56% Of the Alaska Redistricting Board Expenditures Were Legal Fees

Overview

This is a budget post.  Not for the faint of heart. One has to look at numbers and then answer these questions: Did the Board spend its money wisely? Did anything stand out as you looked at the budget?  What does it mean? In this and a second budget post I'm going to: Post the copy of the budget I got as of July 22, 2022  for those with more budget savvy and  as a precedent, so that future Redistricting Board budgets get published and reviewed publicly The Board's biggest single expense category was Legal Fees.  In this post I look a bit more closely at the section on Legal expenses and raise some issues to consider in the future  Raise some questions about the payments made to Board Members (in a later post).  The only conclusion I can make at this point is that saying the Board Members were volunteers, as many people did, is more than slightly misleading.

I feel a bit like a sculptor who has a slab of marble and is trying to release the statue that is hidden inside the stone.  I have a slab of data in the form of budget expenditures and I’m trying to figure out how to release the meaning of that data in a way that makes sense to the reader. And I’m also not completely sure what the meaning of all the data is myself.   

I’ve had a copy of the Alaska Redistricting Board’s budget as of July 22, 2022 since that date and I’ve been walking around it trying to figure out where to start chipping away.  I went through it and sent a bunch of questions to the Executive Director which he answered in detail.  

Budgets, on the surface, are lists of categories and numbers.  While they (should) list all the expenditures, one needs some experience and skill to tease out what's hidden between the lines.  I don't claim to be a fluent interpreter of budgets.  

The point of reviewing the budget is to keep the Board accountable in terms of the public monies it spent.  The underlying question one needs to answer is:

Did they use their money efficiently and effectively?

To make that determination, a budget analyst might ask: 

1. Did the Board stay within its budget?  
2. Are there any unusual expenditures?

1.  Did the Board stay within its budget?  

$3.5 million were allocated to the Board (Board Executive Director Peter Torkelson said this was based on what the 2010 Board spent), but the 2020 Board only spent $1.97 million by July 22, 2022 when the Board staff sent me the budget. 

Of course, staying within your budget assumes that the original budget was reasonable.  Comparing it to the 2010 Board is one benchmark.  A big savings this round, according to Board Executive Director Torkelson, was that in 2010 the trial was in Fairbanks so there were lots of travel expenses. But there was also more significant litigation AFTER the second Proclamation was approved in 2010.  That Board did NOT broadcast its regular Anchorage meetings across the state.  But I don't know that there is a better comparison organization.  And this Board spent considerably less, so far.  

Of that $1.97 million total,  $1,111,513.46 went to SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT, the company that won the contract to give legal advice and to represent the Board in court. (Link shows proposals for all firms that submitted them including Schwabe).   

That's the main thing that stood out for me.  I also have questions about how much money was spent on retirement funds and other things that suggested Board members were possibly treated as state employees rather than volunteer Board members.  But I'm awaiting more information and that will be another budget post.

Did The Board Spend The Money Wisely?

I would note that I believe that the Board staff was dedicated to serving the public interest. My belief is based on numerous conversations - in person, by phone, by email - that I had with staff, particularly the Executive Director Peter Torkelson.  He was always forthcoming with information and documents - including sending me this copy of the budget.  I also closely observed the Board in action from December 2020 through the last meeting held in May 2022. Torkelson put an unprecedented amount of information on the Board's website.  Well, "unprecedented" is not a high bar, considering what little past Boards did. The previous Board also did much more than past boards had.  Technology has moved quickly and Torkelson had the skills and public interest values to take advantage of it. 

 I hope future Boards can match the level of transparency of this Board.  Not only was there an enormous amount of documentation (maps, transcripts and video and audio of meetings, transcripts of public input, etc.) but it was also put up with minimum delay - sometimes immediately, often within a day, usually within a few days, rarely more than a week.   

I suspect this budget reflects a Board and staff that was pretty much playing by the rules when it comes to how money was spent.  Some Board members may have spent more on travel and hotels than others, but not enough to matter that much.  The Board probably could have saved a bit of money here or there, but this organization reincarnates once a decade with new players and it's reasonable to expect them to learn along the way.  And in many cases, there were extra expenses due to the Board being transparent in ways past Boards haven't been.  

The only large expenses that immediately stand out as avoidable are the legal costs for defending the second Proclamation Plan that continued the attempt to give Eagle River two Senate seats.  We don't know what the attorney advised in Executive Session, but we do know the three Republican majority members of the Board were more than eager to make that decision.

The Whole Budget:   

Alaska Redistricting Board Fy22 Spending as of July 22, 2022 by Steve on Scribd

Just Because the Grass Is Green, Doesn't Mean Someone Painted It Green

Just because 85-90% of the legal fees came after the original Proclamation Plan was approved, doesn't mean the attorneys advice caused that.  A key reason for the delay in posting this has been my concern that by raising the idea that an attorney might increase his income by insuring post Proclamation litigation, readers would conclude that happened.  Voters these days believe some of the most implausible accusations against candidates and parties.  In those cases it's mostly pure fiction, while in this case there are facts that show most of the legal fees were post Proclamation.   Can I even raise the issue without having some readers conclude this was intentional?  Probably not.  But while I can't rule it out 100%, I have NO evidence to suggest the timing was anything but the natural flow of the redistricting process and I will outline below why I think it's highly unlikely there was any intentional action by the Board's attorneys.  I raise this possibility only because I thought it could happen in the future and so legislators and Board members in 2030 and beyond should just be aware of it.  After writing this all out, I don't think this is an issue. Some may say I protest too much here, but 1) the budget begs for this issue to be raised and 2) once raised it should be quickly dismissed without reflecting poorly on the attorneys who represented the Board.

On the other hand, there were unnecessary legal expenses to defend the second Proclamation Plan, but that was due to the Board's Republican Majority's decision.  I'll mention briefly that below. 

The Legal Expenses - 85-90% were paid after the First Proclamation Plan was approved

The chart below shows the payments made to the attorneys' firm Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt over time.  The first column shows key events in the timeline in relationship to the payments.  

9/01/2021 - 10/25/2021 ($55,904) The first payments were made while the attorneys attended Board meetings and gave advice to the Board to help the Board understand the parameters for their mapping decisions set by the Alaska and US Constitutions and past Supreme Court decisions as well as other Federal and State legislation.

11/22/21- 1/25/22 ($229,626) -  Proclamation Plan was approved 11/10/21.  After this date the plan was complete.  The attorneys' bill goes up sharply in response to the five lawsuits challenging the Board.  It was also after there was a sharp public rupture between the majority of three Republican Board members and the two members not identified by party.  That dispute only related to one of the five lawsuits - the two Eagle River Senate seats.  The other four would have been filed anyway and would have required a lot of attorney time.  

3/15/22 - 3/16/22 ($370,015) - Judge Matthews ruled on 2/15/22.  These bills clearly represent work done earlier, during the trial and then work appealing parts of his decision and responding to plaintiffs' appeals. 

3/29/22 ($175,797) - The Alaska Supreme Court ruled on 3/25/22.  

4/25/22 ($122,141) - The Board picks Option B for second Proclamation Plan (which still gave Eagle River two Senate seats) on 4/13/22.  

5/31/22 - 7/1/22 ($158,029) - The Superior Court and the Supreme Court ruled on May 17 and May 24 respectively.  Both essentially told the Board to join the Eagle River house districts into one Senate seat.  The Board quickly complied.  At this point, we await the longer Supreme Court decision which will explain its ruling in detail (setting precedents for future Boards) and decide whether the 2022 map will become the permanent map or have the Board make the final map.  I've written about the factors that likely will affect that determination here.

Events	Date of expenditure	Recipient		Category of Expense	Amount
	09/01/2021	SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT PC		ATTORNEY FEES	16,098.71
	09/01/2021	SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT PC		ATTORNEY FEES	3,403.53
	09/21/2021	SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT PC		ATTORNEY FEES	10,414.08
	10/25/2021	SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT PC		ATTORNEY FEES	25,988.16
11/10/21 Proclamation Plan approved	11/22/2021	SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT PC		ATTORNEY FEES	18,830.00
	12/27/2021	SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT PC		ATTORNEY FEES	33,887.50
	01/25/2022	SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT PC		ATTORNEY FEES	176,908.45
2/16/22   Judge Matthews ruling	03/15/2022	SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT PC		ATTORNEY FEES	14,895.55
	03/15/2022	SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT PC		ATTORNEY FEES	32,623.90
	03/16/2022	SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT PC		ATTORNEY FEES	322,495.83
3/25  Supreme Court Rules	03/29/2022	SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT PC		ATTORNEY FEES	175,797.40
4/13  Board picks Option 3B	04/25/2022	SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT PC		ATTORNEY FEES	122,141.21
5/17/22 - Judge Matthews 2nd Ruling 5/24/22- Supreme Court Ruling	05/31/2022	SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT PC		ATTORNEY FEES	65,870.38
	07/12/2022	SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT PC		ATTORNEY FEES	92,158.76
					1,111,513.46

[This table combined information from the budget as provided to me by the Board's Executive Director plus dates I retrieved from blog posts on this site.]

What do the charts tell us about the legal representation?

1. We have to take these figures and the juxtapositioning with dates of payments and events with a grain of salt.  The timing of the bills and the State's actual expenditures doesn't necessarily neatly match when the work was done.  Rather, it reflects when the firm was able to calculate and submit the bills and the State issued payment. 
2. That said, the bulk of the attorney costs come after the initial Proclamation Plan was completed.  The bills are for litigation, only a tiny fraction for advice.  Peter Tolkerson told me via email that "Non attorney time and costs make up less than 10% of total legal spend. . . Non-attorney staff [para-legals] costs have run about 4% of total legal spend."
3. Did the Board get hit with excessive legal fees?  I'm guessing not.  There have always been challenges to Redistricting Board proclamations.  This time the Board's attorney had to fend off five challenges at once in a very short period.  Four of the challenges were for decisions the whole Board agreed on.  One (Eagle River Senate seat(s)) was for a decision the Board was  bitterly split on.  Did the attorney give advice that the majority's decision was defensible or did he advise against it?  We don't know.  It happened in Executive Session.  We do know that the two minority Board members argued publicly, loudly, and ultimately correctly, that the Eagle River decisions in both the first and second Proclamation plans were unconstitutional and they would lose in court.                                                  We also know that the original "legal subcommittee" was made up of the two attorneys on the Board - Budd Simpson and Nicole Borromeo.  But sometime later a new subcommittee formed that had only Simpson and John Binkley. Borromeo was cut out of the process.   So it's possible we will eventually hear about some of what happened behind closed doors at Executive Sessions, it's unlikely we'll hear anything about what happened after Borromeo was replaced on the legal subcommittee..  
4. More experienced and astute budget analysts might well be able to distill more information from the budget as presented to me.  I hope publishing it here will pique their interest and if I missed something important, someone else will raise it.
5. Below are some additional emailed comments about the legal portion of the budget in response to questions I had about how the Board was actually billed.  I'd noted in my question that the Schawbe bid for the contract had included a slightly discounted half day and full day rate instead of the hourly rate.  Again, from Peter Torkelson:

"The RFP response offered some discounts and then we negotiated further for additional savings.  The more meaningful savings have been the bulk discount we hammered out with the original contract.*  At the time we weren't sure we would need it, but in retrospect, that was naive. We were likely to rack up significant bills for any number of our unanimous decisions, as you noted (Valdez, Matsu, Skagway etc). *The negotiated bulk discount is 5%  Of Counsel and Paralegal fees (not partner attorney fees) from total firm billings of $100k - $500k and 7.5% from 500k to $1M and 10% over $1M per calendar year.  So far we have saved about $20k."      [I had to get clarification on "5% Of Counsel." Torkelson wrote back "'Of Counsel' is a common title for attorneys in a law firm who are not yet partners.]

Torkelson also noted that because the trials were in Anchorage this time (2010 trial was in Fairbanks), the Board saved money on travel and lodging compared to the previous Board.   

Is there credible evidence that the Board's attorney intentionally gave the Board advice that would increase the likelihood of Post Proclamation litigation?  [Spoiler Alert:  No!]

The only 'evidence' that there might have been bad advice with the intent to increase post Proclamation litigation is purely theoretical.  It's this: 

1.  Law firms are for profit businesses.  Their goal is to make as much money as they can.  If 90% of the income from representing the Alaska Redistricting Board comes from defending the Board from post-proclamation legal challenges, there’s an incentive there to make sure there are legal challenges.  

That's it. It's theoretical. No facts.

What then is my evidence that would suggest that just as grass grows green naturally, extensive litigation flows naturally from Redistricting Proclamation plans?

1.  There are other incentives for attorneys besides money.

I emailed the Board's attorney, Matt Singer, to find out what his motivations for bidding on the contract were.  

"I'm doing a post on the Redistricting Board Budget and the fact that about 56% of the budget went to legal fees and of the legal fees, about 90% were paid after the original Proclamation Plan was approved.  I'm trying to come up with a list of reasons why a law firm would seek such a contract in addition to money.  Could you send me the list of reasons you and your firm bid on this contract? 

His response was longer and a lot more thoughtful than I expected.  

"Regarding your question below, in outdoor pursuits, we use the phrase "Type II fun" to describe a task that is difficult at the time, but feels rewarding afterward, often because it challenges the practitioner to test their limits and grow. I'd call Redistricting a Type II kind of fun for a lawyer. The subject matter is fascinating and nuanced, the issues are important, the work is very demanding, and it is all done under immense time pressure and scrutiny (including by friendly bloggers like yourself). 

In addition, our "Hickel process" in Alaska redistricting is a deep dive into culture, history, geography, transportation, and a myriad of other interesting tidbits about how Alaskans live, work and play. Many of us who chose to make our professions here in Alaska did so out of a deep interest and admiration for this great state. Redistricting, at its core, is about understanding Alaska and its people. We were blessed with a board that collectively has covered just about every inch of this state, and so being a fly on the wall for their discussions and deliberations was a great privilege.

I suspect it is no coincidence that many of the lawyers who competed with us in response to the Board's RFP ended up being lawyers representing challengers in the redistricting process. For those of us interested in the subject matter, it would be hard not to get involved if given the opportunity. 

Lawyers are interested in working on redistricting for many of the same reasons that you have taken the time to follow and write about the subject. Are you doing it for the money, or are there other factors at play?"

I got to watch Singer extensively at Board meetings and Court hearings.  We even interacted a few times.  My gut says that this is a sincere response to my question and not carefully crafted argument to sway a friendly blogger.  There are more incentives than money involved.   

Another key incentives that come to mind is upholding one's reputation, and giving bad advice doesn't help that at all.  

2.  Litigation naturally flows from redistricting Proclamation Plans - The Statutes and Constitution even anticipate that

In a follow up email Singer wrote: 

". . .it sounded like you are musing about why the attorney’s fees are mostly incurred after the proclamation plan is adopted.  This is a bit like musing about why most of a book’s pages come after the prologue.  In Alaska redistricting, litigation has been a part of the process in every cycle since statehood, and the litigation follows the adoption of the proclamation.  In other words, the time consuming legal work comes after the proclamation.  As you saw this round, even parties with longshot claims will file lawsuits in a bid to influence the outcome.

Litigation in redistricting is such a certainty that our legislature defined the role of the Board’s lawyer as this: “defend the plan and board in all matters concerning redistricting until a final plan for redistricting and a proclamation of redistricting have been adopted and all challenges to them brought under art. VI, sec. 11, Constitution of the State of Alaska, have been resolved after final remand or affirmation.”  Alaska Statute 15.10.220." 

Let's also look at art. VI, sec 11 of the Alaska Constitution that he cites :

"Any qualified voter may apply to the superior court to compel the Redistricting Board, by mandamus or otherwise, to perform its duties under this article or to correct any error in redistricting. Application to compel the board to perform must be filed not later than thirty days following the expiration of the ninety-day period specified in this article. Application to compel correction of any error in redistricting must be filed within thirty days following the adoption of the final redistricting plan and proclamation by the board. Original jurisdiction in these matters is vested in the superior court. On appeal from the superior court, the cause shall be reviewed by the supreme court on the law and the facts. Notwithstanding section 15 of article IV, all dispositions by the superior court and the supreme court under this section shall be expedited and shall have priority over all other matters pending before the respective court. Upon a final judicial decision that a plan is invalid, the matter shall be returned to the board for correction and development of a new plan. If that new plan is declared invalid, the matter may be referred again to the board. [Amended 1998]" [emphasis added]

3.  Four of the six challenges to the board were on decisions the board had agreed to unanimously.  I say six challenges, though two were related to the same issue - the Eagle River Senate pairings.  One brought by one set of plaintiffs after the first Plan and another brought by different plaintiffs after the second plan.

4.  Redistricting law is complicated and ambiguous.  It is made up of the Federal and State Constitutions, (including the minutes of the Alaska State Constitutional Convention), Federal and State statutes, and what judges have interpreted in prior Redistricting court cases.  One has to sift through all that to guess what will be ruled legal or illegal.  For example, the Board unanimously agreed to pull Cantwell out of the Mat-su Borough and put it into a huge Interior district so that it was with other Ahtna villages.  This was despite clear past court rulings that Boroughs should not be broken if at all possible and it violated the Constitutional requirement for compactness.  The Board knew the law was against this decision.  But it was also a strong request by the Calista and Ahtna Native Corporations arguing the Cantwell was Socio-Economically Integrated with the other Ahtna villages.  It didn’t involve a lot of people - maybe 200, and fewer actual voters.  It was challenged by the Valdez plaintiffs and by Mat-Su.  The Superior Court judge let it be in his ruling.  But the Supreme Court said they couldn’t do it.  Putting Cantwell back into a Mat-Su district didn’t get either Valdez or Mat-Su the bigger changes they wanted.  The point here is that there are lots of ways an attorney can justify a decision and lots of ways one can challenge a decision.  And it’s also unclear whether the advice would result in a lawsuit or not, or which way the Court will rule.  I’d note that had Valdez been originally put in a district that went up the highway to Fairbanks, they probably wouldn’t have challenged the decision even if Cantwell had been part of that district.  Maybe Mat-Su wouldn’t have sued either.

5.  Redistricting happens every ten years and only a few attorneys get involved in Alaska.  So there are relatively few opportunities to practice redistricting law and to become an expert in this area.  Understanding it well comes from reading everything about it - nationally and locally - and being involved in the process.  Both paths together help bring a better understanding.  And both take a lot of time, more than most lawyers who aren’t involved have time for.  And because redistricting only happens once a decade, there may well not be a chance to use one's expertise in court again.

 6.  Redistricting is highly political and somebody will always believe they were the loser and the map should be changed to accommodate their grievance.  This is implied in my second point - there's always litigation.  Someone or several someones will be aggrieved enough to pay an attorney to challenge some part of the Board's final map.  It's happened in every round of Alaska redistricting.

Conclusion

My conclusion is that it makes no sense to misadvise the Board in hopes of increasing litigation.  An attorney can give the Board the best possible advice and there will still be litigation.  

I'm leaving out two other areas of exploration that might fit in this post.  

• An examination of the kinds of advice Singer did give the Board.  
• There were key areas where at times the advice seemed either overly broad and/or it changed.  This was particularly true in terms of the early mantra - everything within a Borough is Socio-Economically Integrated (SEI).  At one point this stretched to: Mat-Su and Anchorage have had overlapping districts so everything in Anchorage and Mat-Su is Socio-economically integrated.  And then at another point - since Mat-Su and Valdez have shared a district, they are SEI.  And since Mat-Su and Anchorage are SEI, all three are SEI. Ultimately the Eagle River Senate seats were overturned, at least in part, by a similar concept - communities of interest - which judges said were not the same in all Anchorage neighborhoods.
• Other concepts like contiguity and the role of public participation in redistricting offered challenges in this round of redistricting, but these are matters for the court to decide
• A look at the nature of the attorney-client relationship
• Alaska Legal Rules of Professional Conduct outlines what is expected of attorneys.  Eagle River plaintiffs' attorney Holly Wells raised the issue of different ways to think about this relationship when it comes to attorneys of public entities.  Is their duty to the whole Board, the Board majority, the public, and how do you balance these?  Matt Singer would rightly point back to the role of the attorney to the Board he cited above from the statutes.
• Directly related is what role public testimony should play in redistricting.  Superior Court Judge Matthews ruled that the Board didn't give it enough weight in both the Eagle River suit or the Skagway suit.  The Supreme Court disagreed in the Skagway case, and we haven't yet heard their thinking on this in the Eagle River case which they seemed to rule against the Board based on other issues.  
• Conflicts of interest also have to be explored - This came to light when Valdez attorney pointed out that the Board's attorney also represented Ahtna Corporation in two upcoming Supreme Court cases and claimed that he should have told the Board that when they were considering Ahtna's role in getting the Cantwell moved out of the Mat-Su district.  
• The attorney's role is to explain the law as best he can and predict the likelihood of winning in court.  The Board then weighs that advice and decides how much risk they are willing to take.  But in this case, the client (the Board) does not bear the financial cost of a bad decision, the public does.

This post, many would argue, is already too long.  The first additional point - how redistricting criteria were explained and used and clarification the Supreme Court ought to make - I've already discussed in detail in various previous posts.  Here's one that succinctly identifies key issues/terns I'd like the Court to clarify.

The second point - on the attorney-client relationship - I'd like to explore in a future post.  

To reiterate - I'm personally convinced there was no wrong-doing on the part the Board's attorney to increase the post Proclamation litigation.  There was no need since it happens anyway even with the very best advice.  

  

 (Yes, I've been toying with this way too long.  But this is more for the 2030 Board than for today.  The only deadline I've given myself is to post this before the Supreme Court publishes its full opinion to supplement its brief ruling back in May.  And I figure that won't happen at least until after the November 8 election.  So I'm closing in on that deadline.  People are probably focused on other things right now, but I need to get this up finally.)

Inside Man's Final Take On Humanity Is So Wrong

 I don't think there are any serious spoilers here.  Inside Man (on Netflix) is going where it's going, no major surprises.  

At the end,  Stanley Tucci, as Jefferson Grieff, gives a short soliloquy on the theme "We're all murderers given the right situations."

I just want to push back on that belief.  Particularly since it will give lots of already hyped up MAGA folks more justification for violence and murder.  

Is every human being capable of murder under the right conditions?  NO.  What about being capable of killing?  I think more people could kill another under the right conditions, but for many the conditions would have to be extreme indeed.  

From a Chicago Tribune column by Rabbi Marc Gellman:

"In biblical Hebrew, as in English, killing (harag) and murder (ratzah) are two different words with two very different moral connotations, and the commandment uses the Hebrew word ratzah, which means that the proper translation of the commandment from Hebrew into English is, "Thou shalt not murder." The difference is crucial.

Killing is taking a life. Murder is taking a life with no moral justification. Murder is morally wrong, but there is wide moral agreement (not complete agreement) that some forms of killing are morally just. . ."

This is more or less consistent with a number of other writings I saw on the topic.  

But Grieff's take (the Tucci character) is that every person is capable of murder, and the examples in this short Netflix series are not even extreme.  They're more about stupid decisions getting way out of hand.  We've got a beloved (in his community) vicar who apparently loves his wife (and she him) as well as his son.  And then he makes a series of terrible decisions.  

I'm with 

"Anita Singh of The Daily Telegraph [who] said, "Moffat can throw any amount of good lines or clever little plot twists into this show, but it is built on a flaw so fundamental that it's impossible to get past it."[5]"  (from Wikipedia)

Under normal social conditions, a relatively small percent of our population will ever become murders.  Probably a few more might actually kill someone.  I'm not making this up.  The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime says that in 2017, world wide, 6.1 out of 100,000 people were murdered.  

That's less than one percent.  And we know some murderers kill more than one person, so the percentage of murderers is lower than the percentage of people murdered.  I'd note that in the Americas, the rate of murder was almost three times the world average at 17.1 per 100,000.  

In a Zombie Apocalypse?  Probably the percent will go up, if killing Zombies counts as murder, but it would be most likely in self-defense.  

So NO!  Most people are not capable of murder.  They might be capable of killing another human being if circumstances got really extreme.  The circumstances in Inside Man were not extreme and the people involved made really stupid decisions that I doubt the real human beings those characters were meant to portray would have made.  

(Am I saying religious leaders aren't capable of murder?  Not at all.  Many have taken such positions because of the status attached and are capable of such evil actions as promoting laws that ban abortions in all circumstances.  Those aren't real men or women of God.  These are people who want power over other people, over women.  The vicar in the series was not presented as that kind of man of God.)

"The Only Way" To Make Sense Of Sen. Hughes Questionably Logical Pro Constitutional Convention Commentary

I've been resisting writing a post on whether Alaskans should vote to have a constitutional convention.  I listened to a debate between former Assistant Attorney General Libby Bakalar and Senator Shower and resisted.  But today's ADN commentary arguing for a convention was the straw that broke my resistance.  

[For non-Alaskans, our state constitution requires us to vote every ten years on whether to have a constitutional convention.  Since the Constitution was ratified, we've never voted yes.  But this year far right Republicans are pushing this as a way to get rid of the privacy provision which the Supreme Court has used to keep abortion legal in Alaska, and to change the very rational way we select judges among other things.]

So let me talk about a few things. (I could do more, but you'll get the idea fairly quickly.)

1.  The title

COMMENTARY

A constitutional convention is the only way to fix Alaska

Shelley Hughes

That's the headline.  I don't know that Rep. Hughes wrote it or the Anchorage Daily News editors wrote it, so take my comments with that in mind.  

Anyone who starts out saying there is only one way to fix something has already exposed themselves as an uncreative and rigid thinker.  There are always different ways to fix something.  Some very focused mechanical problems - like a backed up toilet - may have relatively few options.  But something as complicated as the whole State of Alaska, certainly has lots of different ways to be "fixed.'   And, note, she doesn't actually tell us what parts are broken and need to be fixed.  A constitutional convention is not the first thing that comes to mind as 'the solution', and probably not to most Alaskans minds. (Though we will learn next week whether this is true or not, at least for Alaskan voters.)

2.  Opening confusion.  She begins by imploring us:

"Alaskans, I respectfully implore you to recognize that the flood of paid advertisements you’ve been hearing about a state constitutional convention may not be telling you the whole story — and dare I say is “spinning” the story to protect the power and wealth of some who believe they would benefit more from your “no” vote."

This is a very confused sentence.   It's doesn't make grammatical sense. And, I'd note, unlimited Outside money is ok when it's oil interest money advertising for a GOP cause, but not when the other side has all that money.  

"the flood of paid advertisements you've been hearing about a state constitutional convention"

Does she mean a "flood of ads we've been hearing about"?   Or is 'about' connected to "a state constitutional convention."  As a blogger who writes a lot, I'm guessing this is the result of editing the original sentence without going back and reading whether it still makes sense.  

She then adds into this convoluted sentence something about spinning the story to protect the power and wealth of people who want you to vote no.  

Well of course, the 'no' side is telling a story to get you to 'vote no' because it's in their interest. 

Just like she's spinning a 'yes' argument to get us to vote yes, because it's in her interest.  

I'd note that Vocabulary.com says 'implore' suggests desperation.

"The word implore is often used to describe an urgent request made out of desperation. A man on death row might implore the governor to grant him a last-minute pardon."

And later in this Commentary she tells us why she's desperate - the No side is outspending the Yes side (her side) 100 to 1.  

3.  36 Questions.  Most of the commentary is made up of 36 questions.  (No I didn't count them, but I used the search function to tell me how many question marks there were.).   These questions, as you might imagine 

• "may not be telling you the whole story"
• " are “spinning” the story to protect the power and wealth of some who believe they would benefit more from your “no” ["yes"] vote."

They are all phrased with the very condescending school teacher structure of "Are we...?"  This is how some people talk to children.  Are we hungry today children?  Do we know what day it is today?

Question #1:

"Are we going to realize before we vote that more than 230 state constitutional conventions have been held in our nation successfully, peacefully, without upending state government and industry, without disrupting state economies and without constitutions being thrown out and rewritten, without extreme amendments passing voters?"

Let's briefly look at those '230 state constitutional conventions.'  A Cambridge University Press article published June 2022 tells us there were actually 250:

"From the 1770s through the 1970s, the 50 states held nearly 250 constitutional conventions, many of which brought about important changes in governance.

"Working from this list, I identify 77 of these conventions that were called to create inaugural state constitutions. Another 50 conventions were called for reasons stemming from the Civil War, including conventions called to secede from the Union and make necessary changes in state constitutions, then rejoin the Union and make state constitutional changes required as part of Reconstruction, and then later reverse changes adopted during Reconstruction. Another 41 conventions were called not at the instigation of legislatures but rather through automatically generated conventions or referendums or councils of censors or federal courts."

So the vast majority were:

• For the state to originally draft their constitutions*
• To secede from the US during the Civil War and then to rejoin the US after the Civil War make changes during Reconstruction and the reverse those changes.  All, according to Hughes, "without upending state government and industry, without disrupting state economies and without constitutions being thrown out and rewritten, without extreme amendments passing voters."  Really? Not even seceding from the US?  Not even setting up Jim Crow constitutions?  Really?

From the National Conference of State Legislators website, we learn:

"Nine states drafted new documents during the turbulent years between 1964 and 1975. Only two states have adopted new constitutions since then: Georgia in 1983, and Rhode Island in 1986.

Alabama is often mentioned when the idea of a constitutional convention comes up. The state’s current document dates to 1901 and at 376,000 words is about 80 times the length of the original U.S. Constitution, making it by far the longest and most amended of state constitutions. Amendments make up about 90 percent of it. Many local government functions are established by the constitution, and it often takes an amendment proposed by the Legislature to make changes to policies affecting a single county, or even a single town." 

So, it isn't a happy story of 230 states willy nilly calling conventions and having kumbaya conventions.  And conventions stopped happening, for the most part, in the 1970s.  And the state that has amended its constitution the most is Alabama.  Now there's a stellar role model for Alaska.  

A related set of questions from Hughes:

"Are we aware that in the more than 230 state conventions that have been held in our nation that Pandora’s box was not opened, that not a single worm escaped a can? That only sane and reasonable amendments were adopted?"

How do 'we' know this?  Just because she says so?  Not a single worm escaped?  How about the Civil War?  Maybe we should look carefully at all the changes to the Alabama constitution.   Actually Former Louisiana state senator Tony Guarisco wrote: 

"The 19th-century racist constitutions of the Bourbons and their 1921"crazy quilt" successor were embarrassments at best. Between 1922 and 1973, a constitutional revision by amendment produced 536 changes to a document that became virtually incomprehensible. Louisiana's law schools expended little or no effort to teach useless or inferior legal authority."

While Guarisco may not be unbiased, he was involved in one the Constitutional rewrites and probably has a better take on this than Sen. Hughes has.

Question 2:  (I'm not going to go through all 36 questions.  Just a few.  So this is the second question from Hughes' list that I'm going to address.)

"Have we processed the fact that the yes side only has donations from individual Alaskans, not the millions from outside ultra-liberal organizations like the opposition? And that the no side is outspending the yes side by 100 to one? That this is a David vs. Goliath battle?"

I haven't checked these facts out, but articles do confirm that the NO campaign is vastly outspending the YES campaign, and that they have a large donation from the same Outside group that supported Ranked Choice elections.  But it ignores the many Alaskan organizations - unions, fisheries groups, Native Groups - that oppose having a convention.

What I want to address here is the David and Goliath comparison.  In the Biblical tale, Goliath was bigger than David.  And Goliath was the bad guy.  David was the good guy.  Well, Senator Hughes here makes the argument that the NO group is bigger (has more money) and then slips in the assumption that the NO group is also the bad guy and that YES group are the good guys.  But she hasn't proved that at all.  Sometimes the stronger guy is also the better guy.  

She reinforces this at the end of the commentary: 

"Much is at stake. Root for David; vote yes."

Question 3:

"Do we realize that the voters elect the delegates by district and therefore the delegates will reflect the values of Alaskans statewide?"

This is actually one of the murkiest parts.  We've just gone through a very contentious redistricting board process.  Exactly how many districts will there be?  Who will set the boundaries for the districts?  The Alaska legislature is elected from districts.  Why would the convention be more harmonious than the legislature (which Hughes implied in previous questions couldn't do the job)?  And why wouldn't the urban centers dominate the rural areas?  [Yes, I just gave you a bunch of questions, but they weren't rhetorical ones like Hughes' questions.  They seek answers.]   I haven't found any documentation on how these delegates would get picked, or even how many there'd be.  The Voter Pamphlet only asks us vote whether to have a convention or not.  It doesn't tell us any more detail than that.  

OK.  That's enough.  You get the picture.  I'll reiterate.  From my perspective the YES folks want to have a convention for two main reasons:

1. They are frustrated because the Alaska Supreme Court has interpreted the Privacy section of the Alaska Constitution as guaranteeing the right to abortions.  So reason one is to change the Privacy section of the Constitution and they want to add language to prohibit abortions.  
2. They want to change the very rational way the Constitution sets up for picking judges so the conservatives  have more political control of the judges.  

And there are other things they would change if they had the chance, but I think these are the two most critical ones.

If you haven't already voted, be sure to vote No on Proposition 1 that calls for a constitutional convention.  

*I'm not sure either why 50 states would have 77 constitutional conventions to draft their original constitutions.  Perhaps some were rejected the first time round and they had to start again.  And territories, like Puerto Rico, have drafted constitutions but haven't been accepted as states yet.  (Alaska and Hawaii had their conventions prior to becoming states.)

Snow, Sun, Bread, And Saving Lives

Tromped to the dentist for a cleaning this morning through the new snow.  Others had already created a path.  When I got home I shoveled a lot of snow.  

The sun crept into the bedroom this afternoon and hung a new picture on the wall.  I like it.  But it was only a temporary loan.

Yesterday I did the work.  This morning I pulled it out of the refrigerator, let it warm up, and put it in the oven.  This was a good one.  Rosemary olive.  

How professors can save lives:

Organızıng My Books/Free Online Photoshop Like Program/Black Water

I've got lots of books on lots of topics.  They're in bookshelves in different rooms, on tables, and other flat horizontal surfaces.  There are some stashed in the garage.  

I decided several weeks ago that I really need to sort through them.  Some can be traded in to Tidal Wave (a local used book store) but I they don't take all books and I hate to just throw books away.  

Here's the 'guest room'.  It was one of the kids' rooms, but they're long gone.  It's been a storage room on occasion, but we can clear it up if we need it for a guest.  I started taking books off the shelves and trying to put them into a more sensible order.  It's not that there is no order.  There are sections of different public administration related books.  But one of the problems with these book shelves is shelf size.  I can put related books together until we get some books that are too tall for that particular shelf.  

I also started a category I'm calling "books important to how I think."  These will be the books I'll most want to keep in the end.  

The picture above is a mashup of two pictures - it's basically what that corner of the room looks like, but a little distorted.  As you can see, I've been doing my sorting on the bed down there.  Another book sorting hazard is that I start reading the books.  

So as I was working on this, I thought, I should just google "how to sort home libraries."  There's lots of stuff out there.  One was just basic sorting ideas - Keep; Give Away, Throw out.  

But then I came upon LibraryThing.com.  Here's their overview of its uses:

WHAT’S GOOD?

• Catalog your books from Amazon, the Library of Congress and 4,941 other libraries.
• Catalog your movies and music too.
• LibraryThing is entirely free.
• Find new books to read.
• Talk about what you love with other committed bibliophiles.
• Track and lend your books.
• Snag a book from over 2000 early-release books every month.
• Available in many languages:                       (others)

My interest was to catalog my books and hopefully be able to sort lists by category.  There is a tag section, but I'm not sure how well that will sort things.  

It's fairly easy to make a list.  You can write down the title and then it shows you a bunch of covers for that book.  Then you click on the one that matches yours.  It fills out the form for you.  But I have a lot of older books - before, say, 1990.  Some of my covers didn't show up.  

That's when I discovered putting in the ISBN number was a better way to do this.  

So I've catalogued 14 books.  This could be a long project.  

When I looked at my list of 14 books I found one section particularly interesting.  It tells you how many people on Librarything have that book.  For some books it also tells you how many people are looking for a copy and how many are available.  Just in that 14 there were five or six books that people were looking for.  So maybe this will be a way to get rid of books.  

You can also see how many people near you have catalogued their books on Librarything.  Anchorage has a fair number of folks.  

So, I have one more long term task for my to do lists.  

Here are some more ideas for sorting your books from the American Library Association.

Photopea

I'd also note that the other day I came across a site called Photopea  It's essentially a free Photoshop knock off.  My access to Photoshop lapsed a while ago and I've played around with Sketchbook, but Photopea is a much better option.  But for those who haven't used Photoshop I'd warn you that it is daunting.  Lots to learn.  I took two semester long courses where I learned to use it.  On the other hand you can google most any question like "How do I make X in Photoshop?" and get a step by step youtube video telling you how.  

Photopea also says it has versions of other painting/drawing programs.  

I used Photopea to merge the two book photos.  It took about ten minutes, but then I've used Photoshop a lot. 

Black Water 

We had maybe an inch of fresh snow this morning and I had a doctor's appointment.  I took this photo of the creek flowing through the dorm area at UAA as I was walking back home.

I'm Keeping Busy So Here Are Some Recent Pictures

 Monday morning I biked over to the Century theater to see Amsterdam.  An odd hour to see a movie but that was the only time it was playing.  I liked it, but it was a bit odd at times, which is probably why I liked it.  It hasn't done well at the box office - it was a little too quirky I think and while it's message was a timely reminder of past attempts of Nazi's to take over the United States, it took too long to get there and then to spent too much time explaining itself.  

It was chilly - mid 20s - but sunny.  Even early afternoon, still just October, the sun doesn't get too high above the southern horizon these days.  So I did some errands and then went a bit out of my way to catch the Campbell Creek trail back home

It seemed that all the geese still in Anchorage were using the south of Tudor soccer fields in the old Trent homestead as a grass station before heading south.  

I used the pan feature on my phone since that was the only way I could get them all in.  But now they're so small you probably can't see them.  There's a mass in the middle to the left and more in front of the trees to the right.  

Today I was shoveling the new snow from the driveway.  I pulled out my phone to take a picture and noticed there was a voicemail message.  It turned out that what I thought was my 11am meeting was at 9:15.  I jumped in the car and wasn't too late and we had a good meeting.  But ever since my computer upgraded to the next California location named version of IOS, my calendar has not been my friend.  First it wiped out everything I'd had on my calendar. And today I realized it's not giving me the 24 hour notices it's supposed to give, so I don't get blindsided like I did today.  I ended up taking this picture when I got back.  

I left so fast for the meeting that I forgot to take our absentee ballots.  I after I actually got the driveway cleared - not too long, only a couple of inches - I went to the Election office to drop off my ballots.   I parked in front on the street behind this car.  

I saved this at a higher resolution so you could click on it and enlarge it (like I should have done with the geese.)  We were maybe 100 feet from the entrance to the Division of Elections.  I did point out that he was parked there and they said they'd get right on it.  But when I came out he was getting in the car and driving away.  

There is a sign on the front door about not campaigning - including bumper stickers, buttons, T-shirts, etc. within 200 feet of a polling place entrance.  

I do understand that if you have stickers on your car you need to park somewhere.  I'd like to give this car the benefit of the doubt and he just forgot or didn't know the distance rule.  But part of me thinks he enjoyed his little act of defiance.  The stickers almost look like they're holding the vehicle together.  

Thank You Ms. Downing For Calling Attention To My Email To The Anchorage Assembly

Yesterday I sent an email to the  Anchorage Assembly.  I've been concerned about the disruptive behavior of a number of people who give testimony at Assembly meeting.  It's frequently demeaning and racist (calling Assembly members Faggots, using Jew as an epithet) and who otherwise attempt to prevent the Assembly from getting their work done.  There are also reports of people verbally and physically intimidating others who testify, both inside the Assembly chambers and out. 

I'd started a letter to the Assembly back in July.  Yesterday, after reading the ADN article about the man who made a long racist diatribe about Alaska Natives and homelessness,  I went through it, edited it a bit, and emailed it to all the Assembly members.  

This morning I got a comment on my last point that was simply a link to a Must Read Alaska* post.  

Actually, it was a relatively decent post by Must Read Alaska (MRAK) standards.  After discussing the incident and reactions, it then turned to my email (which was sent to all the Assembly members.)  In fact 85% of what I sent the Assembly was in the post.  Over 50% of the the MRAK post was my letter.  (I'm sure there is a check in the mail to pay me for my contribution.)  

The first part is a report of the incident and other people's reactions.  Then she gets to my email.  Mostly it's direct quotes, but she does say in the headline "university professor suggests ‘people’s brains have been polluted.'  She also says I want censorship 

"a letter to the Assembly about how to handle speech that is racist, hateful, or not welcome. He wants the public censored."

I never use the word censorship nor do I talk about unwelcome speech.  But I did use hateful and racist.  I guess she thinks those things are good.  That seems to be her biggest issues and you'd miss her comments if you blinked. 

I'd note 'pollution' was a metaphor here.  But I think it is apt and I explained it in the email.

What's telling is the tiny, but important, part she left out:  The conditions for participation in Democracy:  

• Sincerity - authentic discourse requires trust between participants that they are being honest and truly wish to find a solution. 
• Focus on specific issue - not simply ideological posturing without reference to some specific situation.
• Willing attention - Sincerely interested in the problem, willing to do the work necessary to get through the issues seriously, including listening attentively to what others say.
• Substantive Contribution - having a unique point of view, specific expertise, or something that helps the discussion move along - even just the ability to express the concerns of a class of people.

I quoted Fox and Miller who were examining what was needed for the public forum to work, that is to come to decent solutions to the problems the public faces.  

I have to thank Suzanne Downing for giving my email this much attention - much more than it would get from the Assembly members.  Much more than it would get on my blog.  

And she doesn't actually say anything negative about it.  I'm not sure whether she disagrees with the idea that brains can be polluted or whether she just thought that was an idea that would rile up her readers.  

She does also suggest that I'm proposing to censor people who speak at the Assembly.  I'd point out that I recognize that people have First Amendment rights to free speech.  But the Assembly has an interest in having orderly meetings and speakers who add to solving problems, not speakers whose intent is to spread hate, disrupt, and, yes, pollute the public forum.  Perhaps her intent was to rally the troops against what I see as a reasonable and logical attempt to honor people's free speech rights while also maintaining some semblance of order at Assembly meetings.  Maybe she recognizes it for what I intended and that's precisely why she's flagging it and hoping her loyal readers (some of whom are frequent Assembly disrupters) will  attack the suggestions and make it harder for the Assembly to use it.  We'll see.  

So my suggestions allow them to help people organize their thoughts better and to ban folks who cannot follow the rules.  It's not about what they say, but whether it furthers the Assembly's objectives to come up with ways to deal with the issues that arise or if it makes it harder to do that. 

And since Assembly meetings are online people can still view them.  And since people can send in written comments (or even leave voice mail messages), their freedom of speech is preserved, while allowing the Assembly to have orderly meetings.  

A note I did leave out of my letter, was that judges in court have this power to eject people who disrupt the proceedings.  While the courtroom and the Assembly chamber are not the same, both have an interest in conducting public meetings so they can come to a fair and reasonable resolution.  The point of public testimony is to get input from the public about the issue at hand.  It is not just an open forum to talk about anything, or to insult those you disagree with.  Just as the judge in a courtroom has the right and power to limit how information is introduced, the Assembly members have the right to limit speech that does not lead to resolving the issue at hand.  They don't have the right to simply cut off people who advocate solutions they disagree with.  But if someone's speech is not on topic or is disruptive, they can cut them off from oral testimony.  Written testimony can be submitted without disrupting the meeting and allows for people to get their ideas on the record.  The Assembly is not a Speakers Corner at Hyde Park  where anyone can say most anything.  The Assembly is taking testimony to add to their understanding of how to resolve issues facing the Municipality.  

I'd also like to clarify the Fair Use Doctrine here. From Stanford University:

"What Is Fair Use?

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an infringement.

So what is a “transformative” use? If this definition seems ambiguous or vague, be aware that millions of dollars in legal fees have been spent attempting to define what qualifies as a fair use. There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general guidelines and varied court decisions, because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit its definition. Like free speech, they wanted it to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation.

Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody."

She only appears to comment/criticize a very limited part of what I wrote.  If it were parody there would be some transformation of what I wrote.  BUT, emails to the Assembly aren't copyrighted, so she can probably do what she wants with it.  

So, below is the full text of what I wrote to the Assembly.  The parts that appeared in the Must Read Alaska blog are in green.  The parts I sent to the Assembly that she did not lift verbatim are in black.  I'd note that she did give credit and she did use quotation marks.  

"Suggestions for the Anchorage Assembly on ways to get public testimony focused on the issues and to avoid disruptive and hateful testimony.

I offer this as a contribution to the discussions ignited recently in response to David Lazer’s recent racist testimony.  First there's an introduction to the concept of pollution of public discourse.  Then there are specific recommendations.  

Steven Aufrecht

Professor Emeritus, Public Administration

University of Alaska Anchorage

Underlying concepts for good public discourse  

Charles Fox and Hugh Miller, two public administration scholars, many years ago suggested some conditions for participation in a public discourse.  Without these, democracy cannot thrive.

The participants should all possess the following:

• Sincerity - authentic discourse requires trust between participants that they are being honest and truly wish to find a solution. 
• Focus on specific issue - not simply ideological posturing without reference to some specific situation.
• Willing attention - Sincerely interested in the problem, willing to do the work necessary to get through the issues seriously, including listening attentively to what others say.
• Substantive Contribution - having a unique point of view, specific expertise, or something that helps the discussion move along - even just the ability to express the concerns of a class of people.

Pollution of Public Discourse

What's that? If toxic chemicals get into the water system, the whole system has to be cleaned out before people can drink the water again.

When people come to the public forum, but insult their fellow citizens, spout half truths and complete lies, don't learn the complexity of issues, they are really civic outlaws who pollute the public forum. 

Our progress to finding alternatives that we can all reasonably live with is thwarted. Instead, the public forum is cluttered with rhetorical litter - lies, falsehoods, innuendo and clear cut slanders - that have to be cleaned up before we can go on. 

But it's not as simple as picking up trash. People’s brains have been polluted, misinformation has been planted, and people have lost trust in others, healthy debate dissolves into hostile conflict.    

The point of civic debate, theoretically, is to work out our disagreements. We:

1.  share ideas about the problem, the possible solutions 

2. identify facts, 

3. forecast consequences and costs. 

That’s the ideal. Separating the objective from the emotional is never easy. We want to allow for emotion in testimony, but we also must draw a line when emotion becomes polluting of the discourse and derails sincere attempts to deal with issues.

Recommendations

Point of the Assembly having the public speak is:

1. Hear their preferences
2. Hear the reasons for supporting one action/path over another
3. Gain additional facts about the costs (financial or other), impacts, etc. about one option versus another
4. Identify options that meet the needs of the most people, or minimally inconvenience the fewest people 
5. Get a sense of how many people support a position (though good polling would be more accurate than counting people at meetings)

Actions that pollute the public discourse:

1. Repetition of the same information
2. Addressing unrelated issues
3. Intentional misinformation 
4. Personal insults and attacks
5. Trying to get one’s preferred outcome through physical or verbal abuse and intimidation rather than reason and information

Strategies to encourage good public discourse and to discourage pollution of public discourse.  

1. Clarifying what is expected of speakers
1. Written guidelines for oral testimony
2. Video guidelines
3. Written public testimony form to help people focus their presentation
1. State your preference - A, B, C etc.
2. Facts supporting your preference
3. Reasons for your preference 
1. How does it affect you?
2. How does it affect others?
3. Costs/Savings it might entail
4. Additional facts/points that have not been raised

2. Offer the public a summary of the basic options, supporting data, costs, and impacts and ask speakers to address those points - particularly if they have something to add or refute
3. Assembly chair or members ask questions guiding the speaker toward answering the questions on the public testimony form - “Do you have any new facts to add to the discussion?”  
4. Use of technology to get the public’s views

1. Electronic surveys people can take live at meetings to show support for one or another option or point - these can be done via cell phones and can show results on the screen.  People watching from home should also be able to participate.  
2. Online written, possibly audio and video, options that people can use to submit their testimony.  The Alaska Redistricting Board had this option on their website which allowed people to submit written testimony online.  The testimony was then made available for all to see online.  Board members got packets of the testimony.
3. Investigate what other participation technology options are already in use in classrooms, in government public hearings, in  business settings

5. Consequences for people who violate the Assembly ground rules

1. There’s a difference between people who genuinely have trouble organizing their thoughts and those who are intentionally trying to disrupt the meetings.  The former should be encouraged and given help.  The latter should be given alternative ways to submit their input other than oral testimony at Assembly meetings.
2. There can be a hierarchy of offenses.
1. Level 1: Worst
1. Intimidation - name calling, insults, slurs directed at other members of the public or at Assembly members or administration representatives.  This includes physical and verbal threats that occur inside and outside the chamber.
2. Intentional disruptions that unnecessarily delay the proceedings.  This is trickier, however the Assembly needs the power to keep order at meetings and to eject people who regularly disrupt meetings and do not stop when asked to, 
2. Level 2:  Bad
1. Regular harangues that are disruptive rather than sincere attempts at resolving an issue
3. Level 3:  Minor 
1. Repetition of things already said (this can be handled with electronic polls)
2. Difficulty organizing one’s thoughts - this needs understanding, unless it is something that happens repeatedly from the same person, in which case, moving to written testimony or referral to Public Testimony Guidelines
3. Hierarchy of penalties  - should be appropriate to the offense
1. Banning from public meetings (online access is available and ability to make online written testimony means the person can still hear what is happening and can still participate, but without disrupting the public discourse.)
2. Banning from making oral testimony at public meetings. Again, they can still submit written testimony, all of which should be available to the public.

This is a start.  Obviously there are legal issues to be resolved.  But I believe that the ability to watch the Assembly meetings online and to submit written testimony means that people who are banned from giving public oral testimony or even from attending meetings because of disruptive behavior, can still have access to their First Amendment rights. The rules, warning steps, and penalties have to be clearly stated, and even handedly meted out for this to work."

*I should note that Must Read Alaska is written by a former Alaska Republican Party communications director and she has been supportive of the disruptive actions of the group Save Anchorage. It is hard to find objective reviews online. Here is an Anchorage Press piece that gives some background.

Stepping Back In Time

 Flying from Anchorage to Seattle in October is like stepping back in time.  The flowers are still blooming profusely and it's light at 7am.

We're here helping out with child care and food prep and other such chores while my son-in-law is out of town for work, so my daughter can concentrate on her own work.

The last two days, J managed to get out of bed early enough to walk our granddaughter to school.  Today she got to sleep in while I was up at 6:45am.  

Once getting out of bed is accomplished, it is pure pleasure to walk with Z to school.  

Only a few late and hardy bloomers were still smiling in Anchorage when we left, that's not the case down here.  (We hear it snowed after we left.)  While I'm pretty sure the ones above are hydrangea, I'm not sure what the ones below are.  But their dainty beauty helps lift my heart so beset with human failures.  

My granddaughter took the picture below.  Since it's her shot, I didn't crop it, and she's in school now so she's not here to make it look the way she wants.  Perhaps she'll want to make an adjustment later.