78

 

Image from Google Image search - Mejor Bingo Online

Bears, Bison, Glacier, And Sun

My daughter and granddaughter are visiting and Thursday was our day for an adventure.  We headed for Girdwood and checked out Virgin Falls, that I first learned about earlier this summer.   

Soup and sandwich at the Bake Shop, then down to the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center.  I'm not a zoo fan.  Well, as a kid I was a zoo fanatic.  Between the old LA zoo and the stuffed animal tableaux at the County Museum, I got to know about animals from around the world.  It was only later I became aware of how difficult it can be for the animals.  

The Center, as I understand it, only takes in orphaned, injured, or other found animals.  And for the larger animals, there's way more room than at most zoos.  Wikipedia says there are about 800 acres and these are only Alaska animals.  But the small animals - porcupine particularly - the cages are way too small and they were pacing pathologically.  There were two, in separate cages.  One only had three legs so it probably wouldn't survive on its own.  And the bald eagle was in much too small a cage.  I couldn't look.  These shouldn't be in cages, but I'm guessing it was injured as well.  

But the brown bears have a large area.  I found a 200 acre reference to the wood buffalo habitat, so I'd say the bears probably have roughly the same amount. 

  Nevertheless, Thursday they were up against the fence close to the people watching.  I suspect they find the people as interesting as we find them.  

I got a little carried away with the bear pictures.  

There were musk oxen from Northwest Alaska.  

And wood bison. Turns out, the world was down to about 300 wood bison at the turn of the 20th

Century, all in Canada.  
 

This very wildlife conservation center played a big role in bringing them back to Alaska and building up the herd before they began returning them into the wilds of Alaska.  Wikipedia says that they devoted 200 acres to their habitat.

My granddaughter's picture

There were a number of other animals as well - wolves, caribou, and smaller animals.  Also elk - which we don't see in SouthCentral Alaska, but are in other parts. 

No mountain goats or Dall sheep, 

Then off to the Byron Glacier hike at Portage Lake.

Here's a similar picture from last year.  

Needless to say, there's a lot less ice and snow here than when we were first here back in 1978.  It even seems like a lot less than there was last summer.  

AirDrop Is Back - Demolished Housing, New Trail. Abandoned Kayak, Skateboard Park [UPDATED]

 Some time back, not too long ago, my Air Drop stopped working between my phone and my MacBook.  I checked online but couldn't make it work.  I'd get the Blu Tooth connected both ways, but the airdrop wouldn't happen.

So lots of pics on my phone just stayed there.  I tried other work arounds.  When I plugged my phone into my computer I got a screen that wanted to download everything from my computer to my phone and there was no way I could get rid of it other than just unplugging.  

Frustrated, today I tried again.  But this time instead of searching for Blu Tooth solutions, I looked for AirDrop solutions.  I got this HelpDeskGeek page with a whole table of contents of approaches.  Quickly I found a good prospect - Open Finder on Mac.  Then Set Air Drop To Open To Anyone.  

That was the magic trick.  Somehow it had gotten switched to Open To No One.  I'm back in business and can now post some pictures here.

But there's a large backload of things I passed on - Juneteenth Festival, Gay Pride March and Festival, and a bunch of other things.  

I'm just going to focus mostly on some pics from (mainly) yesterday's bike ride to highlight changes going on.  

This first pic is from June 4th.  A new homeless camp showed up on the 'off-ramp' from the Campbell Creek bike trail to Dowling.  

About a week ago, it had been reduced to this:

    

And yesterday, it looked like this:

Yesterday's turnaround point was the AARP fitness spot just south of Taku Lake.  

There's construction going on down the trail there (toward Dimond).  Someone recently told me they're building a skateboard park.  

Also heading out yesterday, I noticed someone kayaking in the creek, but there were trees around and I didn't see too much, except it was a red kayak.  On my way back, the kayak was blocking the bike trail.  

Didn't look good.  Nobody was around. But I figure if they got the kayak out, the people got out too, but not sure why they left their stuff there.  That's an old restaurant in the background that they've been slowly working on, including adding landscaping.  It says Creekside something on the other side.   Behind me is Peanut Farm and Arctic Roadrunner.  

Meanwhile, just down the block from our house, I discovered at the beginning of the ride that an old house was demolished.  It's been there at least since the 70s.  It was there two days ago, but this is all that was left yesterday:

The tape says something about asbestos.  It was on a double lot.  Presumably Anchorage will get some new housing.  A single family house?  A duplex?  Two houses?  Stand by.  

Other changes.  I noticed a bike headed up the hill near the forestation at Campbell Airstrip Road at Tudor a week ago.  I decided to see what was there.  It's a wide new gravel path that goes up, south of Tudor.  It starts not too far from Tudor but gets further into the woods.  Then there's a long downhill to this long bridge across what I'm guessing is sometimes wetlands.  

[UPDATED July 16, 2023:   It's called the Chugach Foothills Connector.  Steve Johnson left comment with this link to a Muni page describing the project and the ribbon cutting will take place July 23,2023 at the bridge in the picture below:

"The event will take place on July 26th, 2023 from 4pm to 5pm. If you are driving to the event parking is available at the Benny Benson School's Parking Lot. The rib​bon cutting will take place on the boardwalk in the center of the trail.​"

Thanks, Steve] 

Past the bridge, with some bear poop to remind me this wasn't a place a lot of people went before this trail was put in.  

Then it veers back toward Tudor and the power line right way.  It ends where that power line is.  There's a small path that continues.  And the new trail turns left into a housing area just past where Tudor curves into Muldoon.   There's a big sign that says Neeson Construction is doing this project, but all the paper work was about Alaska employee rights, not anything about this trail and whether it will stay gravel or eventually get paved.   I came out onto Muldoon at Regal Mountain Drive.

And yesterday I got my summer (starting April) biking total up to 603 km.  60% of my target of 1000 again this summer.  

[UPDATE July 16, 2023  below is the map of the project:

For sharper version visit the Muni website

The Point Is Not Just To Take Back Rights, But To Do It So Fast And Furiously That We Can't Keep Up With The Outrages - 303 Creative

 In a couple of days the Supreme Court threw out Affirmative Action for colleges and universities (and surely employment and other areas will be challenged soon); blocked Biden's waiving of $10-20,000 in student loans (ignoring the word 'waive' in the law that gave him the right to do that); and allowed a would be (but not actual) wedding website designer to refuse to take gay couples as clients.  

I suspect they intentionally timed the one case hailed by supporters of democracy - the voting rights case - earlier so that these three would all be together and there'd be less time to analyze them and protest.  

For the most part, lots of pundits are using these cases to get hits and likes.  Some are even worth reading.  But I want to just think out loud here about the 303 Creative case - the wedding website case.  

I posted in the past about the baker and about the photographer who didn't want to make a wedding cake for, or take photos of gay weddings.  Some of those same issues arise. 

Here I want to just lay out ideas as I try to understand this case and how it affects one's religious beliefs and what other collateral damage it might lead to. 

And I'm also setting aside the allegations that have come up after the decision that this whole scenarios was made up.  Or the arguments that the courts don't rule unless some harm has been done, but they skipped that standard in this case.  

As I said, I'm just thinking out loud here.  (And maybe even venting a bit as we reach a point similar to the post civil war court that used states' rights as an excuse to ignore the massive civil rights violations perpetrated against former slaves.)

PROBLEMS FOR THE COURTS

1.  How do you distinguish a true religious belief from an excuse to discriminate?  How did Lorrie Smith pick gay weddings to block?  Is it really a deep religious belief?  Or is it dislike/hate of gays that is being masked by religion?  When the Constitution was written, I think 'religion' was more concrete.  Today there are thousands of different Christian denominations?  Where do they all come from and what prohibitions can various ones have that the Supreme Court will eventually say allows them to discriminate against some target?

Homosexuality is not mentioned in the ten commandments, but Lorrie couldn't possibly make a website for a gay couple.  Would she refuse a wedding website for a couple that have been living together unmarried for five years?  And maybe have some kids?  What about businesspeople who cheat their customers and their employees?  Would she refuse making a site for them?  

If Lorrie belongs to a church that is part of the Southern Baptist Convention, which does not allow women to be pastors, how would she react to a client who was a woman pastor and wanted a website?  Would she refuse?  Based on her being a woman?

Many Christian denominations believe women should stay at home and raise babies.  Could someone from one of them refuse to make a website for, say, a woman lawyer?  

2.  When you look at all the things that a religion professes, how do you determine which ones are critical in that religion and which ones are not central requirements or prohibitions?  How does the Court decide which belief of any religion is an important enough one to allow the holder of that belief to discriminate against protected classes? 

If a congregation believes whites are superior and other ethnicities are inferior, can they then discriminate against people of color?  Last week I would have said the answer is a loud NO, but today I have no idea how the Supreme Court majority would rule.  

The Bible lists hundreds of rules.  Rules that Orthodox Jews follow, including a number of dietary restrictions.  Eating shellfish or pork, for example, are called out as abominations.  Why are those rules ignored?  Should the Courts look at whether someone practices all the rules or just identifies a few that trouble them enough to discriminate?  

3.  How do the justices weigh one right against another?  Is being denied service from a business because of one's sexual orientation - even when laws clearly protect against this - a lesser right than someone's professed religious convictions?  What happens in a small community where there aren't many choices of businesses?  Does the gay couple have to simply move so they can find vendors who will serve them?  Doesn't sound very American.  But perhaps MAGA's remember when whites - particularly in the South - were, legally, superior, and that's the world they want to return to.  

4.  How do you separate your own personal beliefs when they agree with one side or the other?  At what point does recusal become mandatory?  In this court, for the conservative majority, it seems recusal isn't necessary because they are all above human bias that could cloud their view.  At least in their own minds.  Note the expensive trips and vacation that various judges never reported and say would not affect their legal decisions?  

ALTERNATIVES FOR THE WEB PAGE DESIGNER

This was not a case where anyone tried to resolve the issue.  This was a case put together to invalidate Colorado's law that make discrimination against LGBTQ folks illegal.  And as mentioned above, the issues argued - that a gay man requested a wedding website - apparently didn't even happen.  There are other ways that Lorrie Smith, the designer, could have handled this (assuming she had such a request.)

1.  She could make it clear on her website that she adhered to a religion that only sanctioned male/female marriage and that she wanted to help such couples celebrate their weddings.  She's not, then refusing gay couples, but she's making it clear that's not her interest.  People don't enroll their kids in religious affiliated schools unless they are comfortable with their kids getting that school's religious instruction.  Gay couples would not ask such a website designer to design their wedding websites for several reasons:  

    1.  They don't trust such a person to make them the website they want

    2.  They don't want to financially support a business that doesn't approve of their wedding.

The only time a gay couple might ask for her services would be to create a legal basis for challenging her legal right to deny them. (What Lorrie Smith was doing to challenge the Colorado anti-discrimination law.)  If she doesn't deny them, there's no problem.  If they push, she can offer them one of her basic templates.  If they don't like them, they can go elsewhere.  Just as a bride, who  doesn't like a wedding dress in one store, can go to another.  

2.  She can politely decline and give them the names of three other web designers who specialize in gay weddings, or at least, who do gay weddings.  Unless she is so opposed to gay weddings that she won't help them in any way.  That would probably be proof that the 1st Amendment angle Lorrie Smith's case used, was just an excuse to discriminate.

3.  More radically, and much less likely, she could meet with the couple and learn about them as people, what being gay means to them, and why they want to get married.  

Well, I guess I had less to say about this than I thought.  Basically, this seems to show that this was not so much about  protecting 1st Amendment Rights as it was about sending a case to the Supreme Court that could create the first wedge to break down anti-discrimination laws protecting the rights of LGBTQ folks.  

I realize for some that might be a giant leap, so let me explain.  Normal business folks try to work out things with customers when they ask for services the business doesn't offer.  I gave examples of how this could have been done.  But none of that seemed to have happened.  And it now appears that there never was a request by a gay couple. (Though I'm not sure how the Colorado attorneys failed to contact the alleged client.)  Rather this was a case designed by group that has been fighting against LGBTQ rights for years now.  It was created to be a test case and they believed, correctly, that the current Supreme Court would look favorably on their argument.  

Destroying University Of Alaska Not Just With Huge Budget Cuts - 9 of 11 Regents Now Dunleavy Appointments

An article by Iris Samuels in the ADN highlights the links between Seth Church's far right philosophy and campaign contributions to Dunleavy.

But I want to emphasize a slightly different issue - the drift over the years from the Board of Regents being advocates of higher education to being supposed advocates of running the University like a business, and now to being totally non-academic conservatives who look on higher education with suspicion.  The combination of the recent trends has led to a Board of Regents devoid of people with the highest academic credentials, with serious teaching, or academic experience.  

Samuels quotes newly appointed University of Alaska Board of Regents member Seth Church, "who does not have a university degree":

“The university is a diverse place and diverse opinions and diverse educational backgrounds all can have a positive impact on the university, as long as you have people that are committed to its success,” 

It's not clear whether this statement was a response to a question about his lack of a college degree.  (Samuels hasn't responded to an email sent four days ago.) If it is, I'd point out, that Church does not add any sort of diversity that I can detect to the Board of Regents.  

"The University of Alaska Board of Regents is an 11-member board, appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Alaska Legislature. Members serve an 8-year term, with the exception of the student regent who is nominated from his/her campus and serves a 2-year term. The 8-year term begins on the first Monday in February; student regent term begins on June 1. Regents serve until their successor is appointed." (from UA)

 

The governor's website says that “As a business owner, Seth brings a perspective to the Board of Regents that will ensure the University of Alaska is effectively preparing students for productive careers.”

My sense of what the governor means by "productive careers", based on Church's background and the relentless budget cuts to education over Dunleavy's administration is people who will work in positions that serve employers in construction, oil and gas, mining, and such fields.  He's not interested in people who study liberal arts or science fields that yield experts who might challenge industry on environmental or safety or equity issues.  

Again, what perspective is does Church bring, that isn't already represented?

There are already two Board members who don't list any university degrees - Dennis L. Michel and Ralph Seekins.  (They haven't responded to emails asking if this was an oversight.)

There are already Board members who appear to represent concern for the workforce that requires technical skills but not academic degrees - Dennis L. Michel and Joey Crum.  

If it's ethnic diversity, there's no explanation of how his nomination expands that.  The only Regent whose bio reflects anything beyond white is Michel who notes that he was 'raised by an Athabascan mother."  Obviously there could be others who haven't highlighted their ethnicity in their bios.

It's not gender diversity.  The Board already has six men and four women (one of whom is the student regent, nominated by students and serving only two years.)

It's not geographic diversity.  At this point all the Board members come from places on the road system. A total of eight from Fairbanks (3), Anchorage (3), Matsu. (2), and one from Soldotna, and one from Juneau.  Church makes the fourth from Fairbanks.  

Professional background, expertise?  Five have business degrees and have been involved in large (Conoco Phillips) or small businesses. 

What's conspicuously missing?  People with academic experience.  People with PhD's.  People with teaching experience.  People with science backgrounds and research backgrounds.  

Can you imagine the Board of any organization filled with people who do not have experience and expertise in the field?  One or two members with other experience, sure, but there's no one with academic work experience (Regent Purdue has university administrative experience) on the Board as far as I can tell.    

While the media have focused (rightfully) on the large budget cuts the University has suffered (along with K-12) under Dunleavy, they haven't focused on the elimination of people who understand how universities work.  The stuffing of the Board with people from business began well before Dunleavy.  Dunleavy's contribution seems to be political hacks who are loyal to Dunleavy.  The legislature didn't approve Bethany Marcum, who was a senate aide to Dunleavy and then went to the libertarian and Koch supported Alaska Policy Forum, and was part of the Dunleavy appointed redistricting Board team that tried (unsuccessfully) to gerrymander Eagle River senate seats.  When she was not approved, he appointed another far Right member of his team, Tuckerman Babcock.  You know, the guy who helped the Governor set up a loyalty oath and fired those who wouldn't sign it.  This cost the State high level professionals in law and medicine and eventual court ordered payments. 

And now we get Seth Church (who also worked for the Alaska Policy Forum.)  Babcock and Church were appointed too late for the legislature to approve them, so they become members of the Board, at least until the legislature returns into session in January 2024 and has a chance to vote on their appointments.   

Dunleavy has now appointed nine of the eleven members of the Board of Regents (though one was originally appointed by Governor Parnell and the student Regent was nominated by her campus.  Three of those appointments appear to have no college degrees.   

Nationally, Republicans have worked hard to take over local school boards and taking over the Board of Regents fits with that strategy.  The Board of Regents is easier because the governor appoints those members.  

Below is the list of University of Alaska Board of Regents members from their website.  I've edited the bios to focus on the professional experience and educational background.  You can see all the details here.   [Click on bio and contact links below each picture to get individual board members' details.]  Church's appointment would fill the eleventh seat.  

Dale Anderson

Juneau

Regent Term 2012-2029

appointed in 2012 by Governor Parnell and re-appointed by Governor Dunleavy in 2021.

"He brings to the board extensive life experiences from both the private and public sector. He has owned and operated numerous enterprises as well as served as a member of the City and Borough of Juneau Assembly, legislative aide for the House Finance Committee in the Alaska State Legislature and as com."

Education:  BA in Business Administration from Oral Roberts University,  a certificate of judicial development in administrative law from the University of Nevada

Tuckerman Babcock

Soldotna

Regent Term 2023-2031

Appointed in May 2023 by Governor Mike Dunleavy. Regent Babcock has a B.A. in government from Wesleyan University.

Regent Babcock is retired from public service, where he most recently served as the governor’s chief of staff. His business and professional experience includes being the commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and ten years in management with the Matanuska Electric Association.

Joey Crum

Palmer

Regent Term 2023-2031

Joey Crum was appointed by Governor Dunleavy in 2023. 

As President & CEO of Northern Industrial Training in Palmer, Regent Crum has dedicated his professional life to training and promoting workplace skills. 

 Bachelor of Arts in psychology from the University of Puget Sound, a Juris Doctorate from Gonzaga University School of Law, and a Master of Science in organizational leadership from Columbia Southern University. 

Paula Harrison

Anchorage

Regent Term 2023-2031

Paula Harrison was appointed by Governor Dunleavy in 2023. She has 40 years of experience in human resources and labor relations across the public and private sectors. Regent Harrison is the past chair of the Alaska Labor Relations Board. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in political science/economics from the University of Colorado-Denver and her Master of Arts in management from Webster University.

Mary K. Hughes

Anchorage

Regent Term 2002-2025

Mary K. Hughes of Anchorage, was appointed by Governor Knowles in July 2002, re-appointed by Governor Palin in January 2009 and re-appointed to a third term by Governor Walker in 2017. She graduated from the University of Alaska with a BBA in Management in 1971 and earned her juris doctorate from Willamette University College of Law in 1974.

Scott Jepsen

Anchorage

Regent, Treasurer of the Board  2021-2031

Appointed in March 2021 by Governor Mike Dunleavy, and reappointed in February 2023 by Governor Mike Dunleavy. Regent Jepsen has a B.S. and M.S. in chemical engineering from the University of Texas at Austin.

Regent Jepsen is retired from ConocoPhillips Alaska, where he was Vice President of External Affairs and Transportation. He has nearly 41 years in the oil and gas business with 31 years in Alaska. 

Dennis L. Michel

Fairbanks

Regent Term 2023-2027

Dennis L. Michel was appointed in 2023 by Governor Dunleavy. Regent Michel is a lifelong Alaskan, born and raised in Fairbanks, and is an accomplished businessman with years of experience and knowledge in the construction industry.

His financial prowess has led to numerous successful business developments and multiple active companies that currently serve the Fairbanks community and the State of Alaska. From the influences of being raised by his Army Air Corps father and Athabascan mother, to influential figures in his life, like his Uncle Morris Thompson, and Regent Michel’s business agent experiences in the early days of the pipeline, he understands the complexities and unique opportunities of Alaska.

Regent Michel and his companies have served and given back to the youth of the community for decades through employment, sponsorships, and as a vital leader and coach for youth sports. He believes in developing leaders and the future of his community. Regent Michel embraces new opportunities and ideas with vigor, striving to always adapt and develop to changing environments.

Karen Purdue

Fairbanks

Regent Term 2017-2025

Karen Perdue

Karen Perdue, vice chair of the board, was appointed in 2017 by Governor Walker. She is a lifelong Alaskan with a background in health care, public policy and interests in the history and culture of Alaska.

Regent Perdue is a graduate of Stanford University. She is semi-retired, focusing her work on critical public health issues and serves on the board of the Fairbanks Memorial Hospital Foundation.

Ralph Seekins

Fairbanks

Regent Term 2021-2029

Ralph Seekins, chair of the board, was appointed in 2021 by Governor Dunleavy. Regent Seekins is president and owner of Seekins Ford-Lincoln in Fairbanks. In addition to being elected to the Alaska State Senate from 2003-2006, he has served on the City of Fairbanks Permanent Fund Review Board,

Albiona Selimi

Wasilla 

Student Regent Term 2023-2025

Albiona Selimi was appointed as the Student Regent in 2023 by Governor Dunleavy. Regent Selimi is from Wasilla, Alaska, and has experience representing students as she served as the Chief Activities Officer for the Union of Students at the University of Alaska, Anchorage.

 Regent Selimi is currently pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science with minors in Justice and Women's Studies.

Alaska Redistricting Board Agrees To Pay $115,000 For Girdwood Plaintiffs Legal Fees

 My notes of the meeting (It was short and sweet.)

12:29 - voices - Melanie, Matt, Peter chatting about weather - Sunny in Nome, not Anchorage

John:  You there?  Let's wait a couple of minutes.  

Peter:  Budd?  Yes, I'm here.  Waiting for one more member.  

12:33  Take roll: Bahnke, Binkley, Borromeo, Marcum, Simpson - all here

Binkley:  We have one item, unless any proposed amendments.  Adopt Amendment.  Seconded.  Adopted

Matt Singer:  Wrapping up legal challenges to plan adopted by the Board.  At Board's direction, negotiated with Girdwood plaintiffs = $115,000 30% discount.  If party prevails on successful constitutional claim.  Their offer in zone of reasonable.  Encourage the Board to accept.

Simpson:  Does not create a precedent for others, by agreeing to stipulated amount here, doesn't tie us into other claims.

Singer:  attribute 25% to Supreme court and 75% to Superior Court.  Reduce this to court order.  Does not tie Board's hand on other issue that remain in litigation.  

Binkley:  Motion to accept offer by Girdwood plaintiffs.  Moved, seconded, no objections.

Motion adopted.  Settled with Girdwood plaintiffs.  Thanks for their reasonableness in this.  appreciate their participation.  Other comments.

Bahnke:  Echo you.  If citizens hadn't taken the steps they took, this wouldn't have ended up as it did.  

Binkley:  Thanks.  Motion for adjournment?  No objections.

12:40pm adjourned.   

[UPDATE:  I'd just note that at this meeting they mentioned not seeing a precedent for payments to other plaintiffs.  That means there are other outstanding request(s) for reimbursement.  The most likely are the East Anchorage plaintiffs because they also won a constitutional claim.  So this may not have been the final meeting.]

Alaska Redistricting Board Meeting One More Time Monday [Agenda Added]

 The Alaska Redistricting Board will meet by 

teleconference on Monday, June 26 at 12:30pm.

The public may listen by audio stream 

through http://akleg.gov or by calling one 

of the following phone numbers:

 - Anchorage 907-563-9085

 - Juneau 907-586-9085

 - Other 844-586-9085

The agenda hasn't been posted yet.  A likely topic will be to either approve a settlement with the Girdwood plaintiffs, or to vote on whether to let the Courts decide.  I'm hoping to find out before the meeting.  

Going to teleconference may be to avoid the zoombombing that happened yesterday.  Here's a link with suggestions on how to avoid zoombombing.  

Alaska Redistricting Board Meeting - Board Votes To Have Counsel Negotiate Legal Fee Payment With Girdwood Plaintiffs

[I first posted most of this when Board went into Executive Session.  Now I've added their motion and vote in public session after ES finished.  Took them an hour in ES. I also edited the title.]

12:30pm Roll taken - all there  Matt Singer, attorney, also there

Agenda - add #5 - let public know about legal issues and any decisions - edited agenda shown.  

John:  Being zoom bombed in chat  - agenda change adopted

John:  Minutes corrections?

Budd Simpson:  "because of expedited couldn't explain to Board"  should be "to the Court"

Minutes adopted with changes.

going into ES, there was a suggestion to give explanation of ES

Torkelson:  Board adopted plan May 15, no challenges by June 14.  So adopted.  Job now to discuss settling one or more of the litigants seeking attorneys fees.  

Binkley:  Thanks, good to keep public as informed as possible.

Motion to move ES for purposes that were articulated.

Matt:  Open Meetings Act - make clear to make it clear why going in - Statute - include statute that allows executive Session.  Go to meet counsel 44.3.10 1 and 4 - discuss legal strategies and potential attorneys fees.  

Binkley:  Hearing no objection, we'll go into ES and shouldn't be more than 30 minutes and possibility we'll come out of ES to take action.  

12:42 - Board adjourned to beak out room for ES.

1:45 back in public meeting

Binkley:  Anyone have motion to entertain?

Bahnke:  Motion to have counsel negotiate directly with Girdwood plaintiffs over fee.

Binkley:  Any objection?  No objection.  Passes

Binkley:  Motion to adjourn?  moved and seconded.  Adjourned.  

WHAT"S NEXT?

My assumption is that the Plaintiffs will ask for full legal fees.  They'll spell out their billing for their time in the Superior Court and also in the Supreme Court.  I'm guessing this will come out to be around $150,000.  I'm assuming the Board gave their attorney a limit on how much he could pay them.  If that limit is close enough to the total for the Girdwood plaintiffs, they'll settle and this will all be over. 

But if the plaintiffs think they are being low-balled, they have the option to go back to court.  From what I've heard, they would have to go to the Superior Court and the Supreme Court separately.  I assume the courts would, at least, tell them to take what the Board offered.  At best, the courts would award them full payment.  Both courts agreed with the plaintiffs' legal challenge and recognize that the challenge allowed them (the Courts) to correct a gerrymandered map.  

According to the Board's budget as of November 2022, there should be enough money to pay the total expenses if the $150,000 estimate is close.  

John Martin Shot To Death

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/crime-courts/2023/06/19/shooting-of-man-sleeping-in-south-anchorage-parking-lot-was-unprovoked-attack-prosecutor-says/

Back in 2012 I posted about John Martin's city hall protest 

over homelessness

.   The post included a 

video that is no longer working (it was on Viddler and they cut my account long ago.  Though they did send me the files for my videos.  I redid some on YouTube, but not all of them.  Not sure where that file is anymore.  I mention this simply because this is a danger in an age when people store the photos, videos, and data outside of their control.)  In the video I talked to John and then Mayor Sullivan comes across the street and gives John a cup of coffee and they chat a bit.  

A previous post shows him at the Assembly and I did a brief video at the break. (It too was on Viddler and doesn't seem to be working, though it flashed an image of John just before turning black.  Somewhere I probably have these on a sound card.  When Mac upgraded they switched out of the old iMovie and so those original files are available either.  Beware how you backup your stuff.)

I'd been walking from the bus station to the Redistricting Board meeting and showed up at just the right time.  

I don't know much about John.  He did later attempt to cross the Bering Sea to Russia.  He was a committed advocate for the poor and homeless.  He saw the world from a slightly different angle than most people.  

I don't know why he was shot.  I don't know if he was the target or he was just randomly shot.  I just know we've lost a unique and sensitive member of our community to gun violence.  

Redistricting Board Meets Thursday, June 22, At 12:30pm To Discuss Plaintiff Legal Reimbursement

I got an email from the Alaska Redistricting Board (I subscribed to the email list long ago) announcing a zoom meeting Thursday to discuss potential settlements regarding attorney's fees and costs.  From the Board:

"Date: Thursday June 22, 2023
Time: 12:30pm
Place: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82969365602?pwd=T2ozcno4dWFFQnc3eFN0WmlDYVFSZz09

Agenda

1. Call to Order and Establish Quorum

2. Adoption of Agenda

3. Adoption of Minutes

4. Executive Session to meet with the Board’s counsel.

   Pursuant to AS 44.62.310(1) and (4), the Board will discuss legal strategy and potential settlement regarding attorney’s fees and costs.

5. Adjournment"

The draft Minutes of the last meeting are also linked.

I've emailed the following suggestions to the Board:

"A couple of suggestions, since there's no public testimony:

1.  Before going into ES, please have the Board announce which plaintiffs still have outstanding legal fee requests, which ones will be discussed, and which have already been finalized or decided by the courts.  Also clarify that there are claims for both the Superior Court and the Supreme Court.

2.  Change adjournment to Item 6 and change item 5 to:  "Return to Public Session:  Vote on any decisions regarding issues discussed in ES."  (My understanding is the Board has to do all the voting in public.) 

"An executive session is not a stand-alone, or secret meeting; it is a part of a public meeting in which the public may be temporarily excluded for certain purposes. Actions are not taken during executive sessions. A decision by a governing body, such as a city council, to conduct any step in the deliberation process outside of the public forum must weigh the public interest in the right-to-know against any potential harm that could result from open deliberation. The governing body may, at its discretion, invite others into its executive session."   https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/dcra/LocalGovernmentResourceDesk/LocalGovernmentElectedOfficials/MeetingsHeldinExecutiveSession.aspx

"Is secret ballot voting allowed under the act?

Almost always, no. In addition to requiring that deliberations of a governing body be open to the public, the act also requires that the vote shall be conducted in such a manner that the public may know the vote of each person entitled to vote, including meetings conducted by teleconference. The one exception is organizational meetings of a governing body to elect members to various offices, which are exempted from the requirement that the vote of each member be made public (AS 44.62. 310(a))."

https://dev.gov.alaska.gov/wp-content/uploads/Open-Meetings-Act.pdf

I understand they will be talking about settlements with at least Girdwood plaintiff attorneys.  That implies they will potentially be discussing a range of dollar amounts the Board is willing pay in settlements.  Revealing that range does somewhat compromise the Board attorney's ability to negotiate.  But I have three thoughts:

1. Plaintiffs who successfully argued before the Superior and Supreme Courts resulting in significant changes should be awarded attorney fees and costs because they've done a service to the Alaska.  The Alaska constitution anticipates the public has such a role to play by giving any Alaskan the right to challenge a Redistrict Board's Proclamation Plan.  
2. Based on the Board's budget as of November 2022, the Board should have enough money left over.  
3. At the very least, in public session, the Board should announce the nature of their decision (ie Should the attorney negotiate with the plaintiffs be authorized to settle within the range the Board discussed in ES?) and then vote.