The Board Gets Advice From Legislative Attorney And Decides To Proceed With The Interview In Executive Session

When I worked at the Municipality of Anchorage long ago, I had to write some policy.  I wanted to be sure I wouldn't run afoul of the law, so I went to the legal department and asked what the law was regarding the topic.  

The attorney said what do you want to do?  I said I want to write the policy so it's legal.  He repeated, what exactly do you want to do?  I said I wasn't exactly sure until I understood the law.  He said, tell me what you want to do and I'll find the law that allows you do what you want to do.  

That's my sense of today's decision to go into Executive Session.    

I had suggested that the Board interview with the law office that will represent the Board be public and offered reasons why in the last post. 

Here are the reasons a body can go into Executive Session:

(c)    The following subjects may be considered in an executive session:
(1)     matters, the immediate knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse effect upon the finances of the public entity;
(2)     subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of any person, provided the person may request a public discussion;
(3)     matters which by law, municipal charter, or ordinance are required to be confidential;
(4)     matters involving consideration of government records that by law are not subject to public disclosure. 

 I cited the Alaska Supreme Court which has ruled that the only likely reason in interviewing an applicant for Police Chief or City Manager in Executive Session was possibly number (2),  The Supreme Court ruled:

"Ordinarily an applicant's reputation will not be damaged by a public discussion of his or her qualifications relating to experience, education and background or by a comparison of them with those of other candidates."

The Supreme Court allowed that it is possible when talking about the personal characteristics of applicants.  But the remedy is to stay public and only go into Executive Session when discussing the allowed exemptions.  

Well, today the Peter Torkelson reported the advice of Legislative Legal.  I didn't catch all the details, but he didn't really talk that long either.  But basically he said that Leg Legal said that they could potentially discuss things that fall under exemption 1, 2, and 4. 

1.  matters, the immediate knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse effect upon the finances of the public entity;

What I understood here was that they might talk about legal strategies to use should the Board be sued.  I agree that legal strategies for pending lawsuits are generally exempted.  

2.  subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of any person, provided the person may request a public discussion;

I already cited the Supreme Court's decision on this - that yes, it could happen, but for the most part people selling their services are not likely to do this.  

4.  matters involving consideration of government records that by law are not subject to public disclosure.  

It wasn't clear to me what records they were talking about.  Possibly they were again talking about legal strategies.  

OK, so these are items that might come up ("prejudice the reputation...") or are likely to come up (legal strategies).  However, the public meetings statute also says:

"Subjects may not be considered at the executive session except those                                         mentioned in the motion calling for the executive session unless auxiliary to the main                                question."

Which means that everything else must be considered in public.  So, they should begin the interview in public.  And when they get near either of those issues, they can go into Executive Session and then come back out of Executive Session.  

Different people can interpret the law differently.  I also understand that it's much more convenient to simply go into Executive Session.  And I suspect that most public bodies in Alaska invoke Executive Session so without seriously considering the intent of the law, or on advice of attorneys who don't tell them what the law is, but how to do what they want legally.  

Further, nothing is technically illegal until ruled so by a judge.  So unless a member of the body objects, or a member of the public sues, various bodies in the state will take the easy way out and just go into Executive Session.  

Today's meeting took about ten minutes to discuss the attorney's advice and then vote to go into Executive Session. (I'd note the attorney did point out that that office does not represent the Board.)

The Board has also not told the public who they are interviewing.  Surely the names of the two law firms is not going to prejudice the reputation of either of them.  Unless we are now at the stage where someone argues that not winning the contract will prejudice their reputation.  

Rich Mauer, then an Anchorage Daily News reporter, challenged the previous Board over this issue in 2013 when they were interviewing applicants for the new Executive Director and the Board agreed to conduct the interviews openly.  Given that the Anchorage Daily News is now owned by part of the Binkley family, and the Board Chair is part of that family, I don't think the ADN is likely to challenge, let alone sue, the Board over this sort of thing.

Below are my rough notes from the meeting:

2:58   Folks chatting   

3:01 John:  We got a little pushback about Executive Session - talked to Legislative attorney because of this.  

Hi Melanie, Hi Budd

Melanie:  How you doing?

Lots of snow in Fairbanks

Think we're all here.  Nicole , Melanie Banke, Budd Simpson, Bethany, John Binkley, Peter Torkelson

John:  One agenda item - legal services  Agenda adopted unanimously

Only item:  Interview for RFI legal services, plan to take care of this in Executive Session.  Ask chair to discuss this

Peter:  Talked to the Legislative counsel if this is the correct form.  Leg attorney said 195 of code.  Open in confidential matter until decision made   Open Meetings act C4  may be used for govt records by law requires it to be confidential.  Two other exceptions - Matters of immediate knowledge - since discussing legal strategy if sued, so it's important someone who might sue us won't know 

If prejudice reputation - we could.  Leg attorney said she doesn't represent us.  Feels we're on solid ground.  

Comments by Board members about doing this in Executive Session.  

Budd:  Moves to go into ES Open meeting act - records not subject to public disclosure.  

Nicole:  Seconded

John:  Opposition?  Passes by unanimous consent.  

3:10  You will now be disconnected.  

AK Redistricting Board Talks About Transparency Then Goes Behind Closed Doors

[The title is accurate, but I do want to say that at this point I have no reason to believe they were not acting in good faith and don't mean to imply that. But I think it's worth paying attention now and seeing how they react going forward.]

In my last post, I included my rough notes from their Friday, Feb. 26 meeting. When they talked about agenda items numbers:

"4. Staff Public Outreach Directive

5. Response Protocol for Meeting Requests"

several members expressed a clear need to have guidelines that would be as clear as possible to the Board and public so that they:

•  wouldn't appear to be playing favorites - giving information to some groups but not others
• would all be responding to folks the same way
• could be as transparent and fair as possible

I have some thoughts on how to do this - based on good public administration standards and on the experiences of blogging the previous redistricting board - but I need to think them through a bit more.  

In this post I want to focus on what happened when they got to agenda item number

"7. Interview with Legal Services RFI Respondents, Executive Session"

My notes [and I acknowledge I could have missed something] say:

"John [Binkley]:  Next, interview with one of the law firms that replied.  Thanks to Brittany for working on this.  Doing it in Executive Session.  Ready now to interview one of the respondents.   

Moved to move to executive session:  Peter if you can coordinate with leg affairs and let us know." 

What's wrong with that you ask?

By state law, a public body has to do two things before going into executive session.

1. They have to vote to do it.  [They may have voted and I just didn't catch it]
2. But before voting they have to declare why they're going into executive session. 

Here are the reasons a body can go into Executive Session:

(c)    The following subjects may be considered in an executive session:
(1)     matters, the immediate knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse effect upon the finances of the public entity;
(2)     subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of any person, provided the person may request a public discussion;
(3)     matters which by law, municipal charter, or ordinance are required to be confidential;
(4)     matters involving consideration of government records that by law are not subject to public disclosure. 

Number (2) seems the most likely reason for them to go into Executive Session while interviewing an applicant to be the legal counsel for the Board.  But think again.  The law firm representative being interviewed is not likely to say anything about themselves that would prejudice their own character or reputation.  




Rather, they will be telling the Board about how good they are.   




Now, it's possible that the Board has done some background investigation that raised some questions about the applicant,  and they want to ask questions about that.  At that point, they could go into Executive Session.  




The Board didn't even tell us who the finalists were.  There was an Alaska Supreme Court opinion about whether finalists for policy making position should be made public.  In that case (City of Kenai v. Kenai Peninsula Newspapers) a case concerning the City Manager of Kenai was consolidated with a case of the Municipality of Anchorage selecting a Police Chief.  In both cases the selection process was not carried out openly and in both cases the local newspapers sued the governments.  Part of the courts ruling said:

"The appellee does not contend that the City Council may never go into executive session when discussing city manager applicants. It argues that generally such discussions do not have a tendency to damage the reputation of the applicants, and that the City erred in routinely convening executive sessions.

Appellee's reading of the statute is not without a degree of merit. Ordinarily an applicant's reputation will not be damaged by a public discussion of his or her qualifications relating to experience, education and background or by a comparison of them with those of other candidates. However, a discussion of personal characteristics and habits may well carry a risk that the applicant's reputation will be compromised. Such a risk is especially acute where the qualities of several applicants are being compared. We believe therefore that the City Council was authorized by § .310(c)(2) to meet in executive session while discussing the personal characteristics of the applicants.[29] To the extent that the order of the court prohibits this, it must be reversed.[30]" [emphasis added]

These issues came up last time when the Board had to hire a new Executive Director.   Here's what I posted March 14, 2013:

"I learned just now that Rich Mauer of the Anchorage Daily News pressed the Board on the Public Meetings Act and got them to open the interviews with the Executive Director candidates today.  Two have dropped out.  That leaves three and they were planning to interview each for about 50 minutes to an hour."
One could argue that this is not a high policy making position, but that would be contrary to facts.  The Board will make decisions that will decide the election districts for the next ten years.  How they do that will affect which parties control the State Senate and House.  While the Board will ultimately make the decisions, their actions will be strongly influenced by the advice they get from the Board's attorney.  
And in 2013, the Board's attorney advised them to let the interviews for the Board's Executive Director be public.  The ED carries out the instructions of the Board and I would argue has a lesser impact on the Board than the attorney does.  
Therefore, I would argue that the Board should make these interviews public.  I also recognize that they've already done one interview behind closed doors and it could be argued that it would be unfair to the second applicant to be the only one that was made public.  But they are recording these meetings, so the first interview could be posted on the Board's website.  
I would note that the Board did not even announce the names of the firms they were interviewing.  
I have no reason to believe that the Board was acting in bad faith.  I suspect that they just didn't consider these issues carefully enough.  As yet, they do not have an attorney to advise them when they are about to do something like this.  
I emailed the Board Chair and Executive Director about these issues and got a cordial response from the Board Chair saying he would take this up with Legislative Legal before Tuesday's interview.  

I'd emphasize the importance of publicizing the candidates and opening up of the interviews.  In the Anchorage Police Chief case, the Chief selection was done in secret.  The Municipality wouldn't even release the names of the finalists.  The Municipality then announced the new Police Chief.  At that point the Anchorage Daily News did some sleuthing about the new chief and found out he'd been fired from his previous post for sexual harassment.  (And 40 years ago, that wasn't something that happened often.)  When the story came out, the Mayor, who was traveling to a national conference, had to turn around and come back to Anchorage to deal with the fallout.  
So publicizing the candidates and letting the public sit in on the interviews means that a lot more people have the opportunity to either raise issues about the candidate the Board might not have discovered and/or  might challenge claims the applicant makes in the interview which the Board might otherwise take at face value.  
Last time, when the Board publicly interviewed the Executive Director applicants, the public was able to see clearly which candidate was best.  One had held some political positions, but was unprepared and couldn't really answer most of the questions.  One was a person with administrative experience, but nothing directly related to redistricting.  The third was incredibly well qualified for the position -one of the first women grads of West Point, she'd held high level positions in the army and in Alaska.  Plus she had a PhD in geography and had taught classes in GIS - a key component of the mapping software used by the Board.  And her doctoral dissertation had been on the impact of the military on Alaska Natives, so she had contacts around the state.  And her answers and manner of answering were complete,  respectful, and knowledgeable.  
Without open interviews the public would not have known the qualities of the three finalists.  In the end, the Board decided they didn't need an Executive Director and hired no one.  But the fact that they had passed on such an excellent candidate - who turned out to be a registered Democrat - was telling.  With closed interviews they could have picked one of the lesser candidates.  

There was also a technical problem in how the Board went into Executive Session in an on-line meeting.  The last word people listening in by phone heard was the part I cited above.  Then the line was quiet for 15-30 seconds and a voice then said something like "This session is now over."  My guess is that the only business the board had after coming out of executive session was to adjourn.  But that part of the meeting should have been, technically, public.  We don't know if there was any discussion other than adjourning.  
I also realize that the Board didn't know exactly how long the interview would take.  I'm guessing that keeping everyone on the line but without hearing what was happening would be expensive.  But I think the Board could have estimated how much time they'd need and could have told listeners they could call back after, say an hour.  At that point, the operator could connect them or give a new estimate if the Board needed more time.  If the Board was finished early, they could take a break until time for the public hearing to resume.  

At this point, I have seen or heard nothing to make me believe that what happened was nothing more than oversight.  But I also know from my experience with the previous board, that both political parties have as their goal from the Board to get as many candidates of their party into the legislature for the next ten years.  
Given that goal - which was stated clearly by some politicians last time - it's critical to do as much of this work as openly and by-the-book as possible.  This will become easier if they select a top-notch attorney to advise them.
My intent is not to condemn the Board, but to help them do their jobs as professionally, legally, and fairly as possible.  

Alaska Redistricting Board Goes Into Executive Session To Interview Legal Advisor Applicant

[These are my rough notes as I first waited, then listened in to meeting.  Most people identified themselves, but sometimes forgot and not sure about all the voices yet.  Some comments, but a follow up post coming concerning how and why they went into executive session.]

 Here's the agenda.  [While I'm waiting for the meeting to begin, I've put some notes on the agenda in [brackets].  My notes on the meeting will be below the agenda and below the Proposed Outreach Directive.

Proposed Agenda: 

Date: Time: Place:

State of Alaska Redistricting Board

February 26, 2021 2:30 pm

Teleconference:

Public Numbers: Anchorage 563-9085, Juneau 586-9085, Other 844-586-9085

Agenda

1. Call to order

2. Establish a Quorum

3. Adoption of Agenda

4. Staff Public Outreach Directive - see Proposed Public Outreach Directive  [I've also added most of this below.]

5. Response Protocol for Meeting Requests

6. Software Training Availability [I'm hoping this is for the public, but I suspect it is only for the Board.  We'll see.]

7. Interview with Legal Services RFI Respondents, Executive Session 

8. Adjournment

2:25pm - Much of this meeting will be in Executive Session as the Board interviews law firms that responded to the RFI for legal services for the Board.  The attorney for the Board plays a pretty large role in advising the Board on what they are legally required, permitted, or prohibited from doing.  And often the guidelines are not that clear, so they have to figure out the best possible path.  

2:28pm still waiting for the meeting to begin.  There were some voices a few minutes ago, but it's quiet now.  I'd note that the Public Outreach Directive linked above in the agenda, is pretty broad.

"The staff mission is to:

1. 1)  Facilitate the Redistricting Board’s decision-making process through administrative, technical and logistical support. 

1. 2)  Explain the redistricting process and resulting Board decisions to the public.

2. 3)  Assist legal counsel to defend the Board’s decisions in the courts."

Then there's:

"Direction to Staff  [My guess is the staff wrote this for the Board, a bit ironic]

The Board directs the staff to proactively engage in public outreach using means and technologies which best facilitates the Board’s work.

1) Who is the “Public”? – In this context the public means all Alaskans, their elected local and state representatives, local government bodies, interested parties such as ANSCA Corporations, political parties and other non-governmental organizations and their representatives.

2) What is the message? – Staff should endeavor to be as helpful and specific as possible while educating the public about the Board’s constitutional mission, governing laws, policies and procedures, open meetings guidelines, public notice practices, procurement process, sources for additional information, and Census methodology and timing. The staff should work to educate the public about the various constraints placed on the board: namely the 4 constitutional standards of compactness, contiguity, social- economic integration and population equity (one person, one vote) as well as a general summary of Federal guidelines enacted in the Voting Rights Act. Staff should be prepared to provide a general overview of the most relevant case law as it applies to the Board for the 2020 cycle. (Shelby, Egan etc)

3) Is there anything the staff should not communicate? – Yes. The staff must not divulge specific content of executive sessions, matters subject to attorney-client, deliberative privilege, or details of litigation strategy options. The staff should refrain from making projections about what the board will or won’t do in any specific situation. The staff should not cast negative dispersions on any member of the public or their representative, even during hostile legal proceedings."

2:34pm - my phone line is still quiet.   

2:36pm -"the host has rejoined the conference" 

2:40pm - Guessing that one of the members is either late or having trouble with the zoom connection.

2:44pm - still quiet, but my phone says I'm 25 minutes into the call.  

2:46pm - some voices, sounds like someone is having technical difficulties connecting.  Discussion about groups and people the staff should be reaching out to.  Talking about non-profits - 

Q:  public wants to know "what is redistricting?"  A:  Questions will range from those basic questions to more complicated issues that I still have.  Non-profits are on the list.

Nicole:  something we should be very much engaged in.  Extended time line to our advantage.  . . .

Nonprofits, municipalities, when safe to travel, invite whole community, and as much outreach as we can.

A:  Outline of outreach can have a few more groups, but general consensus is outline.

Melanie:  Good start.  For me, timelines and more concrete plan so we will have information of redistricting process for anyone who needs it.  Leave it for staff, like to see, dates, locations on your websites.  Mechanism for groups that want us to meet with them.  Board, or staff.  I know it's next on our agenda.  Want to be pro-active in our outreach.  Also for groups that want specific meetings.  

A:  Intention, once Board agrees, get down to brass tacks and get going.  Tap into Board members' local knowledge to help figure out best times for different regions.  

John? ;  Segue into #5 - reviewing the archives, as time gets closer, as we're drawing lines, there will be numberouns requests of people who want to meet with Board.  How do we route these?  Forward them on, file them, what do we do?  

???:  When you get personal requests (Members and Staff).  Open discussion on it.  

??:  Thanks.  Mixed feelings about this.  Already had handful out of the blue calls because people heard I was on the Board and they want to talk about some legislative issues.  I say, you're way too early.  Deal with us a lot later.  There will be more of this happening.  Nice to have a policy to say that individual board members won't engage in off-the record side bars.  But a good way to get feedback.  Just thinking out loud here.  Nature of private conversations and how that fits with public meeting rules versus being as available as possible.  thanks.

John:  Agree.  Fine line.  We're open about their ideas, but some boundary to indicate what we might and might not do.

Melanie:  suggestion:  I already got phone call that wants to speak to me as Board member, and I declined until we establish procedure.  Need to be as transparent as possible, that info should be shared with the group and the public:  Melanie Banke has met with Group X in official capacity.  Need these ground rules.  My preference is to let these meetings with individuals, but if we have a formal mechanism, the pressure for individual meetings will lessen.  If I just meet with some groups, but not other groups, looks partisan.  Needs to be transparent with record of meeting.

Bethany:  Like sense of what we mean by a meeting.  Talking to someone about something else altogether and then they start talking about Redistricting.  Telling me what they think.  Gets sticky.  Tough to define and track these conversations.  

John:  May be difficult to quantify all that in a document and policy.  May come down to individual judgment and what we feel comfortable with.  And Melanie's idea about what we've discussed.  But that is that line between individual conversations that strays too Redistricting.

Nicole:  In favor of system where B member and staff can talk to folks, but I don't know every conversation requires a memo.  [hard to understand]

Bethany:  Casual conversations.  Staff will let us know as individual board members.  I'm talking about formal meeting requests.  If we have a plan there won't be individuals lobbying us.  

John:  Ask staff to draft something for us.  Maybe can capture some of this in policy.  Areas that might be sticky.  Circulate to us all and start to work on it.  Later decide what that might be.

Staff:  Certainly we can do that.

??:  For now, all meeting requests go through staff.  I don't want individuals calling me.  I don't feel comfortable having side meetings with groups.  Staff can share we have outreach plan in development.  Until we have something more formal.  

John:  Board like that as an interim policy?  We may have differences of opinion.  

Bethany:  Comfortable with that if we are talking about a group.  But with individuals harder to figure out how to handle that.  

Budd:  Same as Bethany.  Shouldn't restrict ourselves from calls or casual conversations with people who grab you by the collar and ask questions.  But if more formal talks to groups, we need a more formal policy in place.

Nicole:  sounds good.  

Bethany:  Goal to avoid appearance of us taking favorites.  It will be the wealthier groups with lobbyists that will be trying to influence us.  Avoid appearances of impropriety or that we can be influenced by special interests.  Want to be transparent.  

John:  even as legislator being lobbied all the time by people.  We legally can't have a majority of us in meetings like that.  Meanwhile, if formal request, special interest group, defer.

Bethany:  I really mean a group.  General information about redistricting versus formal meetings.  

John:  Item 6.  Software Training.

Peter:  Yes, we saw need for training, and hire people to help with training.  We have a contractor with 12 instructional videos, and links to that training.  And also a corporate virtual training seminar.  After look at your own training, then have a formal training session with the board.  

John:  If we are really going to be utilize software, shouldn't train too early because I'll forget it when we get the data.  Other thoughts?  If people want to get started, they can do that.

Peter:  We'll send out links on Monday.

John:  Next, interview with one of the law firms that replied.  Thanks to Brittany for working on this.  Doing it in Executive Session.  Ready now to interview one of the respondents.  

Moved to move to executive session:  Peter if you can coordinate with leg affairs and let us know.  

[There's an issue here for me about them not announcing who they are interviewing.  Last time round when they interviewed for a new Executive Director, the ADN challenged them because they didn't announce the finalists. 

3:16 - was disconnected.  

1.  Call to order

2.  Establish a Quorum

3. Adoption of Agenda  [If 1-3 happened I did not hear it on the line I was on.]

4. Staff Public Outreach Directive - see Proposed Public Outreach Directive 

     

5. Response Protocol for Meeting Requests 

 [Some members showed concern about:  a) transparency about who they talk to outside of meetings,  b) avoiding being pestered by people who want to lobby them  c) concern about what things they can and can't say  d) want a policy to govern this.]

6. Software Training Availability [I'm hoping this is for the public, but I suspect it is only for the Board.  We'll see.] [Just for the Board, no mention of the public having access to software.]

7. Interview with Legal Services RFI Respondents, Executive Session [follow up post coming on this- why didn't they mention the finalists?  why did they need to go into Executive Session?  

8. Adjournment [They went into ES and didn't mention coming out of ES to do anything else, including adjourn.]

M5.3 at 09:59 AM, 9 mi NW of Anchorage

 A good rattling jolt this morning at 10am.  But it was over quickly.  Got to the kitchen table, but it was over already.  Today would be my mom's 99th birthday so I'm figuring she was reminding us.  But Mom, I knew already.  I wouldn't forget.  Really.   Happy Birthday!

From Alaska Earthquake Center

Magnitude 5.3 - 8 miles NW of Anchorage

An aftershock of the November 2018 M7.1 Anchorage earthquake.

February 27, 2021   09:59:25 AKST
61.3286°N 149.9991°W    Depth 26.1 miles

AIFF 2020: Best Narrative Feature - Festival Picks and Mine (Equan Choi's My Son)

It's late February.  This is long overdue, so let me get this done.  Here are the Festival winners in the best Narrative Feature category.  (Narrative Features are the films most seen in movie theaters - fictional stories over an hour or so long.) [Note:  My strong favorite film was Equan Choi's My Son. I mention this here, because as I wrote this, it comes up at the end.  And because this film was overlooked by both the Jurors and the Audience in their awards, I want to be sure it gets people's attention, even if they don't read the whole post.]

First, the Juror Awards.  Jurors are part of the film festival, people selected by the Festival director, who know something about film.  Because our festival director is a Norwegian film maker, she reached out to film makers she knows around the world.  These are not people from Anchorage.  That's neither good nor bad theoretically.  It depends on how well she chooses the jurors and the purpose of the awards and how much they should reflect Anchorage.  

Narrative Features

2nd Runner Up  - Last Days of Capitalism

Runner Up - The Woman In the Photographs

Winner - Dinner in America

Audience Awards.  One could argue that the audience awards add the Anchorage flavor to the awards.  

Narrative Feature - 

2nd Runner Up -  Paper Spiders

Runner Up -Foster Boy

Winner - Dinner in America

Category	Juror Award Winner	Audience Award Winner	Steve's Award Winner
2nd Runner Up	Last Days of Capitalism	Paper Spiders	see discussion
Runner Up	The Woman In the Photographs	Foster Boy	see discussion
Winner	Dinner in America	Dinner in America	My Son

First off, I'd say that Narrative Features was the richest category in the festival.  There were lots and lots of excellent films.  

Second, I think the Jurors picked better movies than the Audience.  But that they are all very good films.  

Third, I'm not really a fan of forced ranking.  Given a film that is technically sound - the video, the acting, the sound etc. are well done - it's the content and feel of the movie that matter.  And even films that are technically imperfect can have content that overcomes that.  So, this means that whether a film is good or not depends on how the content of the film resonates with the viewer.  And that usually depends on the viewer's life experiences and the emotional connection a viewer has with the characters and the issues in the film.  So different viewers will legitimately prefer different films.

I'm guessing that the Jurors were looking at the films as film as much as the content, while the Audience was more focused on the stories and characters.  Paper Spiders was about a daughter whose mother is losing her mind.  It was a very well told story.  Very moving.  Foster Boy was also well told - a trial movie about a young black man who was abused by the foster care system.  I'm guessing this didn't show up in the Juror Awards because it was a very Hollywood movie - including some well known actors.  If the Jurors are like me, they are looking more for 'film festival' movies.  Movies that break the mold, that take risks, that you would be less likely to see at a theater. (I realize some may be asking "What's a theater?" in this time of COVID.) 

The Last Days of Capitalism straddled between those two categories.  It was a perfect COVID film - just two actors in a hotel suite in Las Vegas.  It's a really good film.  I saw it early in the festival and it immediately became my film to beat.  You can see the Trailer here, but I'm not putting it up here because it really doesn't reflect the verbal (almost athletic) competition between the two characters that made this movie.  

The Woman in the Photographs was at the top after I saw it.  This Japanese movie about a photographer and his model is definitely in the film festival category. It explores the nature of reality - is it what the woman actually looks like or is it how the woman looks in the photograph. Especially current in this age of social media and online dating.  This was definitely one of my favorites.  

Dinner in America - This film with a seriously flawed main character who made terrible decisions was, nevertheless, a joy to watch.  Not quite mainstream, not quite festival, it was a real surprise and I understand it being the winner for both the Jurors and the Audience.  There are lots of videos out there with the film's crew, but I couldn't find a trailer.  

BUT, I think there were at least two more movies that fell through the cracks because there was so much good stuff.  

The Subject - This leans more into a festival type film.  A privileged white male film maker who sees himself as trying to give voice to black gang members in his 'cutting edge' films, finds out that he's really not gotten much beyond his own self.  There's another withering dialogue at the end of this film between the film maker and the angry mother of one his film subjects.  The film raises lots of questions about documentary film making and exploitation and doing harm while trying to do good.  For a while this was my favorite film.  

In the end, Equan Choi's My Son, one of the last features I watched, became my favorite.  I'd put it off as long as I could.  The story of a Korean father taking care of his severely disabled son.  It sounded like it was either going to be a sappy story of love and happiness or a terribly depressing movie.  Neither sounded appealing.

But I was so wrong.  This was absolutely the most intimate film of the festival.  Yes, there's a father with his teenaged paraplegic son.  The father's sister who helps look after the son.  There's the mentally disabled teen hired to help with the son.  And there's the father's secret married girlfriend that he visits weekly.  Each character becomes a full person with strengths and flaws and the relationships between the characters - both one on one and as a group - are developed.  This is truly a masterpiece and I'm sorry it got missed by both the Juror awards and the Audience awards.  And it forces the audience to recalibrate their definition of disabled, forces them to remember there is a real, human being inside every body, with a whole spectrum of hopes and feelings and opinions.  

There is so much in this film.  The boy's adolescent need to pull away from his father and become his own person against his father's belief he must look after the boy who can't take care of himself.  The teen caretaker who is physically and sexually adult, but has his own mental defects that cause him to make bad decisions, and how he helps the boy become himself, independent of his father.  The sister/aunt and her caring for the boy and her brother yet resentful of how much they take of her life.  The girlfriend (the father goes to his - I can't remember exactly what sport, maybe bowling - activity each week, but really he's going to visit his girlfriend whose husband is in the military and away most of the time) also becomes a full person when the father becomes ill and she comes to the house to find out what's wrong.  It is then when all the characters interact, when the boy becomes his father's caregiver.  There's so much in this film.  I'm sorry I waited to the end to watch it, when I didn't have time to watch it again.  In my mind, this was the very best feature film in a festival with excellent feature films.  

  [I couldn't find a trailer for My Son.]

If you have the chance to see any of the films mentioned in here, grab it.  They are all worth watching.  

The Amount Of Oppression And Hate In The World Is Overwhelming - Makes It Hard To Blog Because There Is Too Much To Protest

When I was a grad student I wrote, in my head, what I called at the time, a 'social science fiction' novel.  That was back in the mid 1970s.  I should have written it - it was prescient in a number of things.  A basic part of the social structure in the book was a set of television connections that allowed people to connect with others all around the world.  I was back in LA after three years as a Peace Corps volunteer in Thailand.  Lots of ideas swirling in my head.  I was reading all sorts of social science and writing papers and substitute teaching elementary school to help pay for tuition.  There were a couple of days where I taught a Kindergarten class in the morning and a graduate class in the evening.  So my novel still only exists in my head. 

One of the key moments in the history of humanity in my book, was when a group of Tibetan monks, in an isolated monastery, through intensive years of meditation, discovered that forces far out in space were using earth as a 'farm.'  The product they were harvesting every 30 to 60 years, was 'goodness.' It turned out to be a rare commodity found in few places in the universe.  After such a harvest, people fought each other, more people became criminals, wars broke out.  It took 30 to 60 years for 'goodness' to gain a foothold among humanity again.  And then the aliens would return to harvest their crop.  The monks in my story teamed with scientist to block the space powers from harvesting the earth's 'goodness.'  

I've been thinking about this metaphor a lot during the Trump administration.  It seems like there was a massive harvest of goodness prior to his administration.  And now we have to nurture a new crop.  

That's prelude to a couple of things I've been reading and/or watching.

Here's a Tweet video from Al Jazeera on Uighurs incarcerated in China (not far from that fictional Tibetan monastery.)

Last year, Merdan Ghappar posted video from inside one of China's internment camps, where over 1 million Uighur Muslims have been held. He was handcuffed to his bed.

China calls them "re-education" camps.pic.twitter.com/LnufUxFg1i

— AJ+ (@ajplus) February 23, 2021

I Care A Lot

We watched this Netflix film last night in mild horror.  Marla Grayson (character) is a Guardian for seniors who can't take care of their affairs.  She works with a doctor who refers patients to her, then goes to a friendly judge who, because it's an "emergency," gives her guardianship of the patients.  Then she goes to the patient's house - in this case Jennifer Peterson, who is wealthy and living a great independent life in an upscale neighborhood.  Grayson shows her the court order, and gets the incredulous victim to the Berkshire Oaks facility.  I haven't givien much away - because Jennifer Peterson in essentially imprisoned within the first 20 minutes of the movie.  How it happens is what's so scary.  Grayson is truly evil. 

"Writer/director J Blakeson was partially inspired by real-life news stories about shady guardians like Marla Grayson. In an interview for the film’s press notes, Blakeson said, “It started when I saw news stories about real-life predatory guardians who game the system and exploit their wards. And I was horrified. Imagine opening your door one day and there is a person standing there holding a piece of paper that gives them total legal power over you. That idea terrified me—and seemed very relevant right now. It plugged into themes that I am interested in exploring —themes about the power of authority, about people vs profit, control vs freedom, humanity vs bureaucracy. It reminded me of Kafka’s The Trial​. I knew I had to explore it.”

If you want to go down a similar rabbit hole that Blakeson did, check out New Yorker reporter Rachel Aviv’s excellent 2017 essay on the guardianship phenomenon, “How the Elderly Lose Their Rights.” It’s a great read, and no doubt inspired many elements of Blakeson’s script. "  (From  Decider.)

I'm so glad I was able to let my mom stay in her own house.  In hindsight hiring a full time caregiver wasn't necessarily more expensive than a nursing home would have been, and far less disruptive.  But Jennifer Peterson never even had a choice.  The legal work was done behind her back by a series of corrupt transactions.  

I also think about a similar phenomenon in Alaska - payees.  These are people hired to take care of the money of people who are mentally or otherwise deemed unfit to take care of their own finances.  I have a mentee who has been scammed by a couple of payees.  There's really almost no oversight for these people who manage the money of people seen as unfit.  How can they possibly keep their payee accountable?  

One last story - Police Violence, Race-Based Trauma, and Mental Health among Filipina/x/o Americans.  This one is all too familiar, but it's is about a Filipino-American, not an African-American. It's co-authored by University of Alaska Anchorage's faculty member Dr. EJR David.  Here's an excerpt:

. . . Mr. Quinto experienced what seems like a mental health-related episode. Not knowing how to handle the situation, his sister and mother called 911 for help.

Police officers and emergency medical technicians were dispatched to the scene, but police officers arrived first. His mother and sister reported that Mr. Quinto had already calmed down when the police arrived and that he laid on the floor in his mother’s embrace. Nevertheless, the police still grabbed him off his mother, pinned him face down to the floor, and handcuffed him. One of the officers kneeled on his neck and back, while another officer held down his legs. Mr. Quinto’s sister and mother said he was not resisting or fighting back, but instead twice uttered: “Please don’t kill me”. After several minutes, he spat up blood from his mouth and lost consciousness. A cell phone video taken by his sister captured his limp body being taken away. Mr. Quinto died 3 days later. . .

The article goes on to put this into a larger context of the lack of mental health treatment, race, and police in the United States.   

Alaska Redistricting Board To Begin Interviewing Legal Firms To Counsel The Board

I got the following email message today from the Alaska Redistricting Board staff:

"The Redistricting Board will be meeting Friday, Feb 26 at 2:30pm and tentatively again on Tuesday, March 2nd at 3pm.  Please note that the bulk of both meetings will be dedicated to interviewing legal firms who responded to the Board's RFI for legal services. The interviews will be conducted in executive session.  Friday's meeting will have an agenda item or two for discussion prior to going into executive session.

The agenda and board packet will be posted here in the next couple of days:

http://notice.alaska.gov/201511 "

That link gets you this information:

The Alaska Redistricting Board will meet by teleconference on Friday, February 26 at 2:30pm.

The public may listen by audio stream through http://akleg.gov or by calling one of the following phone numbers:

 - Anchorage 563-9085

 - Juneau 586-9085

 - Other 844-586-9085

 

If you want to get email messages about meetings and other redistricting board news, go here.

"LEFFINGWELL attempted to push past me and other officers. When he was deterred from advancing further into the building, LEFFINGWELL punched me repeatedly with a closed fist"

George Washington University's Program on Extremism has a website where you can see the documents being submitted about the people apprehended by the FBI and, I think,  other law enforcement agencies.

"The Program on Extremism has launched a project to create a central database of court records related to the events of January 6, 2021. This page will be updated as additional individuals are charged with criminal activities and new records are introduced into the criminal justice system.

If you’d like to contribute to offset the costs associated with court record fees and research on this and other projects, you can support the Program’s research here."

Different people have different documents filed.  Some I've seen are (links take you to an example):

Affidavit in Support of Criminal Complaint

Statement of Facts

Criminal Complaint

Indictment

Detention Memo

 The documents I have looked at were mostly Statements of Facts, which seem to have the following general structure (I've given an example of each part):

1.  Identify the person filing the report and where they work

"On January 6, 2021, your affiant  [a person who swears to an affidavit.], Michael Attard was on duty and performing my official duties as a Special Agent. Specifically, I am assigned to the Counter-terrorism squad tasked with investigating criminal activity in and around the Capitol grounds. As a Special Agent, I am authorized by law or by a Government agency to engage in or supervise the prevention, detention, investigation, or prosecution of a violation of Federal criminal laws."  From:  https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Aaron%20Mostofsky%20Statement%20of%20Facts.pdf

2.  Background information on what happened January 6 in the Capitol

"On January 6, 2021, a joint session of the United States Congress convened at the United States Capitol, which is located at First Street, SE, in Washington, D.C. During the joint session, elected members of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate were meeting in separate chambers of the United States Capitol to certify the vote count of the Electoral College of the 2020 Presidential Election, which had taken place on November 3, 2020. The joint session began at approximately 1:00 p.m. Shortly thereafter, by approximately 1:30 p.m., the House and Senate adjourned to separate chambers to resolve a particular objection. Vice President Michael R. Pence was present and presiding, first in the joint session, and then in the Senate chamber." From https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Greg%20Rubenacker%20Statement%20of%20Facts.pdf

3.  How the agency got information about the individual being charged."

"On January 7, 2021, the FBI received several tips from the public (tipsters) that PATRICK MONTGOMERY of Littleton, Colorado, was seen in photographs posted on Facebook inside the Capitol building Senate Chambers on January 6, 2021. The persons providing the tips also indicated that MONTGOMERY had posted photographs from inside the Senate Chamber on that same day.
A tipster, who will be referred to as T-1, identified MONTGOMERY as the man circled in a photograph below, wherein he appears to be standing inside the Senate Chambers:
MONTGOMERY appears to be part of the crowd that entered the Senate Chambers on January 6, 2021, and, as explained below, MONTGOMERY is wearing the same clothes as he was wearing outside the Capitol building on January 6, 2021. Your Affiant spoke with T-1 on January 12, 2021. T-1 told your Affiant that IT is a Facebook friend of MONTGOMERY and that IT knew MONTGOMERY because they worked together as river guides for three years.
Another tipster, who will be referred to as T-2, provided a post from MONTGOMERY’S Facebook page, wherein a member of the public posted on Facebook the photograph above and a commented to MONTGOMERY asking, “Is this you? I saw it on another page and it looked like

Case 1:21-mj-00044-RMM Document 1-1 Filed 01/13/21 Page 3 of 8
you.” T-1 responded, “I have saved this photo and will be indetifying [sic] you to authorities,” to which MONTGOMERY replied, “Got nothing to hide...”
Following this post, MONTGOMERY corresponded with T-1 by email on January 7, 2021. T-1 provided the email exchange to your Affiant. MONTGOMERY’S email address contains the name of MONTGOMERY’S hunting company, Pmonte Outdoors: pmonte3006@[redacted]. In response to T-1 stating, “You have been reported to the police in DC as well as the FBI,” MONTGOMERY responded, “I’m not a scared cat or running from anything. . . . Im [sic] so deeply covered by the best Federal Defense lawyers in the country in case you chicken shit cry boys don’t want it takes to defend our freedom from these corrupt politicians.” MONTGOMERY went on to explain, “I didn’t storm the castle violently. My group was let in peacefully by the police we were talking to with respect. We came a[n]d left peacefully before the anarchist and Antifa showed up breaking shit and being hoodlums.”  From https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Patrick%20Montgomery%20Statement%20of%20Facts.pdf       

4.  Description of the person and what that person did

"At approximately 2:30 p.m. on January 6, 2021, I was performing my official duties on the first floor of the United States Capitol building. In reacting to the crowd that had breached a window of the building, I moved to a hallway in the northwest corner of the building, i.e., the Senate wing of the Capitol building. While there, I attempted to form a barrier with other officers to stop or deter additional individuals from entering the Capitol building. In the course of this effort and while inside the Capitol building, I encountered an adult male who later identified himself to me as Mark Jefferson LEFFINGWELL. LEFFINGWELL attempted to push past me and other officers. When he was deterred from advancing further into the building, LEFFINGWELL punched me repeatedly with a closed fist. I was struck in the helmet that I was wearing and in the chest. Working with other officers, I was able to gain control over LEFFINGWELL, who attempted to struggle while being detained. I transported LEFFINGWELL to United States Capitol Police headquarters for processing. While in custody, but prior to being advised of his Miranda rights, LEFFINGWELL spontaneously apologized for striking the officer. When told that the officer who LEFFINGWELL had struck was me, LEFFINGWELL apologized to me for striking me."  From:  https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Mark%20Jefferson%20Leffingwell%20Statement%20of%20Facts.pdf

5.  List of the specific charges.

"Based on the foregoing, your affiant submits that there is probable cause to believe that BRIAN MCCREARY violated 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1) and (2), which makes it a crime to (1) knowingly enter or remain in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do; and (2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions. For purposes of Section 1752 of Title 18, a “restricted building” includes a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service, including the Vice President, is or will be temporarily visiting; or any building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.
Finally, your affiant submits there is also probable cause to believe that BRIAN MCCREARY violated 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2), which makes it a crime to willfully and knowingly: (D) utter loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct, at any place in the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress or either House of Congress, or the orderly conduct in that building of a hearing before, or any deliberations of, a committee of Congress or either House of Congress; (E) obstruct, or impede passage through or within, the Grounds or any of the Capitol Buildings; and (G) parade, demonstrate, or picket in any of the Capitol Buildings." From:  https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Brian%20McCreary%20Statement%20of%20Facts.pdf

When I started writing this post I went through various statements and took some excerpts to give you a sense of what they say.  As I looked at various statements I realized they followed a general pattern.  So I went back and developed the above list of examples of each of the five part of the statements.  

So, now that I've finished that, I have already given you a lot of excerpts.  But below are the ones I started out with.  

From this Statement of Fact

"TIMOTHY LOUIS HALE-CUSANELLI (HALE-CUSANELLI) of Colts Neck, New Jersey, traveled to the District of Columbia to participate in a rally and protest at the U.S. Capitol. HALE-CUSANELLI is enlisted in the United States Army Reserves, and also works as a contractor at Naval Weapons Station Earle where he maintains a “Secret” security clearance and has access to a variety of munitions.

On January 12, 2021, I received information from an individual who has been enrolled as a Confidential Human Source (“CHS”) with NCIS. The CHS reported that HALE-CUSANELLI told the CHS that HALE-CUSANELLI was present at the riot at the United States Capitol Building and, as part of the riot, he entered the Capitol building itself. HALE-CUSANELLI then showed CHS videos on his cell phone which depicted HALE- CUSANELLI making harassing and derogatory statements toward Capitol Police officers both inside and outside the Capitol building.

During our meeting on January 12, 2021, the CHS reported to me that HALE-CUSANELLI is an avowed white supremacist and Nazi sympathizer who posts video opinion statements on YouTube proffering extreme political opinions and viewpoints under the title the “Based Hermes Show.” HALE-CUSANELLI also posts similar content in other forums. Prior to traveling to the rally and protest on January 6, 2021, HALE-CUSANELLI wrote “Trust the plan, it’s the final countdown, stay tuned next episode” and 'Trust the plan, major announcement soon.'”

From this Statement of Fact

"On or about January 6, 2021, an individual called the FBI’s National Threat Operations Center to report that the individual seen in the widely circulated Getty Images photograph (Figure 1) was named ADAM JOHNSON. The caller claimed that ADAM JOHNSON was a resident of Bradenton, Florida, and that the caller knew this information because he/she shared a mutual friend with ADAM JOHNSON. The FBI conducted research on government databases and learned that there was an individual named ADAM JOHNSON associated with residences in two cities in Florida: Bradenton and Parrish (which is near Bradenton). A search of the Florida’s Department of Motor Vehicles returned ADAM JOHNSON’s driver’s license photograph. By comparing this photograph to the image of PERSON 1, your affiant reasonably believes that PERSON 1 is identical to ADAM JOHNSON.

On or about January 8, 2021, the FBI consulted with members of the Speaker’s staff and learned that before the forced entry to the Capitol building began on January 6, 2021, the Speaker’s lectern was stored in the Speaker’s Suite, located under a staircase to the third floor on the House side of the Capitol building. On or about January 7, 2021, the lectern was found by a member of the Senate staff in the Red corridor of the Senate wing off the Rotunda in the Capitol building. According to the House of Representatives’ curator, the Speaker’s lectern has a market value of more than $1,000."

From this Statement of Facts:

"SCHAFFER was among the rioters who sprayed United States Capitol Police officers with “bear spray,” a form of capsaicin pepper spray sold by many outdoors retailers, as part of their efforts to push the officers back inside the Capitol and breach the Capitol Building themselves. SCHAFFER was photographed and captured on surveillance video carrying “bear spray” and engaging in verbal altercations with Capitol Police officers inside the Capitol Building.SCHAFFER is seen holding a clear sunglasses in one photograph, and bear spray in other photographs.

The photographs show SCHAFFER in a blue hooded sweatshirt under a tactical vest with a baseball cap that reads “Oath Keepers Lifetime Member.” The “Oath Keepers” is an organization that characterizes itself as a militia of former law enforcement and military personnel and has often, as a group, urged President Trump to declare Martial Law in order to prevent the Congress from certifying the Electoral College Results.

SCHAFFER, who is the front man of the heavy metal band “Iced Earth,” has long held far-right extremist views. During an interview in 2017, SCHAFFER identified himself as an “anarchist” and referred to the federal government as a “criminal enterprise.” During that same interview, SCHAFFER stated that the 2016 Presidential election was 'rigged.'”

Moose Darting

 The doorbell rang about 10am this morning.  A man in a fluorescent vest was outside.  I'd gotten a red tag on my car a couple of weeks ago saying it would be towed if I didn't move it.  I have moved it since then, but my first thought was that this was the tow truck.  

But no, he was from Alaska Fish and Game.  Could he have my permission to go into my backyard and dart the moose.  I didn't even know there was a moose in my back yard.  I said sure and went to look out a back window.  

Sure enough.  In fact there were two resting in the yard.  (That brown lump in the upper left is the second moose.  

He shot the dart at the closest moose which went up the hill and scampered over the fence. (I'd noticed the other day when I went to the compost heap that there was only about a foot and a half of fence above the snow these days.)  Then he was aiming at the second one who'd gotten on its feet by this time.  

They found the dart for the first moose in the snow.  The assistant is holding the dart in the red circle.  

The ADFG agent gave me this card.  It's the weekend they're getting DNA samples as part of a moose population census.  Maybe a neighbor called.  I don't know.

I'd read the article in the Anchorage Daily News yesterday, but didn't think I'd be quite this involved.  

“We could drive around all we wanted, but we would never find that moose in the back of somebody’s house without without the public calling in,” Saalfeld said.

When someone calls in a moose sighting this weekend, it will trigger a series of events. Biologists receive the alert — they average around 1,000 moose tips each weekend. Then, one of seven two-person teams will head to the location of the report.

From there, they fire what’s known as a “biopsy gun,” which lightly strikes the moose with a dart, Saalfeld said.

The dart is designed to pop out quickly, only retaining a bit of tissue that scientists can use to determine that moose’s unique DNA and record it as part of the Anchorage moose population.

“Most of the moose don’t even feel it, or if they feel it, it’s very light,” Saalfeld said. “And they actually typically lay down or sit on top of it, and we have to wait sometimes a pretty good amount of time before we can actually go in and recover that dart because the moose is standing right on top of it for so long.”

The moose in our yard didn't take it that casually.  They got out of there as soon as they felt the dart. Or maybe it was seeing a guy with a gun.  Now I feel a little guilty giving permission to dart them in our yard.  The moose looked like they'd found a comfortable place to rest and then they got shot with a dart.  I doubt they'll be back in our yard for a while.  

2020 Alaska Redistricting Board Debuts Its Website

A post-Civil War map of the newly purchased Alaska sets the mood for this decade's Redistricting Board website. This is NOT your typical government agency look.  Especially compared to the site of the last Board.  This is a very user friendly site and offers Alaskans an easy portal to the redistricting process.  And now that the Census data isn't due until late summer, this is a good time to start exploring the site.