Dan Fagan

By Dan Fagan
Publisher
The Alaska Standard

Despite strong efforts by the Anchorage Daily News to whitewash it, more and more evidence is surfacing proving former Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich was more than willing to violate city code to keep up his big spending ways.

The current city attorney, Dennis Wheeler, found conclusively Begich violated city code by not reveling the truth about city finances when pushing for his expensive long term union contracts.

Now Wheeler has determined Begich violated city code once again by spending money he was not authorized to spend.

<!--break-->

Anchorage city code requires the set aside of money for any contracts the city obligates itself to. Under Begich, the city obligated itself to pay $1.6 million for a software contract. But about half way through the contract Begich decided to spend a considerable portion of the money the Anchorage Assembly appropriated for the software contract on something else. Building permits had fallen off and instead of living within our means, Begich took money from a fund he should not have so he could continue his big government, big spending ways.

City attorney Dennis Wheeler says Begich violated code by failing to keep enough money on hand, and designated, to pay for the entire contract as the city closed out the 2008 budget year and moved into the 2009 budget.

Once again Begich wanted to make the city’s finances look better than they actually were. He wanted to mask the fact that he was spending money we did not have. Why wouldn’t he? He was trying to an additional $200,000,000 to the budget by pushing for union contracts he knew we couldn’t afford. Begich was also trying to get elected to the U.S. Senate on a record of fiscal responsibility.

Of course Mr. Begich is anything but fiscally responsible. He has been a willing and able foot soldier in President Barack Obama’s plan to bankrupt our country though unprecedented federal spending.
The Anchorage Assembly recently corrected Mr. Begich’s code violation by appropriating money to take care of the debt owed to the software contact company.

Assembly member Debbie Ossiander is upset over this latest Begich scandal.

"My understanding is that you're not allowed to unencumbered funds that the Assembly has approved," she said.

Ossiander will appear on my show today to talk about the controversy.

You certainly won’t get the true story on this from the Anchorage Daily News. The paper white washed the story in an article titled “Payment for software contract stirs up some controversy.” The subheading read, “CODE: Money owed shifted from one year to another led to query.

How about this for a more accurate headline?

Begich violated city code once again. Taxpayers left with the bill.
 

A quick shout about current events and random thoughts...

 

On March 4th, 2010, CBS News reported that Alaska U.S. Senator Mark Begich is one of a group of 18 U.S. Senators who have signed a letter to Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Margaret Hamburg recommending an end to the lifetime ban on donating blood for any man who has had gay sex since 1977. Others signing the letter include Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Dick Durbin and Roland Burris of Illinois, Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Mark Udall and Michael Bennet of Colorado, Al Franken of Minnesota, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Carl Levin of Michigan, Tom Harkin of Iowa, John Kerry of Massachusetts, and Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Read the full letter HERE.

As of this post, absolutely nothing about this has appeared in the Alaska media, and Senator Begich has not addressed this controversial issue on his official website. For someone who professes the commitment to transparency and openness that Senator Begich does, I find it strange that he's not shouting it from the housetops.

John Kerry, the spokesperson for the group, claims that the latest scientific evidence no longer supports the ban. The lawmakers also stressed that the science has changed dramatically since the ban was established in 1983 at the onset of the HIV-AIDS crisis. Today, donated blood must undergo two different and highly accurate tests that make the risk of tainted blood entering the blood supply virtually zero. According to the Washington Times, the senators have asked the FDA to consider using the same deferral policies with men who have sex with men (MSM) that apply to heterosexuals who engage in high-risk behavior - usually a 12-month deferral. This would mean that a gay or bisexual man could donate blood if he had not had sex with a man in the past 12 months.

The letter also states that the American Red Cross, America's Blood Centers, and the American Association of Blood Banks (AABB) also agree that the lifetime ban is now excessive. However, the World Federation of Hemophilia, representing some of the leading consumers of human blood products, disagrees. Mark Skinner, the president of the group, says that when it comes to pathogens transmitted in the blood supply, 100 percent of the risk is borne by the recipient and none is borne by the donor. While he acknowledges that blood-donor rules are discriminatory by design, the rules are grounded in science and intended to protect the end users, not target a group. Skinner also asserts that we can't just look narrowly at HIV, but must consider the entire system.

Naturally, the homosexual lobby is quivering with delight. Brian Moulton, chief legislative counsel for the Human Rights Campaign, said they are hopeful that the policy, last reviewed in 2006, will change under President Barack Obama, "who is interested in looking at all the policies that have a discriminatory effect." The goal, he said, is "to have policies in place that are based on the science" rather than "any discriminatory idea about our community." And although Joseph Wardenski, lead author of the 51-page Gay Men's Health Crisis report which labeled the ban "punitive, unfair and unnecessary", claims that he doesn't want to increase the risk to the nation's blood supply, he also states "We would like to reduce discrimination...".

The lifetime ban on gay donations was established because in the early stages of the AIDS epidemic a major share of cases involved transmission via blood transfusion. Now such cases are extremely rare - less than 1 percent of all new HIV infections, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). However, transmissions with HIV-infected blood still occur, and the number of "bad units" would increase if the MSM deferral was changed, Dr. Andrew I. Dayton told an FDA workshop in March 2006. He estimated that in the first year of a more liberalized policy, the number of HIV-infected units entering the blood supply would double. For most of us, that would be an inconsequential risk; for hemophiliacs who consume blood products more exponentially, a major risk. The CDC notes that MSM (men having sex with men) have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors, and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors. But then again, in today's politically-correct society, homosexuals are more important than hemophiliacs. Once again, diversity trumps safety.

But what is just as disturbing is that Senator Begich has chosen to soft-pedal this issue to the Alaska public. Begich has a reputation for keeping Alaskans meticulously informed; virtually every time he even so much as breaks wind, he posts a press release on his official website. Yet this time, no press release. Alaska contains a considerable number of social conservatives and, undoubtedly, some hemophiliacs. I'm sure that proven conservative opinion-molders like Jerry Prevo, Jim Minnery, and Dan Fagan would have appreciated the opportunity to weigh in on this question in advance. Mark Begich should remember that he was sent to Washington to represent the entire state of Alaska, and not just to rubber-stamp the gay agenda or any other special interests.

This weekend, Judy and I managed to make ourselves a nice dinner on Saturday night. My contribution was Copper River Sockeye salmon, with rosemary, garlic and black truffles:
We got almost a foot of new snow last night. Here's my VW Golf, next to the biggest snow pile, right after I finished blowing the snow out of the driveway and parking lot:

Submitted by: ASSEMBLY MEMBER Drummond

For reading: March 23, 2010


ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
AR NO. 2010–91


A RESOLUTION OF THE ANCHORAGE MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY TO AUTHORIZE ENGAGING THE SERVICES OF INDEPENDENT LEGAL COUNSEL TO REVIEW AND REPORT TO THE ASSEMBLY ON THE LEGAL AND CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, IF ANY, AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE ASSEMBLY, IF ANY, REGARDING PAYMENT OF $193,000 IN MUNICIPAL FUNDS TO THE GEORGE M. SULLIVAN IRREVOCABLE LIFE INSURANCE TRUST, AND PROVIDING FOR AN APPROPRIATION.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Assembly Memorandum No. AM 76-2010, the Assembly was requested by and on behalf of the Mayor to appropriate One Hundred Ninety Three Thousand Dollars ($193,000.00) from the Areawide General Fund (Fund 101) for disbursement to the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust; and

WHEREAS, Assembly Memorandum No. AM 76-2010 declared that disbursement would be made under a life insurance contract; and

WHEREAS, Assembly Memorandum No. AM 76-2010 did not disclose that the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust was administered by the Mayor in his private capacity as the son of George M. Sullivan and Trustee of the life insurance trust; and

WHEREAS, Assembly Memorandum No. AM 76-2010 did not disclose that no life insurance policy was in place and no written life insurance contract existed; and

WHEREAS, AR 2010-33 was passed and approved by the Assembly, on February 16, 2010, authorizing disbursement subject to receipt of proper documentation from the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust; and

WHEREAS, the full circumstances purporting to legally obligate the Municipality to make a payout of $193,000.00 in public funds are more complicated than provided in the summary under AM 76-2010; and

WHEREAS, the payout of $193,000.00 in public funds for life insurance without a life insurance policy in place has raised many concerns in the mind of the public and one or more Assembly Members, including these questions:

• What is the legal basis for asserting the existence of a life insurance policy or contract?

• What is the legal basis for asserting a contractual obligation in the absence of a written contract?
• What is the legal authority of the Salary and Emoluments Commission to authorize an employee benefit after employment has terminated?

• Were the legal requirements, procedures and process under Charter Section 5.08 (c) properly followed?

• What, if any, is the extent of a municipal obligation to make payment of $193,000 in life insurance without a life insurance policy?

• What is the current Assembly’s authority to approve or disapprove a life insurance payment in the absence of a life insurance policy?

• Is this disbursement recognized in the FY 2010 General Government Operating Budget?

• What process should be used under the Ethics Code to ensure that an elected public official does not sit on both sides of a municipal transaction?

• Under what public purpose are public funds being disbursed as life insurance? and

WHEREAS, the current Mayor is also actively serving as Trustee of the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust, creating a situation in which he serves on both sides of a significant financial transaction involving public funds; and

WHEREAS, as Mayor, the incumbent is required to represent and act in the Municipality’s best interests; and

WHEREAS, as Trustee of the George M. Sullivan Life Insurance Trust, the Trustee has a fiduciary duty to the Trust to represent and act in the best interests of the Trust and its beneficiaries;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Anchorage Assembly resolves:

1. Because the events surrounding the creation and administration of a special benefit for the Honorable George M. Sullivan occurred after he was no longer in office and over the course of several mayoral successions without a full and public review before the Assembly, the Assembly authorizes an independent legal review to include the following:

• The authority of the Salary and Emoluments Commission, after the mayor or other elected official has left elected office, to authorize a special life insurance benefit;
• Whether a special life insurance benefit was legally effectuated for George M. Sullivan, when, and by whom or under what actions;

• The legal obligations and risks to the Municipality concerning the special life insurance benefit (prior to payment);

• The authority of the Mayor to request an appropriation when the Mayor also currently serves as Trustee of the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust, without disclosure of the potential for conflict of interest;

• The public purpose under which disbursement of public funds is allowed as life insurance proceeds, without a fair market life insurance policy or premium payments.

• The authority of the Anchorage Assembly to approve an appropriation of public funds for this purpose.

2. The services of independent legal counsel shall be selected by the Internal Auditor, the Municipal Clerk and Assembly Counsel under a small procurement contract not to exceed [$5,000 – $10,000], and an appropriation of [$ 10,000] for this purpose is approved.
3. Until the Assembly is assured by independent legal counsel that payment of $193,000.00 in public funds is legally appropriate, the Mayor, in his private capacity as Trustee for the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Trust, is respectfully requested to return any funds disbursed under AR 2010-33 to a special account to be held by the Municipality.

PASSED AND APPROVED by the Anchorage Assembly this ______day of ____________, 2010.

______________________________
Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Municipal Clerk

Alaska State Senator Bettye Davis' proposed hate crime bill, SB202, received a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 8th, 2010. The legislative journal does not yet show whether or not the committee decided to push it onward to the full Senate or to sit on it.

But one influential voice in Anchorage does not hesitate to sound off on the bill. In a column entitled "Are Crime Victims Equal?", Alaska Voices columnist Kevin Clarkson, a lawyer by trade, decries the bill as promoting preferential victimhood. Under SB202, some victims would be more equal than others.

SB202 would bump crimes motivated by hate, prejudice, or bias one notch higher than the corresponding crime with no hate motivation in Alaska's six-tier crime classification system. Thus, a person would commit the crime of motivation by prejudice, bias, or hatred “if the person commits a crime . . . and the person knowingly directed the conduct constituting the crime at the victim of the crime because of the victim's race, sex, color, creed, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation, ancestry, or national origin".

Not only would this create preferential victimhood with a Byzantine system of protected classes, but Clarkson also points out that criminalizing motive is unusual, difficult to prove in court and may lead to putting defendants' comments and speech on trial. If a person who commits a crime happens to have made derogatory or “hateful” comments in the past based upon race or sexual orientation, the penalty for their crime could be enhanced based solely upon their past speech, or current thoughts or beliefs. State of mind, intent or knowledge, generally plays into determining the specific crime someone committed, but that is different than criminalizing speech, thoughts and beliefs, which we don't usually do here in the United States.

To Clarkson's analysis I would add the following: It could also lead prospective defendants who are actually guilty of a real crime to dig in their heels, refuse to accept plea deals, and make the justice system hemorrhage resources in order to prove its case. It could also increase the prospect of jury nullification; for example, in a case of murder also accompanied by a hate crime enhancer, a jury may convict of murder but refuse to convict on the hate crime enhancer. Or, in a fit of pique, a jury may simply refuse to convict altogether despite the strength of the evidence.

Hate crimes legislation also implicitly weakens protection against double jeopardy. Proponents of hate crimes theology defend their advocacy by maintaining that a crime against someone in a "protected class" is not only a crime against an individual, but also a crime against the individual's entire class. This introduces the spectre of class warfare into the criminal justice system. When Joshua Wade murdered Alaska Native Della Brown, he did NOT commit a crime against the Alaska Native community. He did NOT commit a crime against the Anchorage community. He did NOT commit a crime against the State of Alaska. He committed a crime against Della Brown, and ONLY against Della Brown. Any other interpretation muddies up the criminal justice process.

Clarkson sums up his excellent essay by saying that "the ultimate goal should be equal justice, not extra justice. Let’s not politicize criminal justice. Prosecute murder, prosecute assault, prosecute arson – but, let lady justice wear her blindfold so that she can regard all crime victims equally". I couldn't agree more.

Staff

By Gerard Alexander

Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration. Indeed, all the appeals to bipartisanship notwithstanding, President Obama and other leading liberal voices have joined in a chorus of intellectual condescension.

It's an odd time for liberals to feel smug. But even with Democratic fortunes on the wane, leading liberals insist that they have almost nothing to learn from conservatives. Many Democrats describe their troubles simply as a PR challenge, a combination of conservative misinformation -- as when Obama charges that critics of health-care reform are peddling fake fears of a "Bolshevik plot" -- and the country's failure to grasp great liberal accomplishments. "We were so busy just getting stuff done . . . that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are," the president told ABC's George Stephanopoulos in a recent interview. The benighted public is either uncomprehending or deliberately misinformed (by conservatives).

<!--break-->

This condescension is part of a liberal tradition that for generations has impoverished American debates over the economy, society and the functions of government -- and threatens to do so again today, when dialogue would be more valuable than ever.

Click here to read the rest of the story.  

Roger Maynard

 

March 10, 2010: It was just two short years ago during the primary election when a group calling itself Americans For Job Security (AJS) began blanketing Alaska's airwaves in support of Ballot Proposition 4, which would have effectively shut down the mining industry in Alaska.

For about 14 years, I've had a hunch she believed she had a closer relationship to God than any of the rest of us. Last week, Palin almost removed all remaining doubt:

Sarah Palin continues to try to explain away why she had to write her answers to the questions at last month’s Tea Party gathering in Nashville.

Palin’s latest attempt occurred at a right to life fundraiser in Ohio last night. She said, “If what was good enough for God, scribbling on the palm of his hand, it’s good enough for me, for us.” Palin has now been reduced to invoking God to explain away her ineptitude.

Had Palin been Abraham, she would have put down the knife (or not), and paraded Isaac in front of the next available publicist, blaming the tribal scribes and gossips for the whole ordeal.

Had Palin been Moses, the Israelites would have gotten 2/3 of the way across the Red Sea - and passed the ball.

Had Palin been Moses, there might be - at most - 7 commandments.

Had Palin been Joshua, she would have put down the trumpet just before the walls actually began to tumble. Had she played the flute, the walls would have only grown stronger, unless they rocked to the ground from laughter.

Had Palin been David, we would have 30 or so Psalms, instead of 150. At least in the first volume. Palin-David would hold for a better deal on the remaining 120.

Had Palin been Lot's wife, we'd be spared a helluva a lot of salty trouble over the past 33 months. In spite of the fact she probably has multiple attorneys looking back for her, she keeps looking back.

I could go on, comparing her to prophets and biblical figures, perhaps her worshipers favorite, Esther. Instead, it might be more profitable to look at her for what she really is - the 21st Century's most prominently pathetic political caricature and serial liar.

Andrew Sullivan's list of lies (time for an update, Andrew).

Jeanne Devon's prescient essay on the most recent lie:

Is it possible that young Chuck Heath, Jr. had not one, but TWO “little kid accident things” that involved burns of the ankle and foot? Or, perhaps the story was simply tweaked to tell people what they want to hear, while utilzing the perennial “I’m one of you” meme – a great way to “connect to the audience” while skirting those pesky things known as “facts.”

Monday's MSNBC Countdown segment on this most recent lie:

OK, Sarah. I'm not a Christian, but you purport to be one. Here's today's lesson:

Ezekial 14:9: And if the prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

I Kings 22:23: Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has declared disaster for you.

Matthew 4:7: Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

Time and again, Palin and her acolytes, in their vainglorious attempts to dumb down and tear the revolutionary, compassionate heart out of Christianity, put the "Lord God" of their faith to the test in ways that, if the book they claim to believe has any stock, holds the promise of immense payback for such selfish fools in the future.

So-called "comedienne" Kathy Griffin, infamous for her potty mouth, skewered Sarah Palin during an appearance at the Performing Arts Center in Anchorage, Alaska on March 5th, 2010. She was accompanied by Levi Johnson, who has been pimped by celebrity lawyer Rex Butler and his Stepin Fetchit gofer boy Tank Jones during the past six months. While this received only cursory coverage in the Anchorage Daily News, we now have a video of part of Griffin's performance, thanks to Alaska Dispatch:



But Griffin didn't just carpet-bomb Anchorage with F-bombs while she was here. She also spent a day ice fishing with Levi Johnston in Wasilla, and was surprised when 19-year-old Levi's friend brought along a camera -- but only to photograph the fish they caught. It turns out Griffin helped Johnston's celebrity star to rise, taking the aspiring actor to an awards show last year as her date. Some "cougar" instincts, perhaps?

This is not the first time Kathy Griffin has mouthed off about Sarah Palin. In March 2009, Insider reported that Griffin referred to Palin as an idiot, a moron, and obnoxious. Ironically, that's the same exact impression I get...of Kathy Griffin. Griffin is infamous for obnoxious behavior. American Thinker reminds us that in September 2007, Griffin plumbed new depths for obscene behavior during her acceptance speech at the 59th annual Creative Arts Emmy Awards. And Griffin stirred up a lot of outrage when she started dropping F-bombs while co-hosting CNN's New Year's Eve Live With Anderson Cooper, although CNN never did formally ban her (but they won't ask her back).

One Alaskan was quite incensed, and posted the following comment to the ADN story:

Dear Mayor and Dear PAC Board:

The Anchorage PAC mission is 'to promote the artistic endeavors of all Center users and present special events which complement other activities and enrich our community.'

As a resident and community member I want the PAC owners to know that the recent act presented by Miss Griffin was as enriching as ice fishing in a honey bucket pond.

Secondly, I wonder that the city has the authority to use a publicly owned facility to slander a fellow citizen in good standing. Had I been on the receiving end of such vitriolic hate and lies I would file a lawsuit.

The PAC should apologize on behalf of the citizens of Anchorage for presenting the act, and apologize to the Palins, the Mayor of Wasilla, and those of us who are 'not entertained' by vulgar, salacious hate speech.

A Fellow Alaskan

Another Alaskan, Joe LaRocca, was considerably briefer and more pithy, merely saying "Calling Kathy Griffin a "wit" is only half correct". Neither Sarah Palin nor Conservatives4Palin posted any response to Griffin's show.

The Alaska Support Industry Alliance—the trade group representing oil and gas industry companies, which is responsible for the bell-tolling “Faces of ACES” ad campaign, had its members in the capitol a few weeks ago, rallying for support to scale back the oil and gas tax known as Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share. The tax was passed under former Governor Sarah Palin, but has since proven unpopular with Republican lawmakers, including Governor Sean Parnell, as well as the industry.

--- by the Rachel Corrie Foundation


On March 10 the Haifa District Court will begin hearing eyewitness testimonies in a civil lawsuit filed by Rachel Corrie’s family against the State of Israel for her unlawful killing in Rafah, Gaza. Rachel Corrie, an American student activist and human rights defender from Olympia, Washington was crushed to death on March 16, 2003 by a Caterpillar D9R bulldozer while nonviolently protesting Palestinian home demolition with fellow members of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). The trial is expected to shed light on the circumstances of her death and hold the Israeli military responsible for it, after the Israeli government failed to conduct a thorough, credible and transparent investigation into her killing.


“As we approach the seven-year anniversary of Rachel’s killing, my family and I are still searching for justice. The brutal death of my daughter should never have happened. We believe the Israeli army must be held accountable for her unlawful killing,” said Rachel’s mother, Cindy Corrie who will be attending the trial next week. “We hope this trial will also illustrate the need for accountability for thousands of lives lost, or indelibly injured, by the Israeli occupation and bring attention to the assault on nonviolent human rights defenders—Palestinian, Israeli, and international,” stated Ms. Corrie.


The lawsuit, filed in March 2005, is one piece of the Corrie family’s seven-year effort to uncover information and pursue truth and justice for their daughter and sister. On March 17, 2003, the day after Rachel was killed, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon promised President Bush a “thorough, credible, and transparent” investigation. In 2003, the Israeli military police concluded that the two soldiers who operated the D9R Caterpillar bulldozer that killed Rachel did not see her, though eyewitnesses indicate she was clearly visible, wearing a florescent orange jacket. The case was closed, no charges were brought, and the Israeli Government declined to release the investigative report. The lawsuit charges that the Israeli government violated both Israeli and international law.


“The killing of Rachel Corrie is yet another example of Israel’s unlawful attacks on unarmed civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories,” said attorney Hussein Abu Hussein who is representing Rachel Corrie’s family. “The Israeli soldiers and commanders acted in violation of both Israeli and international law prohibiting the targeting of civilians and the disproportionate use of force against non-violent protest with blatant disregard to human lives,” added Abu Hussein.


In 2004, Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Chief of Staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, wrote to the family of Rachel Corrie that the Israeli investigation into her killing was not “thorough, credible, and transparent,” and advised the family to “use the Israeli court system.” Several other U.S. officials have voiced concerns or raised questions about the Israeli investigation, including former U.S. Senator and now Vice President Joseph Biden, as well as other Department of State officials in the Bush and Obama Administrations.

images - top: International Solidarity Movement volunteer looking at Rachel Corrie's passport, the evening of her death; bottom - a unit t-shirt, currently being worn by an IDF sniper.

WASHINGTON -- Three Greenpeace activists were arrested Monday after their balloon-powered banner criticizing Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, was released in the Senate Hart Office Building.

In January of 1982, when outgoing mayor George M. Sullivan had just ceded the reins of power to Tony Knowles, the Anchorage Assembly had a novel proposal. Assemblyman Gerry O’Connor presented a resolution recommending the municipality continue life insurance benefits for the former mayor, citing Sullivan’s recent triple bypass surgery which had the potential to render him unable to pass a physical to qualify for private coverage. From the minutes of the meeting, the proposal doesn’t seem to have been controversial; only one assembly member voted against it.

Thanks to a highly suspect presentation by Anchorage Municipal Attorney, Dennis Wheeler, at an Anchorage Assembly meeting back in February, current Anchorage Mayor, Dan Sullivan walked off with about $174,000.00 of Anchorage taxpayers' hard-earned money. For himself.

If you aren't familiar with the issue, here is the masterpiece, written by Anchorage blogger, Mel Green. Her post links to all the other material that was available at the time.

A compelling article, based on a letter an Anchorage taxpayer has written to Mayor Sullivan, was posted this afternoon at The Mudflats.

Here's the poll:

Should Mayor Sullivan return the $174,000 he just took from Anchorage taxpayers? - yes or no.

Progressive Alaska welcomes a new progressive blog, The Back Porch, to the Alaska Progressive Blogs blogroll.

Ryan Knight is a young educator, and like John and Heather Aronno, from The Alaska Commons, Ryan is a student at the University of Alaska Anchorage.

Here's Ryan's short description of what she is now doing:

By day I'm an educator making a difference in the lives of my community's youngest citizens, and a senior at the University of Alaska Anchorage. By night I am a human rights activist, and political commentator.

Welcome to PA, Ryan.

"We're off to see the finance committee"

---- commentary by John Creed


Patrick Gamble, a former Air Force general and current head of the Alaska Railroad, is one of three finalists for University of Alaska Statewide president. Gamble spoke on the UA Southeast campus in Juneau on Wednesday. He seemed ignorant of the role of UA's far-flung community campuses, including rural campus student needs. In fact, he implied that computer technology on the horizon can shrink and even replace Alaska's brick-and-mortar campuses, "which are so expensive."

"And instead of trying to figure out where to put a campus," Gamble said, "which are so expensive as a fixed plant to operate, you know, we can send the learning out, connect it to a professor, ah, but not have to pay all that overhead, and I think the community college side, the community campus idea, that framework may change over time. . . Reality sets in and say, oh, can you fund the physical plant and the fixed costs that it takes to allow that growth because student fees aren't going to pay for all that."

We've been through this campus-closure and resource allocation fight before, which Gamble seems ready to pick again, but this time as UA Statewide president should UA's regents choose him. In the 1990s, state Rep. and then Sen. Con Bunde, R-Anchorage, also tried to shutter Alaska's community campuses, from Mat-Su to Kodiak to Sitka, Ketchikan and beyond throughout Alaska. Bunde, a retired UAA professor, envisioned universities operating only in the state's three large urban areas.

In other words, in those days Bunde's mantra was that higher education should be an exclusively urban pursuit. If you want higher education, Bunde would say, "then come to the cities to get it." To which some rural Alaskans would respond, "If you want to enjoy the fruits of Alaska's vast natural resource wealth that runs state government, then come live in rural Alaska to get it."

Gamble's version of Bunde's battle cry along the rural/urban divide? We'll ship higher ed out to you by computer:




Steve Aufrecht shot this video.

He is a UAA professor emeritus of public policy who lives in Anchorage but is covering the legislative session in Juneau on his blog, called What Do I Know?

Last Sunday the UA Board of Regents released the names of three finalists they picked out of a field of 32 applicants, whose names UA Statewide will release soon if it has not already, as required by state law.


[John Creed is a humanities/journalism professor at Chukchi College, a Kotzebue branch of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.]