A petition at Change.org that demands the statue of William Seward come down from the plaza in front of the Alaska State Capitol has been answered by another petition — this one to keep the statue.
On June 23, Richard Showalter of Palmer started the petition, and within four days over 500 people had signed it.
The first petition, which says the statue should be removed, was created June 10 and, as of this writing, has over 1,700 signatures.
It’s impossible to say where the signers are from in these online petitions or if they are even Alaskans. Change.org petitions can be influential, however.
In the “Seward Must Go” petition, Seward is described as “a colonizer who contributed to the disenfranchisement of Alaska Native peoples.
“In this current climate, where other monuments depicting racists and representatives of slavery are being taken down across the country, Juneau should honor our Indigenous hosts whose land we stand upon and remove William H. Seward from the capital courtyard,” the petition says.
Seward was an abolitionist who worked to free the slaves.
The second petition, “Seward Must Stay,” describes Seward as a “determined opponent of the spread of slavery in the years leading up to the American Civil War, he was a prominent figure in the Republican Party in its formative years, and was praised for his work on behalf of the Union as Secretary of State during the Civil War.
After the original “Seward Must Stay” petition, two others wanting to keep the statue popped up at the website and are starting to gain signatures.
Attorney General Kevin Clarkson on Friday sent a notice to the State of Alaska workforce that once they are inside State office buildings or facilities in Anchorage, the Anchorage mayor’s mask mandate does not apply, and they may wear them if they are comfortable, or not wear them.
“The Governor supports State of Alaska employees that want to voluntarily wear facemasks or face coverings to assist in the mitigation of COVID-19,” Clarkson wrote in a memo, referring to the Wuhan coronavirus that has become a global pandemic and which has created a patchwork of myriad changing government policies.
As expected on Friday, Mayor Ethan Berkowitz enacted a mandate, something he made clear is an “order” that all people inside the municipality of Anchorage wear masks when in public places. He said it is not a mandate.
That is a distinction that is difficult for the public to understand, especially because his press release specifically says “Mayor Ethan Berkowitz issued Emergency Order EO-13, mandating the use of cloth face coverings or masks in the Municipality of Anchorage. EO-13 takes effect at 8:00 a.m. on Monday, June 29, 2020, and remains in effect until July 31, 2020.”
The mandate/order is the Berkowitz response to people not wearing masks voluntarily, and the increase in COVID-19 cases in recent days. He has scolded the public for flouting the good practices that have been guidelines to prevent the spread of the extremely contagious virus.
“To support the increase in economic activity following the lifting of the Hunker Down order, and to protect public health, everyone in Anchorage must wear a face covering when in a public space such as a grocery store, pharmacy, restaurant or bar, retail store, and other common indoor areas,” the mayor said.
“COVID-19 is spreading rapidly in the Lower 48 and case counts have risen in Anchorage,” said Mayor Berkowitz. “Unfortunately, not enough people are practicing the distancing needed to keep the curve flat, so we have a choice between doing nothing, hunkering down, or masking up. Masking up makes a difference. When enough of us do it, we can flatten the curve, keep our businesses open, and our community safe.”
Exceptions to his order include:
• children under two years old • individuals with health conditions who are unable to tolerate wearing a face covering or mask due to a physical or mental disability • individuals performing an activity that cannot be accomplished, or accomplished safely while wearing a mask
Berkowitz’ order says employers are responsible to provide masks or cloth face coverings to employees who have direct contact with others. Additional details are outlined in the Emergency Order, the mayor said, but the order was not posted on the city’s website, nor is not something most people will be able to easily find. The entire emergency order is at this link:
“Face coverings do not replace physical distancing (staying at least 6 feet away from other people), frequent hand washing with soap and water or using hand sanitizer, and routine cleaning and disinfecting of regularly touched surfaces,” Berkowitz said.
In an historic vote, U.S. House of Representatives today voted in support of statehood for the District of Columbia.
U.S. Congressman Don Young voted against the measure, but the House is controlled by Democrats and for the first time in history the perennial effort to create the 51st state passed, 232-180. Just one Democrat and one independent voted against it. Republicans voted against it, as DC would be a powerful Democrat-controlled state. Also, there were constitutional reasons cited.
Congressman Don Young
“Our founders never intended for Washington, D.C. to become a state. Our Nation’s Capital was meant to be an independent federal district, and for that reason, our Capital was moved from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C. in the eighteenth century,” said Rep. Don Young.
“The bill passed out of the House today is very flawed. First and foremost, the bill violates the Constitution’s enclave clause, which requires Congress to retain control of the federal seat of power. Secondly, and most crucially, the bill shrinks the federal district without immediately repealing the 23rd Amendment. Without its repeal, the smaller federal district still retains its three electoral votes, effectively giving the remaining residents – the First Family – three Electoral Votes for president. My Democrat colleagues have dedicated a lot of time to antagonizing President Trump; it is ironic then that their flawed statehood bill would give him de-facto control of electoral votes that could swing a presidential election.”
Young said that the framers of the Constitution intended for states to become eligible for statehood. He has authored the only statehood bill for Puerto Rico to ever pass the House and he believes Puerto Rico has been treated unfairly because of its territorial status.
“Statehood for Puerto Rico would give it the tools, resources, and power necessary to get its fiscal house in order so that taxpayers are not on the hook to bail out the island. The people of Puerto Rico have voted twice in the past eight years to become a state, and I continue working closely with Congresswoman Jenniffer González-Colón and other advocates to help make their admission to the Union a reality. The House should be bringing her statehood legislation to the Floor instead of wasting time and resources on this partisan D.C. bill.”
The bill, HR 51, sponsored by Rep. Eleanor Norton Holmes, the nonvoting House member from the district, now goes to the Senate.
Although the Republican-controlled Senate is unlikely to pass the bill, if the Senate flips blue in November, the bill will have a real chance of passage. If Joe Biden wins as president, he has already said he will sign the bill making Washington, D.C. a state.
THEIR LAWSUIT AGAINST FAIRBANKS POLICE, PROSECUTORS, CITY CANGO FORWARD
The Fairbanks Four are evidently going to get their day in court in their civil case against the City of Fairbanks and Fairbanks police for a case dating back to 1997.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today denied the City of Fairbanks’ request for a review of a decision that reversed Judge H. Russel Holland’s dismissal of a claim against the City of Fairbanks brought by the four convicted murderers. The four are currently free.
District Court Judge Holland had tossed out the claim the four made that their rights had been violated during prosecution and that there was misconduct by investigators.
They filed appeal to Ninth Circuit, which reversed Holland’s order to dismiss. Now, the court has refused the City of Fairbanks request for another look.
The four men, convicted of beating 15-year-old John Hartman to death in 1997, had signed an agreement they would not sue the city of Fairbanks or police or prosecutors; this agreement was part of a deal that Gov. Bill Walker made through his Attorney General Craig Richards to drop all the charges and allow the men to walk.
After the murder, one of the Fairbanks Four, George Frese, sought treatment for injuries to his foot, telling medical staff that he injured his foot kicking someone in a fight the night before. The tread of his boot matched the shoeprints on John Hartman’s forehead. Frese later confessed to participating in the murder.
Eugene Vent was questioned by police and made several statements indicative of guilt. While incarcerated, he allegedly told another inmate that, “We didn’t mean to kick [JH] to death.”
Kevin Pease admitted to a fellow inmate that, “[I] did it for the punk’s money.” Another inmate asked Pease if he had committed the murder, and Pease responded, “I was f****d up, and it was bad.”
The alibi presented by Marvin Roberts was rebutted by other witnesses. Tire tread marks also placed the men at the scene of the murder.
Three separate juries found the men guilty. Marvin Roberts and Kevin Pease were tried together, while George Frese and Eugene Vent were tried separately.
(The underlying facts are outlined in several written appellate decisions, including Vent v. State, 67 P.3d 661 (Alaska App. 2003); Pease v. State, 54 P.3d 316 (Alaska App. 2002); Frese v. State, 2002 WL 31376010 (Alaska App. Oct. 23, 2002), 2004 WL 178953 (Alaska App. Jan. 28, 2004).
This was not the first time the four men had gathered to threaten and endanger Fairbanks citizens.
Just two weeks before John Hartman’s murder, the four accosted a group of people walking from a hotel to a nearby restaurant. They made insulting remarks and left only after one of the men chased them away. Minutes later, George Frese returned on his bicycle, pulled out a gun, pointed it at the man, and announced he planned to shoot him. Frese was convicted of assault and his conviction was upheld on appeal. Frese v. State, 2001 WL 1090749 (Alaska App. Sept. 19, 2001).
Just hours before Hartman’s murder, the four allegedly beat and robbed a man leaving a wedding reception. Other than the fact that the injuries were not fatal, the assault was remarkably similar to the attack on John Hartman.
Despite ample evidence of guilt, the four claimed they were unfairly treated because of race, and the Alaska Federation of Natives called for the men’s release.
The Walker Administration acceded to the political pressure, dismissing all charges and freeing the four murderers under the condition they would not sue. Later, Walker named the attorney for the Fairbanks Four as his Attorney General. Jahna Lindemuth served in that role after Craig Richards resigned and is now one of the lead attorneys trying to recall Gov. Mike Dunleavy.
Apparently unconstrained by their contractual obligations, the four sued the City of Fairbanks and several Fairbanks police officers.
Judge H. Russel Holland dismissed the claim on the ground that the four could not prove they were wrongfully convicted.
Roberts, Frese, Vent, and Pease then filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Two members of a 3-judge panel voted to send the civil claim back to the trial court, while the third member argued the dismissal should be upheld.
The City of Fairbanks asked for either a rehearing or review by a full panel of the Ninth Circuit. On June 26, the Ninth Circuit declined the request.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a former editor of the Harvard Law Review, joined by Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta, a former clerk for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, published a blistering dissent explaining that the two members of the 3-judge panel had so far departed from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), as to create new law unprecedented in the federal courts.
According to Judge VanDyke:
The split panel decision in this case created an additional exception to the Heck bar that, as far as I can tell, is unprecedented – not only in our circuit, but across the federal courts. It did so by reinterpreting Heck’s favorable termination requirement into something less than even a neutral termination requirement. In doing so, it expressly refused to apply the “hoary principle[s]” adopted from the malicious prosecution context that were the express basis for the majority’s decision in Heck. Now, in every situation where a criminal defendant’s conviction is ministerially vacated without any judicial determination that the conviction was actually “invalid,” this new exception casts into doubt the Heck bar’s applicability. This includes in the many states in our circuit that have statutes that automatically vacate some convictions once the defendant has served his sentence. Heck is a quarter-century old, and its better-established exceptions already bedevil federal courts across the country, including this one. The fact that no other court has conceived or applied the panel majority’s new exception in over 25 years of applying Heck should be reason enough for this Court to rehear this case en banc before cracking this lid on Pandora’s box.
The defendants have not proven to be model citizens since their release. In 2018, Kevin Pease was arrested and charged with DUI and assault. He entered into a plea bargain wherein he pled guilty to DUI in exchange for dismissal of the assault charges.
In 2020, George Frese was arrested in Palmer and charged with vehicle theft, DUI, and reckless driving and failure to stop at the direction of an officer. He pled guilty to DUI and felony failure to stop/reckless driving. Last month he was arrested in Fairbanks and charged with assault, disorderly conduct, and criminal mischief. He pled guilty to criminal mischief.
One-third of Alaska’s population — those in the Anchorage municipality from Girdwood to Chugiak — will be subject to a mask mandate implemented by Mayor Ethan Berkowitz.
All persons inside of Anchorage, as of Monday at 8 am, will need to mask their nose and mouths if they are in a public building or place such as restaurant, bar, store, or other facility.
Berkowitz said he is “astounded” at all the uninformed pushback he has heard against the mask mandate. “I am just astounded by the number of constitutional scholars in our community,” he said.
Berkowitz said he had three options: Do nothing and let the COVID-19 virus spread, enact a mask mandate, or shut down the economy once again. He chose the mask mandate as the least consequential choice in terms of how it negatively impacts people.
There are exceptions: Young children, those with certain health conditions or breathing problems, and if a mask would interfere with your duties in some way.
He said that he does not expect people to wear masks when they are eating in a restaurant or sipping a beverage.
“It helps generate consumer confidence in the marketplace,” he said. “People don’t feel safe going to restaurant. They don’t feel safe going to bars. They don’t feel safe going to stores.”
He pointed to an op-ed in the Anchorage Daily News authored by “a number of economists and they came to the same conclusion.”
(Four of the six authors of that op-ed had also signed the recall petition against Gov. Mike Dunleavy, and the two that did not are not registered voters in Alaska.) Many of Dunleavy’s supporters across the state do not support a mask mandate and he has been reluctant to force Alaskans to mask up.
Berkowitz said that the mandate “can extend” to office settings where people are not in contact with the public.
The end date for the mask mandate is the end of July, Berkowitz said.
Calls to take down the statue of William Henry Seward from the Court Plaza across from the Capitol in downtown Juneau accelerated after a petition (directed to Juneau state Sen. Jesse Kiehl and Juneau Rep. Sara Hannan) circulated online.
Citing Seward as a symbol of American imperialism and colonialism as reasons to remove his statue they deem offensive, activists accompanied their demands with pleas for unity, reconciliation, and respect for individual differences.
Win Gruening
Will removing or replacing Seward’s statue accomplish this or will it just sow more division and feelings of resentment?
The 6-foot bronze sculpture of abolitionist and Secretary of State William Seward, the work of Ketchikan-based sculptor David Rubin, was unveiled on July 3, 2017.
It marked the 150th anniversary of the 1867 purchase transferring Alaska from Imperial Russia to the United States.
As the single most persistent and persuasive voice supporting the purchase, Seward was instrumental in modern-day Alaska’s founding, first as a territory and eventually as our nation’s 49th state. It’s entirely appropriate that he be honored for his role in Alaska’s history and his statue be sited near the state capitol.
There is hardly unanimity of opinion among Native leaders regarding Seward’s legacy.
“Across the Shaman’s River” author Dan Henry wrote that when Seward visited Klukwan two years after the purchase in 1869, he was received with great respect and exchanged gifts with Koh’klux, a fearsome Tlingit leader. Henry writes because of that respect: “…he (Koh’klux} tattooed Seward’s name in his arm…and finally freed his own slaves in 1883, twenty-one years after President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.”
Noted Alaskan Native leader, politician, and educator, Willie Hensley, in his 2017 article re-published in Smithsonian Magazine commemorating the Alaska Purchase anniversary, concluded with this quote:
“As the United States celebrates the signing of the Treaty of Cession, we all – Alaskans, Natives and Americans of the lower 48 – should salute Secretary of State William H. Seward, the man who eventually brought democracy and the rule of law to Alaska.”
Nevertheless, it’s appropriate to call attention to the fact that indigenous people were neither consulted on the purchase nor immediately granted citizenship in their new country. After many years, this injustice has been acknowledged in a myriad of ways.
In 1945, the advocacy of Elizabeth Peratrovich, a Petersburg-born Tlingit, resulted in the passage of the territory’s Anti-Discrimination Act, the first such law in the United States. Her impassioned testimony before the territorial legislature was considered decisive in its passage when she stated:
“I would not have expected that I, who am barely out of savagery, would have to remind gentlemen with five thousand years of recorded civilization behind them, of our Bill of Rights.”
In 1971, after the tireless advocacy of Willie Hensley and other Native leaders, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). It was the largest land claims settlement in United States history. ANCSA sought to resolve (and provide compensation for) long-standing aboriginal land claims in Alaska.
Speaking at the Seward statue dedication, Alaska’s first Native Lt. Gov, Byron Mallott, expressed hope for Alaska reaching the potential that Seward envisioned. Mallott also speculated Seward would have appreciated the exceptional negotiating skills of Alaska Native tribes when ANCSA was enacted.
“Like the Brooklyn Bridge, Alaska Natives sold Alaska again in 1971 for a bit more than $7.2 million,” Mallott said. “(Our compensation)…was for a billion dollars and 44 million acres of land.”
Even without the land and after adjusting for inflation, ANCSA’s monetary settlement dwarfed Alaska’s original purchase price. Then, under a special tax exemption engineered by Sen. Ted Stevens, between 1986 and 1988, Alaska Native corporations reaped another bonanza by selling an estimated $1.5 billion in net operating losses for $445 million in revenues.
Today, Alaska Natives populate our legislature, corporation boardrooms, social and civic organizations, and wield considerable political power.
The progress made since 1867 doesn’t diminish past injustices inflicted on Native people which must be part of any fair recounting of Alaska’s history. Nor does it mean we shouldn’t continue to recognize the historical rights and contributions of Alaska Natives.
But taking down Seward’s statue won’t make our history more fair, nor will it advance the cause of Alaska Natives.
It’s been suggested that Seward’s statue be replaced by one honoring Elizabeth Peratrovich. Why not commemorate her in an equally visible location – perhaps in front of the Alaska State Museum?
Elizabeth Peratrovich represents a shining example of Alaskans’ determination to eliminate discrimination and establish equal rights in our state.
But elevating Peratrovich over Seward detracts from that message. Each of them occupies a unique place in time in Alaska history.
A balanced view of history demands that both should be preserved.
Win Gruening retired as the senior vice president in charge of business banking for Key Bank in 2012. He was born and raised in Juneau and graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1970. He is active in community affairs as a 30-plus year member of Juneau Downtown Rotary Club and has been involved in various local and statewide organizations.
Anchorage resident Bernadette Wilson has started a fundraising campaign to produce high-quality videos featuring local doctors who have concerns about an upcoming face mask mandate that Mayor Ethan Berkowitz has warned he will order.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/truth-unmasked
Wilson said that the doctors who are willing to help with the message have already stuck their neck out during public testimony at the Anchorage Assembly meeting earlier this week. And she has a production team willing to turn around a few videos of about two minutes each.
She plans to raise at least $1,500 for the videos, and then purchase social media space and radio ads to educate the public about two main topics:
The alternative viewpoint that doctors have regarding masks for the general public, in the doctors’ own words.
The legal rights the public has regarding the mask mandate and how to proceed if you are denied service due to the mask mandate.
As of Thursday afternoon, her Truth Unmasked project had already raised $1,270.
Wilson was the recent organizer of the Open Anchorage rolling rally and the impromptu Memorial Day observance in Anchorage, after Mayor Ethan Berkowitz had cancelled the city-sponsored event.
She said any excess funds donated will be used to purchase radio ad time to get the messages out about legal rights for those who cannot wear masks.
Anchorage Mayor Ethan Berkowitz has turned the fate of the Captain Cook statue over to the Village of Eklutna, he said on the Tom Anderson Show on KVNT on Thursday morning.
Anderson asked the mayor what he had intended to with with the bronze statue that stands at Resolution Park along the Anchorage waterfront downtown.
An online petition to have the statue taken down is active at Change.org.
Berkowitz said he’s turning the statue’s fate over to the Village of Eklutna, which he says Anchorage has government-to-government relations with. Because they are a sovereign government, he has given them control over the statue’s future.
“Because the desire to take it down is borne of some of the historic concerns about injustice in the way the colonialists treated the Native people, we have given the process of what to do with the statue to the Native village of Eklutna. We have a government-to-government relationship. It is a sovereign-to-sovereign relationship,” Berkowitz said.
He explained that Eklutna Chief Aaron Leggett will set up a process in consultation with other tribes in the region to decide the fate of the statue — it could come down or it could be “contextualized.”
The village of Eklutna is within the Municipality of Anchorage, but lies 24 miles northeast of Anchorage near Mile 142 of the Alaska Railroad and Mile 26 of the Glenn Highway. About 70 people live in Eklutna; they are either all or part Native.
Berkowitz said that Captain Cook was only in the Inlet for a couple of weeks, and the people who had lived there for centuries have the right to determine what happens to the statue.
Give a listen to that segment of the Tom Anderson Show:
Candidate for Anchorage Mayor Forrest Dunbar has been pondering the U.S. Constitution lately and how this moment of civil unrest in the country, coupled with funds from the CARES Act and the new alcohol tax, can lead to a restructuring of the economy to make things more equitable.
“The fact is, that at that time, if you weren’t a white, landholding man, you were systematically excluded from those conversations. And we are still dealing with that legacy today,” he said during his closing comments at the regular Assembly meeting on Tuesday.
Dunbar then referred to a book by Akhil Amar: “The Constitution Biography,” that discusses constitutional law. Amar, a Yale Law School graduate, was named by Democrat Presidential Candidate Mike Gravel as someone he would appoint to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“What becomes inescapable when you read it is how shot through every portion of our constitutional law is with race when it comes to the three-fifths compromise, the way the Senate was apportioned in Congress, the Electoral College,” he said.
“All of it. All of it was tied to race,” Dunbar said, referring to the founding documents.
Dunbar said the country is now in a unique moment when the nation, state, and city can work on eliminating systemic racism by using tax funds that are newly available.
“We have this unique pot of money from the CARES Act, and we have another pot of money coming from the alcohol tax, and we have the ability to spend it in such a way where we can promote equity, and where we can materially improve the lives of the people of this city, and we can hopefully set up our economy to function long into the future,” Dunbar said.
