University of Alaska President Search Part 1: The Cultural Conflict

The members of the Board of Regents spend countless hours of their lives reading documents and going to meetings.  They make decisions that will affect the future of Alaska in all kinds of ways.  I'm sure that all of the board members are deeply committed to helping shape the University of Alaska into a great institution.

The faculty and staff have dedicated themselves to the same goal.  Faculty have spent more time getting an education than most people.  Tenured track faculty have gone beyond a bachelors degree, beyond a masters, to get a doctorate of one sort or another.  For most that doctorate represents a full time pursuit of knowledge and skills for three to seven years.  For some more.

Students, too, have a giant stake in the quality of the University of Alaska.  While most will only be there for four to eight years (many students have families and full time jobs while they are pursuing their degrees so it takes them a little longer to graduate), the better the faculty, the smaller the class sizes, the more efficient the administration, the more they get out of the time spent on their education.

All the various constituents of the university - this includes agencies and businesses that benefit from faculty research and expertise and from a well educated work force; it includes all the businesses that university employees and students patronize;  it includes all the people who take advantage of the sports events, theater and music productions, the book store and other speaker programs - have unique perspectives on what it takes to have a great university.


The Impact Of Corporate Thinking On American Life

But the university, like all other parts of American life these days, is split into different cultures.  One of the most profound conflicts in our country and the world these days pits the notion of management and the market against traditional ways of doing things.  We see corporate fishing fleets gaining control over small local commercial and sports fishers.  Corporate agriculture putting the family farm out of business.  Corporate sports putting profit over fun, health, and sportsmanship. We watch the disappearance of personal, private doctors' offices as doctors become employees of large impersonal, health care systems.   Unique locally owned businesses - book stores, hardware stores, gardening stores, bakeries, restaurants - are going out of business in the face of national and multinational big box stores and chains.   Americans have lost lots of jobs because corporate calculators see cheaper labor and lax safety and environmental laws overseas.

There's often a good reason for this.  Larger organizations can take advantage of economies of scale.  They can bargain better prices from suppliers.  They put everything under one roof surrounded by two or three football fields of parking lot. But it comes at a cost that consumers only slowly begin to realize.  Services - like expert advice about product selection; like warm greetings from store owners who know your name and that your son's birthday is coming up and who set aside a few of his favorite cookies;  one of a kind stores; specialty products the owner takes a personal interest in - are part of the extra cost you pay at the local merchants.  We only miss these when the stores close down, often because people used them for their expertise and helpfulness, but went to the big box stores to get the product cheaper.

Banks are another example.  Bankers were part of the community and you could resolve disputes with the manager.  Now you often have to call some 800 number, navigate the virtual menu before you even talk to someone to plead for reason on a $20 late fee (on top of the interest charge).   Corporate bank employees are under heavy pressure to lower costs and sell more services to the detriment of the customer.

We even see this idea of applying the business model in what should be the least business part of society:  places of worship.

Not all local shops were terrific, especially if they were the only store of their kind in town.  Or if you weren't white.   And technology - such as internet shopping and comparison shopping on one's phone - has changed how retail works.

But the concentration on the bottom line and quarterly profits has radically changed how Americans shop, live, and work.   And that bottom line mentality which is only concerned with things that can be measured, where every employee minute is monitored, where customers get smiles before they buy, but nasty collection agencies if they are late on paying for those purchases, has spread everywhere including universities.

This corporate mentality is so pervasive, that even raising issues with it, causes some to question one's loyalty to the United States, even though free speech and exchange of ideas is the essence of what makes democracy work.
 

Substantive Rationality versus Instrumental Rationality

One of my graduate professors wrote a book called The New Science of Organizations, which chronicled how the original Greek notion of rationality (seeking knowledge and understanding of the bigger issues of life, to overly simplify it) gradually became replaced by a new, instrumental (sometimes called technical) rationality.  This instrumental rationality was aimed at getting things done (without questioning whether they should get done.)  Over time, the original meaning of rationality was replaced by the second meaning.  People didn't even realize what was happening - that there were, in fact, two very different concepts and that one had replaced the other in our lives.  I still have a whole box of articles written from the time of ancient Greece to the present with which Dr. Guerreiro-Ramos traced this evolution.

He argued that both rationalities had their legitimate place in human society, but that the instrumental rationality that drives much of science and business was rapidly replacing the older substantive rationality so important to understanding what's important in human life.  In fact, as the more abstract substantive rationality was used less, people thought instrumental rationality was rationality.  They began using the business model to measure everything.   Ultimately dollars became the basic evaluator of everything as this way of thinking invaded other parts of life beyond the corporation.  Courts measured the value of a life in terms of how much a person would have earned had the person not died.  So a well paid SOB's life was worth more than a modestly paid saint's.   Universities are measured the same way - by how much financial value they add to a graduate's life, not by what students learn.   Ramos argued that our lives in the non-business realm - family, play, school, hobbies, sports, spiritual activities - should be measured by other standards, things like happiness, morality, decency, wisdom.

Applying this to the university

It is precisely this conflict between the business model's use of instrumental rationality and traditional academic use of the substantive rationality model - in this case scholarship and learning and truth and even the meaning of life - that is raging around universities everywhere.   Faculty are told to be more productive, which translated first into "more students per class" which would mean less expenditure for each tuition dollar.  It assumes a large lecture model as the ideal, the larger the better.  In fact, why not just do internet courses with thousands of students?  For certain students learning certain topics, this can work.  But this model ignores the possibility that education (as opposed to training) is about self examination, about learning to think critically, about exploring the moral implications of one's actions, about learning to write and learning to recognize the legitimacy of others' knowledge.  It ignores that this kind of learning  requires an intense interaction between a student and a teacher, among students, and among a teacher and a group of students.  The value of that interaction is diluted as more students are added beyond an ideal size. You can get a certain amount from reading a book.  You learn even more from discussing it with others.

Universities are being asked to do too many things

There are lots of things problematic with large modern universities.  For one thing, we decided, as a nation, that everyone needed a college degree, because that is the ticket to earning more money over one's lifetime.  (See how that technical rationality gets into everything, making, in this case, the purpose of a college degree, earning more money?)   A degree rather than an education has become the goal of many students.   Some online schools offer those degrees,  quickly, while the student works full time.  Just send in your money.  There are good online programs that serve students who otherwise couldn't get an education.  And there are schools that essentially sell degrees.

I do think that everyone would be better off learning to do the things I listed above - gaining self knowledge, critical and ethical thinking abilities, etc. - but I  know that not everyone has the aptitude or interest to pursue traditional college level academic studies.  There are lots of other important skills that society needs, but most have been sacrificed in K-12 to focus everyone into a college (translation:  academic, STEM, etc.) track.  We don't have tracks for less academic but still important vocational education which could also be more than technical training.  They could also include self awareness, critical and ethical thinking, but in areas that involve building, growing, and creating in more tangible disciplines than in academic disciplines.  Skilled craftsmen used to have a reasonable status in life and learning one's craft well involves learning the various sciences related to it as well as the social and political and economic realms in which a craftsperson lives.  Why not use carpentry or culinary arts or music or electrical work, or health care as the focus rather than history or math or political science?  Then bring in the other fields as they relate to one's focus.  Carpenters, nurses, cooks all need to know chemistry and biology.  Understanding the humanities, ethics, history, and government are also valuable to a craftsperson making a living.   People with different aptitudes would learn what they need much more easily when it's tied to doing what they really want to do, rather than some isolated, abstract academic subject.

But we've created an educational monster that forces everyone into an academic track starting in first grade.  And if you aren't ready to read or add and subtract when the curriculum guide says you should be,  you acquire a negative label like  'slow learner' and you (and others) start seeing you as less capable than everyone else.  School becomes increasingly oppressive as you're forced to perform in areas you don't like and aren't particularly good at. 

Did you forget about the president search?

This is a long introduction to my sense that there is a significant cultural divide at the university that separates the higher administration and everyone else.  The higher in the administrative scheme, the more you are expected to talk and think in the language of technical rationality - objectives, productivity, cost per credit hour, bottom line, work measures.  And the higher you get, the greater your salary, which is exacerbated because those folks are on 12 month contracts compared to faculty who are on nine month contracts.

Faculty, particularly those with doctoral degrees, are not in teaching for the money.  The cost of tuition, the foregone earnings while they kept studying, and the modest salaries of faculty are not a rational choice for someone who values money highly.  For their educational efforts, most could earn a lot more in other careers.  Faculty teach and pursue research because they are passionate about their subject matter and/or about teaching and research.  (Of course, there are exceptions to all such generalizations.)

When I look at the list of people on the Board of Regents, I see mostly people involved in the corporate world.  People trained at school and at work to think in terms of technical rationality.  Faculty are trained to think in terms of substantive rationality.  There's a huge cultural divide.

Imagine a corporate board filled with actors, historians, and musicians, and maybe one business person.  People would say, that's preposterous, even though one could point out that corporate products and services are sold to all those people.  But in our corporate driven society, few people see anything peculiar with loading the Board of Regents with corporate vice presidents and CEOs and just one retired faculty member appointed just this year.    

This leads us to a big conflict in people's vision of what a university should be.  Everyone's goal is a better university, but they have widely different ideas of what that would look like.  And that couldn't be more apparent in the search process that the Board of Regents put together to select a new president for the University of Alaska.

I'll try to get out another post with a  detailed look at the search process to demonstrate what I mean.  I'm using this post as an introduction because I think it's important to step back and discuss some of  larger issues that put the search process into context.  To try to understand how we got here.  There are good people on all sides.  (And maybe a few not so good ones too.)  Because they see things so differently, it's easy to dismiss the other groups' views as unimportant or wrong headed.  Faculty and staff are so closely involved in teaching and research and making things run, that they often don't step back and see the larger picture.   And the board members come into their positions with special knowledge and skills that lead them to apply their specialties to the problems they see at the university.  All sides have a lot to learn about each other and from each other. 

Roles Legislators Play: You Can't Tell the Players Without A Program

Having spent a fair amount of my life at university committee meetings gives me a certain insight in how people behave at meetings.  There are lots of ways I could cut this, but I'm trying to keep it simple.   So let me spotlight some types of people who make meetings longer and unproductive.  And a few that make things actually work.

While I'm naming distinct types of players and their motivations and behaviors, living flesh and blood people often play multiple roles at different times or even the same time.  And legislators can play these roles for noble or less noble reasons.  I've also spent a session in Juneau blogging the legislature, so I've worded my examples to apply more to the legislature.


Power - The motivation for this group is power.  Power is important.  Without it a legislator can't get anything done.  The current leadership, while seemingly consumed by power issues, have been unable to finish business, which is the legitimate use of power.    We're seeing some very unproductive uses of power this session, even more so than normal; games, like "I've got bigger balls than you."

The Bulldozer - comes to the committee meeting to get his pet project approved.  He'll do or say whatever it takes from persuasion to threats.  He tries to smile and be polite, but when things get tight and people get in his way, he can lose it and get nasty.  Truth is a tool to use only if it works.  The importance of the project (say an important assist for a key constituent) determines the pressure to get it passed.
Strategy:  There's no strategy that will deter the bulldozer except superior power or covert sabotage.  The advice  “Never strike a king unless you are sure you shall kill him” is apt here.

The Ego - Getting something passed or blocked is not the key motivator here.  Rather, power for the Ego is used to remind people the Ego has power and not to cross her.  She needs others in the committee to regularly acknowledge her importance and if they don't, she'll punish them, even if it means blocking an important and non-controversial piece of legislation.
Strategy:  Regular acknowledgements of her position of power will generally protect one from her wrath.  This won't necessarily get one's bill passed.

The Game Player - The GP doesn't really care about the content of the legislation.  For him all human interaction is a competitive sport;  he's there to win.  Winning is the purpose of life and he's honed his skills to win as often as possible.
Strategy:  Get the GP to bet on your cause before the game starts.

The Turf Protector -  The TP is playing a defensive game.  He's making sure he's not losing something - some power, some ideal, some respect.  He weighs each new proposal against its impact on him.   If there is any perception of intrusion on the TP's turf, he will fight it tooth and nail.
Strategy:  If there is a chance that the TP's turf will be infringed upon in any way, add in some offsetting benefit the TP wants. 

Order, Rules, Tradition - The motivation here is security, stability, order.  Change disturbs these folks, who tend to have at least a touch of OCD in them.

The Rule Stickler - For some people, the rules must never be broken.  While Non-sticklers also consider whether the potential consequences meet the spirit of the law, the RS, ignoring consequences, clings to the letter of the law.  Maybe this represents a personal struggle to find security in a rapidly changing world.  This conflict between rigidity and flexibility with rules is not something new to humans.  I've discussed this conflict  in more depth at  Let Justice Be Done Though The World Perish.   The RS would let the world perish before deviating from the rule.
Strategy:  Find a contradictory rule, better yet two.

The Typo Tyrant -  The TT loses all track of time while pointing out typos, spelling errors, and deviations from what the form specifically asks for.  The TT can argue over a single comma for 45 minutes. Typos cause the TT an actual physical irritation, like a bug bite, and they'll scratch it red while the rest of the committee waits to move on.
Strategy:  Spell check and grammar check aren't enough, but be sure to use them.  Ideally the chair will cut the TT off by putting her on a subcommittee to work things out with the bill's sponsor after the meeting.

The Ideological Virgin - IVs have some inviolable value that they will never compromise.  It could be preventing abortions, even if the fetus has no brain and the twelve year old mother was raped by her father.  Or it could be protecting ethnic minorities or the disabled from offensive language, even if the language is constitutionally protected.  Some legislators think cutting government is a sacred duty.   This form of ideological purity has been linked to Emanuel Kant whom I discuss in the "...world perish" link. 
Strategy:  Reason plays no role here.  Sometimes you can change words.  I heard one legislator who had pledged to vote against any tax, but who thought he might be able to vote for it if it were called a fee.  Best strategy is to get the Bulldozer and Game Player on your side. 

Image - Substance doesn't matter to these folks, they just want to look good in any number of ways.  Often the Power types have significant image issues - particularly the Ego.

The Slacker -   They come to meetings unprepared.  They didn't come to Juneau to work for crying out loud.  Yet they want to look like a real legislator so they feel compelled to comment on things they know nothing about.   They might randomly pick a sentence in a bill and ask a question about it.  It doesn't matter that it's already answered in the next line or it was just discussed.  They want to show they've done their homework, even if it was at the bar and the bill never got out of their briefcase. 
Strategy:  Tell them the bill protects their pet issue.  It doesn't matter if it's not true because they won't read the bill anyway. 

The Poseur -  The P is someone who feels like a loser and has copied the style, language, habits, and beliefs of people they consider the winners.  Being in the legislature is part of the disguise.  It gives them a sense of respectability.  Their makeover has fooled enough voters to get them elected.  In Juneau their biggest job is to avoid detection as a fraud.  They tend to be among the better dressed and better coiffed legislators and are particularly disparaging of people who remind them of their real selves.  Their vote is based on how they think it will impact their fake identity.
Strategy:  Compliment them on their tie or shoes, make them feel like insiders, and convince them their vote for your bill will improve their winner status. 

Public Service   These are the legislators who go to Juneau for the right reason - to make government work well to serve Alaskans.  Party isn't a big issue. Legislators motivated by a commitment to public service get past party labels and work things out.

The Do Gooder - Although this phrase is often used sarcastically,  I think it should be proudly reclaimed by those who are in the legislature to serve the public good and who are smart enough to recognize 'the public good' most of the time.  And I believe that most legislators think of themselves this way.  DGs aren't limited to one party or the other.   DGs  judge bills using rationality and empathy,  enriched by a value system based on the rule of law, the constitution, and the belief that humans can collectively improve their lot in life.   They may also take on some of the other roles at times.  They could act as Bulldozers to get an important law passed or become a Rule Stickler to block a bad bill. DGs are human beings and can get caught with image and ego problems just like all of us.  And they certainly get labeled as Game Players and Ideological Virgins by their opponents. 
Strategy:  Use reason, logic, appeals to fairness, justice, and the other values in the constitutions of the US and Alaska.  

The Leader - This rare bird uses her power to pass legislation that gets the state's business accomplished efficiently and effectively.  She understands all the various types of legislators and how to appeal to each to keep everyone moving fast enough to get things done, but slow enough to get them done well.  She takes advantage of the Rule Stickler's knowledge, but cuts him off when he's wandering from the task at hand.  She helps the Poseurs and Slackers become Do Gooders.  And she doesn't let Ideological Virgins prevent necessary compromise.  And she gets agreement on a balanced budget by the end of the legislative session.  She's helped by various Process Facilitators who are skilled at cutting through the bullshit, clarifying issues, and constructively outing  obstructionists. 

My guess is that this year we have more of the problem types in the legislature, fewer Process Facilitators, and no Leaders in leadership positions.


I hope this list is helpful in identifying behaviors of legislators, but be careful not to label too hastily or to assume that any of these roles is always bad.  The trick is to figure out a) which role is any particular legislator playing at any particular time, and b) to understand the legislator's general underlying motivation. 

Using power is NOT necessarily a bad thing. A Do Gooder who can't get legislation passed doesn't actually get any good done.  There are times when being a Rule Stickler is important - either to prevent unintended future problems (was moving the special session to Anchorage actually legal?) or to strategically prevent a bad bill from passing.  Even the Poseur may be an important role to play.  If you're in the minority, you have very little power and may have to pose a bit for the majority to get anything done.  And just because someone is well-dressed doesn't make them a Poseur. Be careful. 

I'd add one more type to consider:  Liars.  I was going to include them in this post, but it's already long enough.  I'll talk about this dimension in another post soon.

One last note.  I've written this using my experience on university committees as well as watching the Anchorage Assembly over the years and a session blogging the Alaska Legislature.  Lots of people have worked on lists like this.  I did not look at what others have written, though I'm sure ideas I've read in the past have resurfaced here.  But I'd argue similarities to other lists like this result from the fact that human behavior repeats itself around the world. 
.

Spring Flowers And Bugs

The thalictrum tends to attract aphid larvae (at least that's what I've thought they were but I'm having trouble finding online confirmation) every year.  It's relatively easy to just clean them off.  But I was hoping that the blue damsel flies nearby might find them tasty.  But they didn't seem interested.

Our first iris is budding. 

Some of the dandelions have gone to seed already. 

I'm probably most excited about the lilac, which after 10 or fifteen years has a bunch of flowers.  Last year was the first it had any at all. 

And the tiny phlox flowers cover their green with a profusion of pink.

Dream Thoughts

I had amazingly real dreams yesterday morning - well I only remember the last one before waking - but I know there were more.  I attribute this having had a dish with lots of (store bought) mushrooms the previous night.

I can see everything vividly still, though the images are fading.  The colors were rich and I could see every detail.  But when I was telling my wife about the dream I realized that while there were conversations in the dream, I couldn't recollect voices the way I could the visuals.  As I think back to other dreams, I know I generally do see in color (and I've heard that not everyone does), but I don't remember hearing sounds they way I see things.  I know they were there, I know that people spoke or that there was music, but it's more like telepathy in my memory that actual hearing of sounds.

I have to pay attention in future dreams.  Do I actually hear sounds but they fade faster than the visuals?  What about smells?  (And I realize as I write this that I can say, "I can't hear sounds" but I can't find the equivalent word for this sentence, "I can see ______."  'Sights' doesn't fit as well as 'sounds' does in the first sentence. Nor 'images.'   Is there an English word that fits there that I'm just blanking on?

As I think about this, there is one exception to the absence of sounds.  There have been times when the clock radio has gone off while I'm still sleeping/dreaming and the voices on the radio mingle with my dreaming and actually redirect my dreams until I wake up and realize the sounds were from the radio.  But those are actual, external sounds I'm hearing in my dreams, not dream sounds in the way that I see the dreams.



OK, now that I've said what's on my mind, let me see what the internet can add to this.

My first search term was:  "Hearing sounds in dreams like seeing things"  resulted in titles related to simply hearing voices, in real life, not in dreams.

Then, 'Dream Sounds' had music for dreaming, but also this from dreamwell which matches my experience:

"Sounds are one of the most invasive things into our dreams.  But rather than wake us up, sounds often become incorporated into our dream, the external sound woven into the fabric of the dream as though it really belonged there."

This person writes, not as though these are her first person experiences, but as though this is a general rule, but she offers no references or evidence of this.  But it does match my experience.  And does 'Dreamwell' refer, as I first thought, to a well from which you get dreams?  Or is it meant more like the term "Sleep Well"?



Next:  "Do People Hear In Dreams?"  At Experience Project people answer the question, "In your dreams (night), do you see/hear/smell/feel/taste?  [This site has those disgusting ads with pictures and tabloid questions, so beware.]  Some commenters say yes, they see, hear, feel, smell.  Not much on taste.  One person wrote:

"There were scents, colors, people talking, and I could remember what they said quite often. The only thing I don't remember is taste. "

I know there was talking and other sounds in my dream, but I don't remember 'hearing' the sounds in the way I saw things.  I just know they were there.  But I still have visual memories of the dream, but not aural ones  By that I mean, I can remember what was said, but I can't hear it, while the images I can both still remember and see. 

Related to all this is a book I've just finished reading A Tale for the Time Being by Ruth Ozeki in which dreams play a major role.  While there were provocative ideas in the book, overall I found myself impatient for it to end.  If it weren't for my book club, I might not have finished it.  I'll try to put more up about it because there were lots of interesting ideas.  It was an ambitious project, but I don't think she quite pulled it off.  Just mentioning it now because of the importance of dreams in it.  In one case she seems to use a dream to change what is happening in another part of the world.  It didn't work for me. 

Hiring A Mediator: Is Alaska's Governor Trying To Be The Adult?

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. 

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. 

“28.40.010 - Form.
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.”

Fortunately she didn't stick with the minimum and ordered more for the May 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]

Summer Time - Urban Conflux

Not sure how I got notified but I got a message from something called Urban Conflux

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

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. 

Sloppy Headline - Supreme Court Ruled for But Didn't Back Group Fighting Pebble Mine

Here's a headline from today's ADN:

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]

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. 

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:
• 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 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.

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?”
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.

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.

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

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. 

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.
“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.

 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.  

“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…
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.

 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. 

“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.
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.

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.  

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. 

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.