Pictures After A Snowy Night

 They said we'd get 4-6 inches of snow overnight.  I decided to put my car in the driveway before the snow hit.  We have a one car driveway.  My wife's all-wheel drive Subaru with studded tires is in the garage.  I don't drive my van much in the winter and getting up our sloped driveway can be tricky if it's icy and the street is slushy with six inches of new snow.  Slushy doesn't quite describe the snow today, because it wasn't wet.  But it didn't give much grip.  Slushy like dry sand.  So this morning I was glad the van was in the driveway when I started shoveling.  I actually measured the snow this time - it was 14.5 inches deep.  

My windshield, even though it was it was a couple of feet from the garage door, had a serious amount of snow.  In the afternoon I had an errand to do and went by foot.  Our street hasn't been plowed.  But a nearby street I went along was plowed and I'm guessing it was the truck with the plow in one of the driveways that cleared the street.  Even the little footpath from the end of the street into the parking lot was well cleared.  

And the bikepath/sidewalk had been cleared already along Lake Otis.

That wasn't the case along Tudor.  There was knee deep packed snow - looked like it was pushed there by the plows clearing the road.  There were, however, previous footsteps into the snow that were better than if it was just deep snow.  I was able to use some of the plowed parking lots.  

It was nice to see the "Masks Required" sign flashing on the bus.  

Because walking on Tudor was so unpleasant, I slipped into the Campbell Creek greenbelt on the way home to get me back to Lake Otis.  I'd note that Lake Otis is cleared by the Municipality of Anchorage and Tudor by the State.  

The only clue that Campbell Creek is running below snow here is 

[March 12 update I'm adding this picture which is the same view in October - if you look closely you can see the leaning trees in both. One of the things I love about living in Anchorage is that there are two entirely different worlds - the dark, white world of winter and light, green world of summer.]

now continued from above]  that it's a narrow, winding  strip of snow with no trees and has bridges over it here and there.  Like this one below.

And here are two ravens high up in a cottonwood tree.

Because the walking route I've been taking lately doesn't get into the greenbelt along the creek, I've forgotten how pretty it is there.  And with all the snow it was a real delight.  

AK Redistricting Board Selects Schwabe, Williamson, and Wyatt For Legal Counsel

I missed the Board Meeting on Saturday afternoon and so I waited until the audio tape was up to report it. I'd note that the recordings are available at a different legislative website than before because the previous meetings were still during the 31st legislative session and now we are in the 32 legislative session. 

They are also up on the Board's own website, but you have to look a bit.  There's a  ≡ symbol in the upper right hand corner of the website and a click there will give you a drop-down menu with some additional pages, including one for "Minutes and Audio."

I'd also note that I used Board Members' first names, because that's how they identify themselves and each other and mentally trying to substitute last names as I listen really slows me down.  No disrespect intended.

Meeting Highlights

1.  Legal services selection - Board had five responses to the Request For Information.  They interviewed two firms and selected Schwabe, Williamson, and Wyatt.  There are still some negotiations to finalize the agreement ahead. 

2.  Protocol for meeting and information requests from public - Board decided to hold off this decision until Schwabe is on board and can help with potential legal issues for deciding this.  Since Census data have been delayed, this shouldn't be a problem.

3.  Time for public testimony at regular meetings - The Board decided to set aside time to do this at meetings.  There was also discussion of using the Anchorage legislative info office for future meetings and that with COVID restrictions loosening in Anchorage, this could be soon.

4.  Next meeting Friday, March 26 at 2:30pm

Below are my notes after listening to the tape.  The numbers are time on the audio tape at:https://www.akredistrict.org/files/9816/1532/4779/2021-03-06-ARB-Audio.mp3

It was much easier taking notes from the tape than it is from a live meeting.  I cleaned things up a bit, but remember this is a rough transcript, but it should let you know what was discussed and where you can find things, more or less, on the tape.

4:18  John - Call the meeting to order and ask Peter to take roll and establish quorum. 

John:  Draft agenda.  Legal services and meeting protocols.  Motion to adopt agenda.  Adopted. 

First item is discussion of legal service RFI and responses - ask Peter to go through the process up to this point

6:05 Peter:  Legal process - Constitution Article 6 Section 9 requires board to contract for  

Alaska Constitution Article  6 § 9. Board Actions
The board shall elect one of its members chairman and may employ temporary assistants. Concurrence of three members of the Redistricting Board is required for actions of the Board, but a lesser number may conduct hearings. The board shall employ or contract for services of independent legal counsel. [Amended 1998]

 

independent counsel.  RFI in January - five responses obtained.  We are required by law to keep them confidential until decision made.  After that we can share with the public who request it.

Board subcommittee picked two.  First firm had multi-slide presentation on how to avoid litigation and if we get sued, perhaps,  how to prevail.  

Second interview also went well - firm offered a question and answer format. Frank  discussion  about litigation strategy.what to expect and how the Board should prepare.

Thanks to both firms for candid advice.  Board has had several days to consider the interviews.  How to proceed.

John:  Did discuss in Executive Session (ES.)  Do we want to go back to ES?

Budd:  I think we want to - hard to understand - we had a total of 5 firms that responded.  All fiver were good, well regarded firms.  Hard to narrow down, but two that had a little more horse power or something going for them that got them to the interviews.  Let them know all were good and hard to get to short list.  Move to ES to discuss legal counsel.  Relying on - involving consideration of public records not allowed by law for public disclose.

Seconded.  

John:  A couple of items we asked the ED to return to law firms to discuss with them financial arrangements  and fee structures etc. and I think that's appropriate to discuss in ES.  We'll be back in public session to make decision.  Don't know how long.  Hope less than 30 minutes.  Back into public session.  Legislative telecom folks to work that out.  

12:26  recording:  "You've been muted"

31 minutes in, unmuted.

John:  Out of ES.  Chance to discuss further nuances of responses:

Budd:  Based on discussion and interviews and five proposals I would make motion that we select Schwabe, Williamson and Wyatt Firm - subject to negotiation and execution of a satisfactory agreement.

2nded - 

John:  Discussion

Melanie - Call the question.

John:  Objection?  Passed by unanimous consent.  Will ask ED, Budd and Nicole to put that agreement together.

Budd:  Along the lines of the quality of the other responding firms, ask that ED prepare nice letters to other respondent firms, thanking them for interest and quality of responses, indicating it was difficult selection, but we have selected Schwabe.  

John:  I know it takes time to put these together and we're genuinely appreciative.

35:  Next is protocol

Peter:  Draft on the website.  We're going to forward to help evaluate.  Board members can assist and ask for assistance.  Record from last cycle says we'll get a lot of these.  Reporting them as they come in is the best way.  

John:  Discussion?

Bethany - this is for private presentations, not public hearings, right?  

Peter:  Yes, if Board member requests and we'll forward to you.  

Bethany - Someone private group requests meeting with Board meeting.  

Melanie - I was going to ask if ever going to open LIO line to let people ask questions of us?

John:  Good idea

Peter:  Anchorage opening up restrictions and reached out to Anchorage LIO and they have big room and people can actually see us.  Happy to allow us to use when not used by other legislative body.  So Public Meetings in the future.

Melanie - Then can I suggest public comments allowed in future meetings.  Nome is relaxing travel regs too for people to travel, so my ability to travel is opening up.

John - hopefully by spring or summer can get back to regular meetings.  Peter and I will review with law firm how we interact with public - both in public and privately - so we don't get challenged on this in future litigation.

???:  I propose we wait then on this until we can hear from the law firm.  

???:  Since data is so delayed, we have plenty of time until we have attorneys on our payroll.

John:  next, unless comments, we are at item 7 - adjournment.

Nicole - want to thank Budd for his leadership on dealing with the law firm selection, a pleasure working with him.

John - Leg teleconferencing crew, we appreciate your help, especially coming in on a Saturday.

???:  Confirm next meeting.

Peter:  Proposed March 26, 2:30pm.  And will try to preload meetings for second Friday.  Anyone can request to be on email alert list.  

John - also lets start taking public testimony at next meeting.  

Nicole second motion to adjourn.  Adjourned  45 min.  

White Privilege, Underprivilege, and White Supremecy

 We hear a lot about 'privilege' these days.  Whites, particularly males, deny they have any special privileges.  Blacks and other people of color insist whites do have privilege.  This use of the term seems to be of recent currency, though for some white folks, the first introduction to the term 'white privilege' came in 1989 in Peggy McIntosh's article, White Privilege:  Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.  She brought the point home by asking people to answer 26 questions such as:

13. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.

14. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.

15. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.

But I'd like to point out that white folks unconsciously acknowledged the idea of privilege (if not exactly white privilege) well before that. As we looked for more delicate terms for 'poor' we hit upon "underprivileged."

"Synonyms of underprivileged

Find synonyms for:  

Adjective

1. underprivileged (vs. privileged), deprived, disadvantaged, underclass(prenominal), poor, unfortunate

usage: lacking the rights and advantages of other members of society"

Jeff Kunnerth wrote in the  Orlando Sun in 1989:

Euphemisms have eliminated old people from America, a place now populated by "senior citizens." They have done away with the poor, retarded and ambitious, replacing them with the "underprivileged," the "mentally handicapped" and the "upwardly mobile."

 And people in the US tended to think of blacks as poor, so underprivileged has a racial tinge too.

Writing in 2009, Marcus Bell, in  Reflections of Whiteness: The Origins, Progression, and Maintenance of White, writes:  

"Today there is a term used to describe people who are at the bottom of the socio- economic spectrum. The term is “underprivileged.” This can be applied to poor people, minorities, women, or any group of people who are now, and have historically been exploited or discriminated against. Paraphrasing Tim Wise (2004), the passive voice of the term underprivileged implies that no one did anything. “It’s as if one day someone said ‘here is privilege and I’ll be damned, there you are under it’” (p. 36). This addresses the overall structure of American society as it pertains to race. Speaking socially, culturally, politically, and economically, America was initially shaped and flourished under the banner of white supremacy. As a result, America has established generally accepted “race neutral” policies that inherently advantage whites but are not considered racist because these policies do not specifically mention race."

So, the term "underprivileged" has been around a long time and has been used as a euphemism of poor.

As Bell writes, the term doesn't mention race. It just implies people who did not get all the 'privileges.'  Who then, gets the privileges?  

The implication - since this is about being poor - is people who aren't poor.  The term, again, following Bell, doesn't mention social, economic, and political structures that keep the poor 'underprivileged.'  It's a step up from the belief that the poor are poor because they are simply lazy and don't want to work, but not by much.  It still implies that fixing the problem means fixing the individuals by providing them something that will allow them to get out of poverty.  

This is a long introduction to the idea that the term "White Privilege" doesn't ring true to many whites.  

First, because 'underprivileged' means to them neutral (race-less) poverty.  Privilege, in reverse, is not something you get because of race, but by having enough money. 

Second, whites, particularly blue collar males, in the US have seen their economic status slip over the years.  Unions that protected them have been badly weakened.  Blue collar jobs have been sent overseas or lost to automation. Pensions have evolved from defined benefit to defined contribution, or disappeared altogether. Health insurance tied to jobs disappeared with the jobs. Minimum wage has been stagnant while maximum wage seems to be limitless for the few.  Though, Republicans have blamed the change in economic security on others - particularly immigrants - who are willing to work their jobs for less money.

So, when people talk about White Privilege, these folks don't see any privilege attached to being white.  They see it attached to not being poor. And as their own economic situation worsens, they feel more and more that they themselves are underprivileged.  So their whiteness gives them no special privileges.  They don't see that their whiteness gives them a privileges compared to blacks in their same economic situation.  

And while it's true that a larger percentage of blacks and other POC are poor than whites, whites still make up the largest number of poor people of any ethnic group.

And, of course, this doesn't account for the whites who still are economically comfortable.  What they can see, though, is that today they are competing for jobs with women and POC.  In the 50s and 60s this was pretty much NOT the case.  Women were to stay home and take care of the kids, and POC were simply not  given access to the better jobs.  These are people whose power was taken for granted.  And with the idea of the work ethic part of the mythos of the United States, those who succeeded understood it was because of their own superiority and hard work, not the fact that women and blacks were not in the competition.  

The ironic part of all this is that we now 'see' whiteness.  White people conscious now, in a way they weren't 40 years ago, that they belong to a group called white.  Sure, they knew that in the past, but then it was conflated with American.  Now, lots of people who are not white, are also claiming their equal rights as Americans.  

I think it's the losing of privilege that is freaking whites out.  And their resistance, in part, stems from still being in denial that their relative good life in the past was due, not to their own merit, but to their own privilege compared to people of color.  

And some are coming out from hiding and declaring publicly the supremacy of whiteness.  

Fur Rondy Snow Sculptures

 Fur Rendezvous is an Anchorage winter festival that traces its roots back to fur trading days.  You can still get furs today, if you think it's ok to snare animals in traps where they might suffer for hours or days before they die. Or gnaw a leg off if that will help the escape. 

We spent much more time on Rondy when we first got here and had little kids who needed entertainment.   This year much of it is online.  

But since we really haven't been out of the house much except for regular walks, shoveling snow,  and curbside grocery pickup, and we're fully vaccinated now, it seemed like a good idea to expose ourselves to some vintage Alaska culture.  

The start out with giant blocks of snow - eight cubic feet.  

When I got to this one, my thought was, "Maybe she's dumpster diving.  It's an ode to the homeless."

Then, "Maybe she's checking the freezer."

But sculpture is three dimensional.  I just needed to check the other side.  And as soon as I did and checked the title (The Waldorf School:  So close, and yet so far), it became my favorite.  It seemed the perfect sculpture for the Pandemic Fur Rondy.

The setting under an overpass in Ship Creek made it a little more challenging than normal to get good photos.  Yes, I know, that's what divides those who take snapshots from those who take photographs.  But the hazy sun didn't give a lot of contrast and a number of the sculptures were in the shadow of the bridge while we were there.  Online easy editing made the photos above a little better than they were originally.  But I left this truck as it was.

So I played around with the editing more on this one - used Curves - to get the horse show up a lot better.  

And finally, as we left I saw this guy.  I'm not going to pretend I actually know what he was thinking.  But this is the time of year that people are ready for warmer weather, whether we have it or not.  

It was in the mid 20s yesterday.  

Since we were in the neighborhood, we stopped at Alaska Mill and Feed and got some flower and herb/vegetable seeds, some new seed trays, and a bag of potting soil.  It's time now.  In a little over two weeks (just after equinox), Anchorage will have more daylight than every place south of us.  We're gaining almost 6 minutes a day - that's an hour of daylight every ten days.  

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.