Alaska editorials

Here is a sampling of editorial opinions from Alaska newspapers:

April 30, 2016

Ketchikan Daily News: No free lunch

During the mid-1900s, Texas lobbyists kept their state legislators in line with the “Three Bs” - bourbon, beefsteak and blondes.

We’d like to believe Alaska’s political life has advanced beyond the use of “Bs,” - or Cs, Ds, and X, Y, Zs, for that matter - but we’re not that naive.

One only has to look at the immense stacks of money that municipalities, companies, unions and other entities throw at lobbyists every year to understand that this remains a key mechanism for access to and influence on Alaska’s political machine. The gravy train keeps chugging away, slowed somewhat by state regulations and codes of ethics, and apparently not at all by the state’s massive budget deficit.

We’re not shocked by the Alaska Dispatch News story on Wednesday about lobbyists paying $107 for Senate President Kevin Meyers’ dinner and drinks on March 24, nor by the $75 that the lobbyists chipped in for Meyer’s chief of staff, or even the $190 they paid for the chow of two other Senate aides.

Really, who among us hasn’t had a $372 dinner paid for by casual acquaintances?

What is stunning is Meyer’s tone-deaf obliviousness to the impact that public disclosure of such a meal would have on the reputations of himself and the institution of which he serves as leader.

The lobbyists who picked up Meyer’s tab represent the developers of the now infamous Legislative Information Office in Anchorage. One week after the dinner, Meyers cast a vote in favor of spending $32.5 million to buy the building from those developers.

Meyer said he can’t remember the specifics of the dinner conversation, but that the free dinner didn’t affect his LIO decision - and that looking at his dinners (note the plural) and votes would show no correlation, according to the ADN story.

OK, Sen. Meyer. We’ll take you at your word. Lobbyists who pick up your tabs are nice but silly people who should know better than to expect anything in return. They probably buy meals for lots of regular, non-government people, too.

Sen. Meyer is well-placed to buy his own food and beverages, earning between $100,000 and $200,000 in 2015 working for ConocoPhillips in addition to $51,000 in legislative pay and the daily $213 per diem that legislators receive while working in Juneau, according to the ADN story.

Here’s an excerpt from the ADN story.

“Asked why he couldn’t pay for his own meals,” Meyer responded: ’We could.’

’I don’t know if that’s common practice - maybe some of the legislators do,’ he said.”

It doesn’t sound like common practice for Meyer, who also gives the impression that he’s not the only legislator who enjoys a free lunch now and again.

So, what’s the big deal? So what if kindly lobbyists beat the Senate president or any other legislator to the dinner check?

The biggest damage is to credibility of the legislator - and by association, the Legislature - involved.

Public perception follows the basic human truth that, ultimately (and as noted in one of Ray Troll’s great artworks), “Nullum Gratuitum Prandium.” There is no free lunch.

Despite legislators’ protestations to the contrary, today’s freebies create a chit that someone expects to collect somewhere, somehow, down the road. It’s all return on investment. Most folks don’t appreciate their legislators racking up that kind of debt.

Also, most folks have a sharp eye for hypocrisy.

Meyer and other legislators have talked an awful lot about budget cuts and fiscal pain ahead. A lot of other Alaskans are hurting already from previous cuts and economic contractions now underway. Stories like this strongly suggest that the pain isn’t likely to reach Meyer and some of his legislative colleagues. As long as they’re in positions of power, someone will be willing to pick up their tabs. And not small tabs from the burger joint down the street. Tabs at places where dinner and drinks for one person can climb over $100.

This isn’t a partisan issue. It’s an issue of credibility and leadership.

We’re left wondering where all of the leaders who are willing to turn down the Bs, lead by example and work to solve the problems of this state have gone.

___

April 30, 2016

Peninsula Clarion: Hoping for many more better endings

Friday’s news that a musher has been banned from participation in the Iditarod due to domestic violence charges draws awareness to what is an all too common problem in Alaska.

Travis Beals, of Seward, faces charges in Palmer stemming from a December incident. That case has been sent to therapeutic court, an alternative justice model in which participants receive treatment and are monitored by the court, a probation officer and a substance abuse or mental health provider. That case has yet to be resolved, but Beals is on probation for a July 2015 domestic violence-related criminal mischief conviction.

According to a prepared statement from the Iditarod Trail Committee Board, it “will not accept race applications from Travis Beals in 2017 and for an indefinite period of time thereafter.” Beals’ participation in the Iditarod after 2017 “will depend in large part on documentation of successful completion of all court-ordered rehabilitation.”

The penalty, while severe, reflects a slowly changing public attitude regarding domestic violence. Iditarod Chief Executive Officer Stan Hooley told the Associated Press that race officials were aware of the current charges against Beals in January, but at the time opted to wait for the outcome of the court case before taking any action. Of Friday’s decision, Hooley told the AP that “In the end, I think the board wanted to take action that was a little more expedient than that.”

While a number of high profile domestic violence cases have garnered attention, the issue remains, as the Iditarod board stated it, a “pervasive problem in the State of Alaska and society in general.” And while we demand organizations like the NFL, Major League Baseball or the Iditarod sanction those who convicted of domestic violence, very rarely do we hear those demands made when the offender is not a public figure. In those cases, the reaction is far more likely to be similar to the Iditarod board’s initial reaction - it’s not our business, it’s a private matter, let the police or courts handle it.

Unfortunately, that approach does little to remedy the situation. Hooley also said that “hopefully as part of this process … both parties are getting the help that they need and hopefully there’s a better ending to this story.” But would either party be getting help if someone hadn’t spoken up?

Victims of domestic violence need to know they have support available to leave an abusive situation. Perpetrators of violence need to know that - if they are willing - there are resources available to help them break the cycle.

Programs such as the Green Dot campaign operate under the premise that anyone has the ability to prevent a potentially violent situation, either by calling the police or speaking up. Domestic violence statistics in Alaska have shown a slight improvement recently as more attention has been drawn to the issue, but there is still work to be done.

We sincerely hope that therapeutic court works for Beals, that the victim of his abuse receives the support she needs, and there is indeed a better ending to that story.

But we also hope that so many more people who find themselves in violent situations know that there’s help, that they have the potential for a better ending to their story too.

___

May 3, 2016

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner: Roadside political signs often violate state law, even if enforcement is lax

The familiar signs beginning to appear along local roads are a dead giveaway: Campaign season is here. It’s been a busy year for campaigning already on the national level, with presidential politics already bringing candidates’ ads to the local airwaves and residents’ yards. But while it will be some months before any national political attention returns to Alaska for the general election, statewide campaigns for other offices are just beginning to ramp up. In practical terms, that means more signs along the roadway, many of which are illegal under Alaska law. And while such signs have always been an issue, that doesn’t make them less in violation of the law. Candidates and their supporters should take care to abide by the rules as a gesture of their willingness to follow the law while in office.

Alaska’s law on roadside signs is among the more restrictive state policies on the matter across the U.S. It states that all manner of advertising signage, whether political or business-related, must be at least 660 feet from state highways and rights of way. The “highway” classification extends further than you might think, encompassing not only highways named as such, like the Parks, Glenn, Dalton, Steese and Alaska highways, but also other major routes maintained by the state, such as the Johansen Expressway and Chena Hot Springs Road.

Enforcement is a trickier matter. For state roads, enforcement is the responsibility of the Department of Transportation, with a handful of caveats. Most importantly, sign enforcement isn’t an issue to which the department voluntarily devotes resources. That’s understandable given the necessity of handling larger matters such as road maintenance and upgrades on a budget facing extreme pressure. That means the department tends to only respond to signs about which they receive complaints, which is an incomplete but more cost-effective solution.

Even that level of enforcement, however, is subject to restriction. Officials must notify a property owner 30 days in advance of the removal of an illegal sign, a requirement that means most offending signs are never removed at all. The only circumstance in which DOT officials can remove signs immediately is when they’re located in the right of way, the roadway or other public property.

Existing state and local law isn’t overly burdensome to residents’ ability to express their political preferences or affiliations. Local borough code provides for the display of political signs on one’s own property so long as it complies with state law and doesn’t obstruct the view of pedestrians or motorists, so a typical 1-foot-by-2-foot yard sign shouldn’t be an issue unless you live directly on a highway.

Yet on a drive across town during political campaign season, an Interior resident is virtually guaranteed to go by one or more illegal campaign signs directly adjacent to the roadway, often in the right-of-way or on the shoulder or sidewalk. Given that state resources to combat the problem are minimal, candidates and their supporters should be proactive in placing signs in accordance with the law - or, failing that, moving them to a legal location when apprised of their illegal status. While political speech is an important and protected part of American civic discourse, starting out one’s campaign for public office by flouting a state law isn’t appropriate. And while removing the signs in a timely manner once an election is over isn’t addressed by law, doing so is a gesture that will keep your neighbors happy.