consider whether these are appropriate for all the cultures.) There was also testimony that the Rasmuson Foundation had pledged to help provide materials and training.
2. The legislative process and the slim chances for this bill. The original HB 44 already passed the House. Last year a clean version of this bill passed the Alaska Senate unanimously. So even if a few people told you they had problems with it, the odds are high that you wouldn't lose half those who voted for it last year. If you had simply passed the bill that was sent to the committee the way it was, I think (and you know) it had every likelihood of passing. But because of the significant changes there are now issues that will cause people who supported the bill to reconsider. Do they support all the new things you've tacked on and is it worth passing them (things you couldn't get passed in the regular session) to get a watered down Erin's Law? Furthermore, t's not likely the legislature would go back and add K-6 in a future session. More likely they'll say, we've already taken care of this issue.
And, if it passes the Senate, because of the many changes, the House has to redebate it. We're in special session now and the state is close to shutting down if the legislature can't agree on a budget. Debating all the changes to Erin's Law is not something they have a lot of time for. Perhaps you thought this would get your pet legislation passed. But it might get everything sunk.
So what’s in the sections of the CS? In the Comments below, I will post links for: (a) the actual text of the CS for HB 44, (b) the original version of HB 44, and (c) a sectional analysis of the new CS completed by Legislative Legal. While the Legislative Legal analysis lists 23 actual sections of the bill, these components of the bill are worth noting. . .
Section 16 deals with sexual abuse and sexual assault awareness and prevention efforts in public schools. This is what some refer to as “Erin’s Law.” The other component of this section relates to dating violence and abuse awareness and prevention efforts in public schools. Some refer to this as “Bree’s Law,” named after a young Alaskan woman named Bree Moore who was tragically murdered by her then boyfriend.
Sections 2, 5, 6, 7, and 17 relate to SB 89, known as the “Parental Rights Bill.” I introduced this bill earlier this year in an effort to reiterate in law the inherent rights of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children. SB 89 has had several hearings this year in the Senate Education Committee and State Affairs Committee. It was passed out to the Senate Rules Committee where it awaits scheduling for a floor vote.
Sections 3, 4, 8, 9, 19, 11, 12, 13 14,15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 all relate to eliminating or modifying requirements of the state on school districts and educational personnel. The purpose of these sections is to identify items that can be modified or repealed to enable school districts to save resources, in order for them to potentially use those freed resources for academic and educational matters.
Section 23 saves the state money and removes a testing requirement. This section is basically HB 80, sponsored by Representative Lynn Gattis, which passed the House this year. It repeals the mandate from last year’s HB 278 that all secondary students take the SAT, ACT or Work Keys test before graduating from high school. HB 278, which required the state to pay for the test, failed to specify a score that students must receive to consider passing. HB 80 reverses the mandate and funding from the state. In doing so, the state will save $525,000 annually and will give back countless hours to school counselors and administrators who have been proctoring these tests.
Sen. Dunleavy is either being careless or trying to slip some things by us here. Talking about parental rights could take up half a dozen long blog posts. I'll just say I see there is a national movement on parental rights. Their website and rhetoric remind me of other conservative 'think tanks' like ALEC and Americans for Prosperity. They use a phrase everyone agrees with - parental rights, in this case - to attack government and schools. Parental Rights in this bill includes the right to keep their kids from learning about sexuality, STDs, birth control, and definitely abortion. And sexual abuse awareness.
It's interesting that while the language in Section 2 requires parents to object each time they want to withdraw their child from school activities to which the object, the language for Sexual Abuse Awareness (Erin's Law) requires them to actually give permission BEFORE the child can attend.
I'd note that two of the sections listed - 5 and 17 - have nothing to do with parental rights, at least not as I understand that term. Instead they are aimed at cutting all school contracts with agencies that provide abortions and agencies that don't provide abortions but have contracts with agencies that do. Those were just slipped in there, it seems, on the assumption that most people won't check. While Dunleavy has changed a lot of things to optional, the abortion providing agency blackballing has been made mandatory. What happens if the abortion providing agency also has the best and cheapest training and materials on STD's or pregnancy prevention? Schools will be forced to pay more and get lower quality materials. That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of giving school districts more flexibility and local power. It seems Sen Dunleavy is able to impose his religious beliefs on school districts which might limit the parental rights of parents who would welcome the expertise that, say, Planned Parenthood, has acquired over the years on these subjects.
There are also sections I would support. Section 2.4 allows parents to withdraw their kids from school to observe a religious holiday without penalties to the children and Section 2.5 allows parents to review the content of all classes, programs, performance standard, or activity. These are good things. Kids shouldn't be punished for observing the holy days of their religion and parents should have access to all the content used in schools. But they have nothing to do with Erin's Law.
In my opinion and that of others, the changes in CS HB44 make it a better bill because it addresses a number of outstanding issues that have already had the close attention of the House and/or Senate but which were not yet passed into law because we ran out of time in the regular session. By rolling the issues into a CS as is commonly done in the legislature, a number of “birds can be killed with one stone.”Except. . . . that Erin's Law was as close to a slam dunk pass as there could be, until you added 22 new sections on to it, some of which are truly questionable. Yes, this sort of horse trading on legislation is done all the time, but this is a special session, with limited time, and the Governor's direction was to pass Erin's Law, not all these others. And, as I've noted elsewhere, all this leveraging and taking advantage that you say is 'commonly done' may well be part of the reason that politicians' approval rating is so abysmally low.
Now let me address some of the claims by using facts and data.I suspect this is true. Rather I see this as a way to piggy back on a bi-partisan bill to get legislation that you failed to get passed in the regular session. But stuffing this with 22 new sections to the one section of Erin's Law is probably even greedy by normal standards. And given the news that people are asking you to run against Sen. Murkowski, this would seem a perfect ploy for getting points with the far right of the Republican party in the primaries. I'm not saying you don't also believe in this, or that the political benefit was part of your calculation, but appearances do matter in politics. Though you may not have expected the amount of push back you've gotten.
“You put this CS together to kill the original bill.” - Nothing could be further from the truth. Everything in the CS, I support and in talking with others, many others do as well.
“By changing the ‘shall’ to a ‘may’ you have effectively nullified the intent of the bill.” - I don’t think so and it is certainly not my intent. If anything, I think we get more support for it by giving school districts more control and more time to identify ways they can implement the training. As stated earlier, many school districts are already doing the training. I am confident that within a short period of time, the remaining school districts will be implementing the training as well.This really gets to the key point I made at the beginning of this post. At the top of this post I went through the math, step by step, and it shows that at least 2000 kids will likely be abused without the protection of Erin's Law because of the changes Dunleavy made.
This is a BIG DEAL. Your intent is not the issue. They say the road to hell is paved, not by bricks, but by good intentions. The outcomes are what matters. Your actions are setting up lots of Alaska kids for abuse because they won't get training on how to recognize abusers and avoid them and report them. For me, this is the bottom line. The number of kids who will be harmed because of your meddling with what was a clean bill, certain to pass. Nothing else matters. The rest is just noise.
You give no evidence except your 'confidence' that the other schools will follow through. And even if they did, you've made it significantly easier for abusers to keep their kids out of these classes.
“Dunleavy, you don’t care about kids. You don’t want Erin’s Law to pass!” - Boy, where do I start? First of all, last year I voted FOR Erin’s law. Read this link: http://www.adn.com/…/alaska-legislature-can-have-impact-abu… Remember, it was also introduced last year and passed the Senate 20 to 0. So I DO support the law. With regard to not caring about kids, seriously, my profession is public education. I care and that is why I support the bill.I'm sure you care about kids. I don't doubt that. But I think you've been able to compartmentalize what you are doing here and you simply don't see the impacts this will have on real kids all across the state. You can read my post on Hannah Arendt to understand how this might happen.
And since the bill passed the Senate last year unanimously, I'm convinced it would have passed this time if you had simply passed the original bill without trying to tack on a bunch of other things you wanted, no matter how important you think they are. This is a test of a human being - whether you can help others without taking a cut for your help. You failed that test. I understand, because of your time in the legislature, that you consider this standard procedure. I'm just telling you that it's not part of the ethics I practice. I challenge you to find a quote from any ethical tradition that tells you to only help if you get something in return. Show me where Christ tells us to be sure to take your cut when you help others.
“Then why change the ‘shall’ to ‘may’ if you supported it last year? Why the change?” - Good question. Last year we had oil prices well over $100 per barrel. We were not staring at a $4 billion dollar deficit. We were not having to cut school district funding; we were adding to it. The state and school districts were not under the pressure we are under now. Again, the “may” gives districts time to identify resources to implement the training.A couple of things here. First, for every kid who is sexually abused, there is more work for the teachers, the school districts, and in many cases police and mental health agencies, and on and on. Not preventing child abuse is itself an unfunded mandate, because the damage of abuse costs the kids, their families, their schools, and their communities a lot.
Second, if your concern was timing, why not just allow districts to apply for deadline waivers if they can show there's a hardship? But make them explain why they need the waiver, because people testified that the Rasmuson Foundation and others have offered to make materials and training available. Make them specify their reason for a waiver and then let Rasmuson help them overcome the obstacles. We'll see if these are the real issues or not.
“There should be no amendments or new sections to this bill. Go back to the original bill.” - If we were to do that, then there would be no “Bree’s Law” component of the bill, no training for dating violence and abuse, because that component is itself an amendment. The “original” bill did not have the “Bree’s Law” component. It was an amendment just added this spring. That change, as well as the others in the CS, have all gone toward making it a better bill. Go to the following link and you can follow the bill as it was amended in the House. http://www.akleg.gov/basis/Bill/Detail/29…Again with this red herring about amendments. There are lots of reasons to amend bills. One is to make them better when problems are raised or when new options (like the teen dating violence) present themselves. Another is to try to piggyback your own pet legislation onto a bill that is likely to pass so yours goes along for the ride. And sometimes they are added to delay or kill a bill. Despite what you say about the 22 added sections making it a better bill (the teen dating violence change isn't even one of them), we'll just have to disagree. I've stated already above my reasons for thinking the amendments weaken and water down the bill. Yes, bills go through many stages because people have different goals and values. You were in a position to let this go through and you hijacked it for your own benefit. By that I mean that you got stuff tacked on that you wanted passed. Stuff that doesn't in any way increase the likelihood that kids will be protected against sexual abuse.
The House amended the bill. The Senate was in the process of amending the bill in the regular session by identifying mandates that could be removed from school districts to free up resources. This effort was led by Senator Gardner. Senator McGuire also offered an amendment to the bill – the “Bree’s Law” component a few weeks before the session ended. My point is that bills often go through many steps and amendments before they become law.
“Erin Merryn, the lady behind the Erin’s Law movement, states you have hijacked the law and have changed it from its original version.” – This is what she has said. But she also recognizes that there are different versions in different states. I will post in the Comments below a document prepared by the National Conference of State Legislatures which identifies greatly varying action taken in implementing Erin’s Law in various states. While some states do require schools to provide the education, others simply allow them to, and yet other states create task forces to study potential implementation of the training. I believe Alaska’s CS is a version that will help children.I really don't care what other states do. Alaska has the worst statistics of any state when it comes to sexual abuse, violence against women, and related crimes. Your responsibility as an Alaskan legislator is to those kids in our state who need the information that the original Erin's Law would provide them. You sound like a teenager telling his parents, "But Mom, all the other kids do it." You aren't a teenager, you're a legislator with the power to help helpless kids. You are responsible for every kid that doesn't get sexual abuse awareness education and then gets molested because of what you've done to Erin's Law. And the numbers, as I've pointed out above, will be significant. That's not opinion, that's not arguable. It's based on actual numbers and the stats on rates of abuse. You took a strong bill and watered it down. There will be kids who don't get the information and help they need because of those changes. And you're the person who has made the changes and defends the changes.
What’s next? The CS is in Senate Finance waiting to be scheduled for a hearing. Hopefully this will occur soon. It’s time to help Alaska’s children.
If I'm wrong here, show me. My numbers are conservative. It's your job, if you want to refute this, to show how passing on as it was the original HB 44 your committee got, would have caused greater harm because it didn't have your amendments. I don't think you can.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Sharing The Newspaper On The Deck At Breakfast
It's nice to eat breakfast outside on the deck again and I more than happy to share with the damsel flies.
"This inability to think created the possibilities for many ordinary men to commit evil deeds on a gigantic scale" Chenault and Dunleavy - Meet Hannah Arendt
Hannah Arendt was a refugee from Nazi Germany who had studied
philosophy (and also had a long affair) with Martin Heidiger, getting
out of Europe in 1941 to the US where she taught at various top ranked
universities. I had read her book The Human Condition as a grad
student and was inspired by her discussion of the public and private
realms to explore the concept of privacy in my doctoral dissertation.
So, when I saw a movie entitled Hannah Arendt listed on Netflix, I wondered how her life could fit into a two hour movie.
The movie focuses on her coverage of the Eichmann trial in 1961 and the publication of her reports in The New Yorker along with the backlash to some things she said in the articles. Let me say early on here, that I'm no Arendt expert and a lot of my response is based on the woman portrayed in the movie, plus some follow up online at here and here. Having grown up with German-Jewish refugees in the US, I have a familiarity with that world as well, though the California settlers do seem to be quite different from those who stayed on the East Coast.
There are a number of things that struck me as a I watched the film. And of course the film touched on these topics very lightly and so do I. But they are interesting starting points to pursue more.
1. Her ability to separate herself from the situation when she views people and interactions among people and to probe while suspending judgment. As she says in the film,
2. Her notion of 'the banality of evil' hinted at in 1. above. Her observations of Eichmann in the trial came as a revelation to her, because he was so ordinary. He had absorbed the Nazi propaganda and had let go of his own individuality and decision making powers and became an instrument of the Nazis.
3. Her point seems to be that this goes far beyond Eichmann and beyond Germany. People give themselves up to world views, values, and beliefs of the dominant culture and just go along without any moral assessment of their actions.
4. Points 2 and 3 (which overlap a lot) shout at me to explore how this might help us understand how that might be in play in today's world. I raise that possibility gingerly, because, as in the case of Arendt and her article, people will likely misread it. In Arendt's case, it was to see her as excusing Eichmann and blaming the Jews for their own demise. In this case, some people will surely miss the finer points and see me comparing people today to Nazis. That's not what I'm doing. Rather I'm taking the notion of 'the banality of evil' that Arendt coined by studying Eichmann at his trial, and wondering how that might apply to the US today, and particularly to Alaska.
So, how might it apply?
Dunleavy, HB 44 - Erin's Law
Having just last week attended the Senate Education Committee's hearing on HB 44, I immediately thought of the total disconnect between what I saw and what the chair, Sen. Dunleavy said. How might Arendt's thoughts fit here?
Dunleavy, for one thing, never acknowledged the possibility that what he was doing to Erin's Law (the original HB 44) might mean that there would be kids who would not be exposed to sexual abuse awareness, and thus when they were exposed to an abuser, would not know what was happening, how to respond, and how to report so it could end (if it did start) quickly. He acknowledged no link between his actions and the fact that more kids would be abused because of his actions. He even derided people who suggested he was even complicit in kids being sexually abused.
This sounds similar to me to the way Eichmann said he was merely doing his job, making sure people got on the trains. He separated that task from the idea of where the trains were going and what would happen to the people at their destination. It seemed to me that Dunleavy was doing something similar. In his mind, he wasn't 'gutting' HB 44 as people charged. Rather he was adding language about parental rights (and other things) that in themselves were good, without a sense of the effect these changes would have on watering down Erin's Law, on jeopardizing the passing of the bill altogether, and on the outcome of fewer kids getting abuse awareness training and thus ending up abused. (Of course, only a relatively small number of kids who would get the training would be exposed to abuse. [updated: actually the numbers people cite are one in four girls and one in six boys, so that would be not so small a number.] But the numbers reported were still disturbingly high, so it wouldn't be insignificant.)
Of course, there's the possibility that he knows exactly what he's doing and he's lying, but I suspect not. It's easy for people to call others liars because they can't believe they don't think exactly the way they think. The more nuanced approach that Arendt takes requires more concentration and mental agility to comprehend.
Is there a different option than 'not too bright' and 'liar' that I'm missing? Dunleavy has not offered an explanation that covers all the holes that I see as listed in this post. He does have a lengthy FB defense, but it really doesn't address the details I raise. Instead it just says things like other states don't make the training mandatory so what are you complaining about. It doesn't address the issue of kids falling between the cracks because it's not mandatory and because it cuts out k-6. Interestingly, he also seems to have dropped all the parental-rights rhetoric, but maybe I just missed it.
Chenault And The Budget
In this case, we could take Arendt's concepts to portray Chenault's world view as so pro-oil, his majority in the House so big, and his leadership power so strong, that he simply never has to think about the consequences of what he is doing. Like Eichmann, his education is weak (though he did graduate from high school.) I don't suspect he had many probing high school classes that forced him to deeply consider opposing points of view or how to think critically. Instead, he mouths the slogans fed to him by the oil company lobbyists (all of whom are much better educated than Chenault) and groups like the Koch brothers supported Americans for Prosperity who tell him how smart he is, and what a good job he's doing, and how what he is doing is in the best interests of the people of Alaska. He doesn't have to think. (Think in the philosophical sense of pondering big questions that put his actions into a longer term and larger context, questioning what he takes for granted, considering the moral implications of what he's doing.) To those who challenge him, he can respond, "If you're so smart, why am I Speaker of the House and you're out there whining?" A good question. I'd respond: "Because he thinks he's in the legislature and he's speaker all on his own merits, and not because his oil and construction industry supporters haven't greased the wheels for him. He thinks they are supporting him because he's got the right values, not because he's absorbed the values they want him to have."
I'm not saying this is 'truth.' I'm saying this is what Arendt's model suggests could be true.
Can We Trust Arendt's Models?
I don't think we need to trust them or not. Rather they are tools for measuring the world we see. We use models to take measure of the world. It suggests things we should consider in our assessment. Does it accurately reflect what is happening? If we gather the facts, do they line up as the model predicts? Or is the model making us sort the facts to see what we expect to see?
Arendt's concept of the banality of evil has similarities to other concepts such as mob behavior or herd mentality; such as group think and other situations where people give up their moral responsibility to the people around them. We see echoes in The Lord of the Flies and in 1984 and in Madmen and The Sopranos. The Milgram Experiments are another example that stem from Eichmann's trial, though, as this article states, Arendt said they showed something different than she was getting at.
There are lots of nuances here and getting inside people's heads to read their intentions isn't something I've figured out how to do well. And there are problems with what people tell us they intended.
So What Do We Do?
So, when I saw a movie entitled Hannah Arendt listed on Netflix, I wondered how her life could fit into a two hour movie.
The movie focuses on her coverage of the Eichmann trial in 1961 and the publication of her reports in The New Yorker along with the backlash to some things she said in the articles. Let me say early on here, that I'm no Arendt expert and a lot of my response is based on the woman portrayed in the movie, plus some follow up online at here and here. Having grown up with German-Jewish refugees in the US, I have a familiarity with that world as well, though the California settlers do seem to be quite different from those who stayed on the East Coast.
There are a number of things that struck me as a I watched the film. And of course the film touched on these topics very lightly and so do I. But they are interesting starting points to pursue more.
1. Her ability to separate herself from the situation when she views people and interactions among people and to probe while suspending judgment. As she says in the film,
"Trying to understand is not the same as forgiveness."This is significant in the film because people become outraged at their perception that she excuses Eichmann (on the grounds that he's just an ordinary, not particularly bright man and not a sociopath) and because she says that without some Jewish leaders' cooperation, there would have been fewer Jews who died. To Arendt, this is merely unjudgmental fact of significant interest for anyone trying to understand the Holocaust.
2. Her notion of 'the banality of evil' hinted at in 1. above. Her observations of Eichmann in the trial came as a revelation to her, because he was so ordinary. He had absorbed the Nazi propaganda and had let go of his own individuality and decision making powers and became an instrument of the Nazis.
"I hold no defense of Eichmann, but I did try to reconcile the shocking mediocrity of the man with his staggering deeds. . . Eichmann utterly surrendered that single most defining human quality, that of being able to think, consequently he was no longer capable of making normal judgments. This inability to think created the possibilities for many ordinary men to commit evil deeds on a gigantic scale, the like of which one has never seen before." [emphasis added.]
"The trouble with criminalizing a Nazi like Eichmann was that he insisted in renouncing all personal qualities and it was as if there was nobody left to be either punished or forgiven. He protested time and again, contrary to the prosecution's assertion, that he had never done anything out of his own initiative. That he had no intention whatsoever, good or bad, that he had only obeyed orders. The typical Nazi plea makes it clear that the greatest evil in the world is the evil committed by nobody."
3. Her point seems to be that this goes far beyond Eichmann and beyond Germany. People give themselves up to world views, values, and beliefs of the dominant culture and just go along without any moral assessment of their actions.
"And not only in Germany, but in almost all countries. Not only among the persecutor, but also among the victims."This last part is what upset so many people. Her character says that if the Jews hadn't been organized and their leaders hadn't cooperated, fewer Jews would have died. They too had been indoctrinated into following orders. This idea also reminds me of the concept of internalized racism that infects the victims as well as the beneficiaries of racism in a society.
4. Points 2 and 3 (which overlap a lot) shout at me to explore how this might help us understand how that might be in play in today's world. I raise that possibility gingerly, because, as in the case of Arendt and her article, people will likely misread it. In Arendt's case, it was to see her as excusing Eichmann and blaming the Jews for their own demise. In this case, some people will surely miss the finer points and see me comparing people today to Nazis. That's not what I'm doing. Rather I'm taking the notion of 'the banality of evil' that Arendt coined by studying Eichmann at his trial, and wondering how that might apply to the US today, and particularly to Alaska.
So, how might it apply?
Dunleavy, HB 44 - Erin's Law
Having just last week attended the Senate Education Committee's hearing on HB 44, I immediately thought of the total disconnect between what I saw and what the chair, Sen. Dunleavy said. How might Arendt's thoughts fit here?
Dunleavy, for one thing, never acknowledged the possibility that what he was doing to Erin's Law (the original HB 44) might mean that there would be kids who would not be exposed to sexual abuse awareness, and thus when they were exposed to an abuser, would not know what was happening, how to respond, and how to report so it could end (if it did start) quickly. He acknowledged no link between his actions and the fact that more kids would be abused because of his actions. He even derided people who suggested he was even complicit in kids being sexually abused.
This sounds similar to me to the way Eichmann said he was merely doing his job, making sure people got on the trains. He separated that task from the idea of where the trains were going and what would happen to the people at their destination. It seemed to me that Dunleavy was doing something similar. In his mind, he wasn't 'gutting' HB 44 as people charged. Rather he was adding language about parental rights (and other things) that in themselves were good, without a sense of the effect these changes would have on watering down Erin's Law, on jeopardizing the passing of the bill altogether, and on the outcome of fewer kids getting abuse awareness training and thus ending up abused. (Of course, only a relatively small number of kids who would get the training would be exposed to abuse. [updated: actually the numbers people cite are one in four girls and one in six boys, so that would be not so small a number.] But the numbers reported were still disturbingly high, so it wouldn't be insignificant.)
Of course, there's the possibility that he knows exactly what he's doing and he's lying, but I suspect not. It's easy for people to call others liars because they can't believe they don't think exactly the way they think. The more nuanced approach that Arendt takes requires more concentration and mental agility to comprehend.
Is there a different option than 'not too bright' and 'liar' that I'm missing? Dunleavy has not offered an explanation that covers all the holes that I see as listed in this post. He does have a lengthy FB defense, but it really doesn't address the details I raise. Instead it just says things like other states don't make the training mandatory so what are you complaining about. It doesn't address the issue of kids falling between the cracks because it's not mandatory and because it cuts out k-6. Interestingly, he also seems to have dropped all the parental-rights rhetoric, but maybe I just missed it.
Chenault And The Budget
In this case, we could take Arendt's concepts to portray Chenault's world view as so pro-oil, his majority in the House so big, and his leadership power so strong, that he simply never has to think about the consequences of what he is doing. Like Eichmann, his education is weak (though he did graduate from high school.) I don't suspect he had many probing high school classes that forced him to deeply consider opposing points of view or how to think critically. Instead, he mouths the slogans fed to him by the oil company lobbyists (all of whom are much better educated than Chenault) and groups like the Koch brothers supported Americans for Prosperity who tell him how smart he is, and what a good job he's doing, and how what he is doing is in the best interests of the people of Alaska. He doesn't have to think. (Think in the philosophical sense of pondering big questions that put his actions into a longer term and larger context, questioning what he takes for granted, considering the moral implications of what he's doing.) To those who challenge him, he can respond, "If you're so smart, why am I Speaker of the House and you're out there whining?" A good question. I'd respond: "Because he thinks he's in the legislature and he's speaker all on his own merits, and not because his oil and construction industry supporters haven't greased the wheels for him. He thinks they are supporting him because he's got the right values, not because he's absorbed the values they want him to have."
I'm not saying this is 'truth.' I'm saying this is what Arendt's model suggests could be true.
Can We Trust Arendt's Models?
I don't think we need to trust them or not. Rather they are tools for measuring the world we see. We use models to take measure of the world. It suggests things we should consider in our assessment. Does it accurately reflect what is happening? If we gather the facts, do they line up as the model predicts? Or is the model making us sort the facts to see what we expect to see?
Arendt's concept of the banality of evil has similarities to other concepts such as mob behavior or herd mentality; such as group think and other situations where people give up their moral responsibility to the people around them. We see echoes in The Lord of the Flies and in 1984 and in Madmen and The Sopranos. The Milgram Experiments are another example that stem from Eichmann's trial, though, as this article states, Arendt said they showed something different than she was getting at.
There are lots of nuances here and getting inside people's heads to read their intentions isn't something I've figured out how to do well. And there are problems with what people tell us they intended.
- They can be deceptive.
- They can be wrong.
- They might not know themselves.
So What Do We Do?
- The Believers
- We can listen to people respectfully and let them explain themselves
as much as they are willing or able to do. This gives us some
insights. Asking probing questions might yield more. We aren't likely to cause believers to change any more they are likely to cause us to
change. Though when we interact respectfully it does change our
relationship and allows people to consider each other more
authentically. (A study that seemed to confirm this approach when used
to change the minds of people who voted against gay marriage in
California, appears to have been faked.
But the problems with that study don't mean this technique doesn't
work. But that study that seemed to validate the idea apparently can't
be used now to do so.)
- Those Who Think Everyone Is Equally Corrupted
- There are lots of folks who have simply given up on everyone.
They've dropped out of serious participation and rejected their
responsibilities, as citizens, to be informed and to vote. These folks
can be reached. Mostly they would like to believe that democracy works
and just need some examples of how they can have a positive impact.
Again, listening is the best tool. Ask them to explain how they got to
their conclusions. Is there anything that could happen to change their
minds? What are the consequences of doing nothing? And so on. Grab a
set of examples of people who have accomplished things against the
odds. For a quickly googled example. I'm sure you can find ones more relevant to your cause. And these folks have much to teach the political process believers as well.
- Those Who Unthinkingly Are On Your Side
- I find automatic believers of any group problematic. They often have only the sketchiest idea of why they are supporting or opposing something. It might be part of the dogma or something they read (without checking) that supports their world view. It's important to shake up people who automatically support your position, but do so without thinking.
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
There Will Be Blood
It's summer, and this was the consequence of my lapse into un-Buddhist like impulses. But it turned out I'd already made my first blood donation of the day.
At least these guys are the big mosquitoes. That means they are slow and easy to feel on hairy arms.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Cleansing Of The Pole, Then Changing Of Command To Adjuntant General Hummel
This is the 'honor pole' in front of the Alaska National Guard Headquarters. Today, prior to the Changing of the Command ceremony from Acting Adjutant General Mike Bridges to Adjutant General Laurel Hummel, was a ceremony to cleanse the pole that had been dedicated a few years ago. Tlingets and local Athabaskans from Eklutna joined together to cleanse the pole after the scandal the National Guard has gone through.
A member of the St. Elias Dance Group.
Lt. Governor Mallot at the cleansing ceremony. I'm not using the word totem because there are some questions about combining the old and new traditions and the recognition that this pole doesn't necessarily meet the standards of a traditional totem pole. So the decided to call it an honor pole instead.
New Adjutant General Hummel dancing after the cleansing ceremony.
The crowd then moved inside and the Hearts of Oceana Club - West High students mentored by the Polynesian Community Center - danced before the Change of Command.
Gov. Walker was there as well.
Adjutant General Hummel in her speech which ranged from personal to inspirational.. She talked about how her army dad answered her six year old self about her desire to follow him into the army, that while West Point didn't take women at the time, they would when she was ready to apply.
She talked about how when the governor-elect asked her to be the Adjutant General, she was taken aback. She said she hadn't applied because her husband worked at the guard, so she would have a conflict of interest. But the governor and her husband insisted. And in a few days, her husband heads for a year in Kosovo where he'll be head of intelligence for NATO there. She then turned to the members of the Alaska National Guard - how honored she is to work with them, how much she values and trusts them, and how together they will make the Guard a better organization.
This is an interesting confluence of two stories I've followed here. One began when I covered Laurel Hummel's interview to be director of the Alaska Redistricting Board. The other is the story of the Alaska National Guard scandal. The links each go to one post. There were a number of posts on each and you can get to the others by clicking on the appropriate labels. This was a positive event, I'm sure the governor would like to spend more of his time doing this sort of thing.
Monday, May 25, 2015
Backyard is starting to Bloom
Things are blooming already in the yard, like these two narcissus,
Wikipedia gives us some background on the name Narcissus:
In Greek mythology, Narcissus (/nɑrˈsɪsəs/; Greek: Νάρκισσος, Narkissos) was a Hunter from Thespiae in Boeotia who was known for his beauty. He was the son of the river god Cephissus and nymph Liriope.[1] He was proud, in that he disdained those who loved him. Nemesis noticed this behavior and attracted Narcissus to a pool, where he saw his own reflection in the water and fell in love with it, not realizing it was merely an image. Unable to leave the beauty of his reflection, Narcissus drowned.
Phlox.
The dandelions are here already too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)