The leftist Anchorage Assembly has made its choice for the 12th Assembly seat.
Daniel Volland has rarely been seen at a meeting of the Anchorage Assembly. But on Wednesday evening he showed up in the audience and was invited to lead the room in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Volland, an optometrist, only stayed at the meeting for three minutes after the Pledge, and then scurried out.
The meeting was called in part for the purpose of setting the election date for the new 12th seat for the Assembly, which will be another liberal seat for downtown Anchorage.
Volland has been running for that seat since December. Volland was also voted in recently as the vice chairman of the South Addition Community Council, where sone questionable attendees were voting.
The date for the special election will be June 7, the Assembly decided on Wednesday. Only members of that downtown district will be voting, and it’s more than clear who the Assembly intends to take a seat on the dais: Volland. Assembly Vice Chairman Chris Constant, who serves the other downtown seat, has already donated to Volland’s campaign, according to state campaign records.
Niall Sherwood-Williams has taken blows for the republic as he has been unconstitutionally trundled out of publicly noticed Assembly Meetings in Anchorage for no apparent good reason. Next time PLEASE ALLOW Niall Sherwood Williams to lead. Thank you.
Another commie, just what our city needs, another oath breaker.
Another liar, another cheater, another commie to continue the destruction of our once glorious city.
Maybe we will all wake up tomorrow and we will all be in heaven and the rapture has happened. And only oath breakers will be the only ones on earth. We the people don’t have a chance if our oath takers are the ones who will destroy our country without a gun. So help me GOD you swore oath breakers. Mock GOD mock the oath mock the citizens. How dare you cowards evil exposed shameless oath breakers. Look at your evil accomplishments.
Previously, I did see Dr. Volland’s name among APOC filings. It wasn’t until I did background research ahead of Wednesday’s meeting that I looked closer and understood what was going on. As you point out, Volland filed with APOC in December 2021. The key point is that he filed for 2022 but did not file for 2023, despite the understanding at the time that there would be no Assembly election in District 1 in 2022. In the meantime, he’s raised a five-figure sum leading into the special election.
Most of the time in local government, a special election is held to fill an office until the next general election, where someone is elected for the remainder of the term. In this case, they’ve decided that the winner will serve until 2025. Looking at the wording of the charter, I wonder if this is designed to keep Volland in office until 2034, using the argument that his first term wasn’t a full term and therefore can’t count against term limits. Old-timers should remember that this was Governor Bill Egan’s strategy in his failed 1966 reelection bid.
This prompts lots of questions. First off, comparing this development with the work of the Reapportionment Committee, was the fix in all along or was this Plan B once enough people were clued in to the previous attempt to shift Forrest Dunbar into this district? How many people are aware that Volland serves on the board of Alaskans for Better Elections? They haven’t updated their website; they still show Albert Kookesh, who died almost a year ago, as a board member. I assume Volland took his place. Regardless, who wants to place bets that the next battleground issue in the Assembly Chambers will be an attempt to implement ranked choice voting in Anchorage? In my conversations, I’m really dismayed at how far behind the curve some people are.
Admitted in meeting term for eleven years. Niall Sherwood Williams for Assembly!
Why not be honest and lead them in a rendition of the Soviet National Anthem?
Have a drag queen sing it while waving the rainbow flag.
Follow it with a hearty “Hail Satan.”
This has a what 18% voting turnout gets you, Anchorage.
It appears that Chris Constant’s experience in the theatre continues to pay off for him.
After reading an article in the farce “ADN”,They”oopsed” in admitting the real truth in the very last paragraph, and revealing THEIR REAL purpose for the 12th seat to District 1. I’ve come to the conclusion this map is illegal due to the fact it is not based on the demographics, but for the liberal left political Assembly democrates to gain control over the conservativeS and primarily limit any control our Mayor Bronson has. This is THEIR quote. “The addition of a 12th seat to District 1, a heavily left-leaning district, could also enhance the Assembly’s veto power over the Anchorage’s conservative mayor.”(unquote) They confessed and admitted it is to overrule any of Mayor Bronson’s decisions and to keep their Leftist agenda on board. Where’s a lawyer that will overturn this wicked decision.
It’s been almost three years since I attended an Assembly meeting for the first time in a long time and learned about Christopher Constant’s effort to create this position. I’ve written in considerable detail about the process leading up to it for over two years. Comparing the number of comments in this thread with other recent threads, it’s obvious that reapportionment and redistricting issues simply aren’t “sexy” enough to generate a torrent of emotional knee-jerk reactions. Our so-called critical thinkers appear content to accept the MSM narrative, which in this case happens to be the same as Constant’s narrative.
I really don’t like to repeat myself, but it appears it’s necessary. After Constant took office, the idea of his district containing only one member, while the other districts contained two members, became an obsession with him. The long-standing Assembly district structure began with the transition measures included in the charter ratification election in 1975, in effect until expressly superseded, then became part of municipal code through a 1981 ordinance. The charter, however, only mandated that there be 11 Assembly members. It did not mandate a certain number of districts or even any districts at all. In other words, the inequity Constant was crying about about for years was solely the fault of the Assembly. They could have implemented any scheme which complied with “one man, one vote”.
After Constant ran multiple proposals through the Assembly process simultaneously, they settled on a charter amendment locking in six districts containing two members apiece. Since the long-standing district structure was a part of ordinance but not a part of the charter, while the size of the body was a part of the charter, it appears the actual intent in pursuing a charter amendment was to increase the size of the body, not to right great wrongs in addressing the inequity of having a single-member district.
The campaign to pass the charter amendment occurred in early 2020. Guess what? Everything I’ve mentioned thus far was missing from the conversation. Attempts to bring up these points were suppressed. MSM outlets were happy to give abundant publicity to the narrative of Constant and then-cohort Rob Cupples. In pursuing this through a charter amendment, this particular Assembly body took away the ability to choose a different apportionment scheme from future bodies. Cupples, when pressed on that point, was bold enough to say that if the Assembly in the past has never considered anything other than six districts, the Assembly in the future doesn’t need to consider anything other than six districts. Wow. Control freak much?
Hopefully, all that addresses your concerns about the legality of the position. The point you brought up about the Assembly’s “veto power” is worth discussing as well. One of the selling points offered by Constant and company was that a 12-member Assembly would foster better government due to the need to have seven rather than six votes to pass an ordinance. Curiously enough, the charter refers to a specific number of members needed to establish a quorum or to pass an emergency ordinance, but lacks language pertaining to the passage of any other ordinance. The charter does contain specific mention of a two-thirds majority needed to override a mayoral veto. Going by the logic offered by proponents of expanding the Assembly, if seven votes (one-half plus one) will be needed to pass an ordinance, does that mean nine votes (two-thirds plus one) will be needed to override a veto? Are supporters of the challenger candidates paying attention to this?
Wake up Anchorage. Do your own Google search and you will find Daniel Volland is fresh to Alaska from the Democratic Party owned decimated wastelands of Seattle,Washington. You Anchorage, and Alaska are their next target.
Comments are closed.