Saturday, October 10, 2026
Home Blog Page 1452

Why did UAA Faculty Senate vote to suspend UA president?

36

By FORREST NABORS

FACULTY SENATE HAS SOUNDED THE ALARM FOR MONTHS

On Oct. 4, the UAA Faculty Senate passed a resolution asking the Board of Regents to suspend President Jim Johnsen. 

Why did we pass this resolution? – Because last week our regional accreditor, the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) sent a letter to our Board and President, warning them that they were endangering the accreditation of our three universities.

The UAA Faculty Senate has been sounding the alarm for months that this might happen. Our warnings were typically ignored. 

How did we reach this point? Let’s review some history and disregarded American theory.

All of our public university systems in America began as single-campus institutions. One board of regents or trustees governed them. Administrators were drawn from faculty and sometimes did double-duty as full-time professors. The campuses grew, then sprouted branch campuses, then became university systems. 

How did those states respond to growth? They applied a tried and true American principle. They decentralized authority and allowed the constituent universities greater independence and self-government.

Our American system rests upon the cornerstone of self-government and the belief that if you give people authority and responsibility, they will do a better job of governing themselves than faraway bureaucrats, our modern princelings. Our founders believed that people who are closer to the scenes of action are better informed and can make better decisions about matters that directly concern them.

When delegates to our federal and state conventions drafted their constitutions, they confronted a practical problem. They knew that many communities might not be ready for self-government at that moment. But they foresaw that those communities would grow and mature, and that they ought to be able to cast off outside rule.

What did they do? The framers of the Constitution of the United States, following the Northwest Ordinance, provided for future growth in Article IV, sections 3 and 4. People in the territories first are governed by Congress, but once admitted as states, they graduate to self-government.

Our state constitution also provides for anticipated growth. The delegates to the Alaska constitutional convention many times expressed concerns about the future organization of the state as communities grew. So, they inserted Article X, which provides a pathway for maturing communities to claim that right to govern themselves when they grew to maturity.

When our university system grew, the Board of Regents followed this American principle. They decentralized. Beginning in the 1970s they permitted UAF, UAA, and UAS to become separately accredited universities. 

That decision was momentous. According to accreditation standards, once universities are accredited, they may not be merged into another without the consent and participation of the faculty. Hence, when the UA Regents permitted separately accredited universities, they gave up a power that cannot be taken back unilaterally. They permanently entrusted the universities with greater independence.

If the UAA Faculty believed that consolidation was good higher education policy right now, we would consent to the wishes of the statewide administration and the Board of Regents. But we believe that consolidation and central planning – which reverses the reforms of the 1970s – is bad policy and will harm higher education in this state. Our university system has grown more since the 1970s and calls for another round of reform in the direction of decentralization, not reform in the opposite direction.

The support of consolidation by Alaska conservatives is especially surprising. Have you now become the advocates of central planning? Why do you think you drive an American SUV today rather than an East German Trabant? You used to believe that competition was healthy and good. You used to recognize that central planning never delivers quality or cost-savings. 

How can you possibly trust the promises of the UA statewide administration and the Board of Regents, that under their greater command and control, the universities will be more efficient? Just look at their record of financial management: the highest dependency on state appropriations than any other public system of higher education in America; a $1billion deferred maintenance bill; a paltry $200M endowment (not counting the land trust). 

At the hearing of the State Affairs Committee of the Alaska Senate on Sept. 20, the UAA Faculty, students and alumni explained why we believe that decentralization will improve UAF, UAA and UAS, and will lead to greater financial efficiency. For those reasons the UAA Faculty have indicated our refusal to consent to consolidation in dozens of ways. We recently polled ourselves, asking directly, “Do you favor the single accredited one university model as presented by President Johnsen?” – 83% of polled UAA faculty said no, 7% said yes. 

But our views have been grossly misrepresented. Several weeks ago Alaska media repeated the misleading spin fed to them by a contractor hired by UA statewide. It was uncritically reported that the views of faculty were mixed concerning consolidation. The basis for these reports? An online survey open to ballot-stuffing that asked respondents ambiguous questions, e.g., whether they liked the idea of a seamless experience in higher ed. If you answered yes, then the contractor counted you among supporters of consolidation.

Garbage. Many like myself who favor a decentralized university system and oppose consolidation could easily answer yes to such a question. Who doesn’t like puppies and rainbows? But if you do, the contractor marked you down in favor of the administration’s plans. 

But that is how this UA president rolls and now our accreditor is aware. He manufactures the appearance of support and quietly threatens dissent, in the pursuit of his beloved vision of “One UA” that will harm higher education in this state for generations.

Forrest Nabors is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at UAA, and has served on the UAA Faculty Senate since 2012. Read an earlier op-ed by him at this link.

‘Republicans for Rule of Law’ targeting Sen. Murkowski on impeachment inquiry

59

PRESSURE WILL BUILD ON ALASKA’S SENIOR SENATOR

A conservative group that includes former Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol has targeted Sen. Lisa Murkowski as part of a $1 million advertising campaign to turn on-the-fence Republicans into “yes” votes on impeachment.

A “Republicans for the Rule of Law” ad focusing on Murkowski showed up in Alaskans’ Facebook feed in recent days, imploring Alaska’s senior senator to “stand up for the rule of law.”

Over the summer, the group had placed hundreds of thousands of dollars in ads in home districts of Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Richard Burr of North Carolina, and James Lankford of Oklahoma. Murkowski ads are part of the group’s expansion effort.

The group has also targeted U.S. representatives who are seen to be facing competitive races in 2020, including Rep. Mark Amodei of Nevada, Fred Upton of Michigan, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Will Hurd of Texas and Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington.

While Murkowski is not up for reelection this year, she is seen as one of the more likely senators to vote to impeach Trump if and when the matter reaches the Senate.

Another group called Need to Impeach, which started two years ago, is targeting Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Cory Gardner of Colorado and Martha McSally of Arizona, all of whom are up for reelection next year. Until September, the group had only focused on Democrats.

Earlier in the year, the Republicans for the Rule of Law advocated against Trump’s wall along the southern border with Mexico. But it’s been working on the Ukraine angle to oust Trump for the past six months.

A year ago, Murkowski was targeted by groups imploring her to vote against confirmation of Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh. In the end, she simply voted “present” on the final vote. Kavanaugh was confirmed without her. Political strategists are using a similar playbook as was employed during that effort to convince Murkowski to vote a certain way.

Names on the Republicans for the Rule of Law advisory board include Charles Fried, former Sen. Slade Gorton, Chris Gagin, Chris Truax, Peter Rusthoven, and Wendell Willkie II.

Republicans for the Rule of Law is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit and a project of Defending Democracy Together. The big-ticket names associated with the Defending Democracy Together group include columnist Mona Charen, Linda Chavez, former Chair of the New Hampshire Republican Party Jennifer Horn, and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman.

Liberal groups that are actively lobbing for impeachment include: By the People, Center for American Progress Action Fund, CREDO Action, Courage Campaign, Daily Kos, Demand Justice, Democracy for America, End Citizens United Action Fund, Free Speech For People, Hispanic Federation, Indivisible, Kremlin Annex, March For Truth, National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund, People, For the American Way, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Progressive Democrats Of America, Public Citizen, and Stand Up America.

Army ditches pixelated pattern on combat uniforms

6

THE $5 BILLION UNIFORM IS NO MORE

The U.S. Army’s digital Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP) uniform is so “last week.” Starting Oct. 1, all soldiers are sporting the green-and-brown Operational Camouflage Pattern uniform, or OCP. It’s a throwback camo.

The Operational Camouflage Pattern is a return to a more traditional look.

The UCP pattern had been tested and found to provide better concealment than 10 other patterns, before it was brought onboard in 2004 with great fanfare and at great cost. But it was poorly received by some soldiers in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan who said it just didn’t blend well enough in the desert environment. It was better suited for woodlands.

There were a couple of problems with the pixelated pattern. One, it didn’t incorporate any black, and that made it appear flat, and easier to spot.

But the bigger issue was the optical effect that occurs when the human eye sees a number of colors and patterns as a single color. Known as isoluminance, the defect in the pattern resulted from the numerous issues resulting from pixelation.

[Read: The history of invisibility]

The Army has been transitioning into the OCP for those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2014, when the Army announced that OCP would replace all UCP uniforms by October, 2019.

It was a $5 billion uniform experiment that had come shortly after the U.S. Marines moved to digital-designed camouflage battle uniforms.

By 2016, appropriators in Congress had seen enough and began working on provisions to prevent the Defense Department from developing new service-specific camouflage, and new rules were soon developed by the Defense Department to address further textile waste.

[Read ‘The $5 Billion Army Camouflage That Failed to Hide Its Soldiers]

Mayor: Expand 1% for arts, and more ‘arts’ definitions

9

WHAT CIVIL EMERGENCY?

The Anchorage “1% for Arts” regulations don’t cover nearly enough public works projects, according to Mayor Ethan Berkowitz, who will submit a proposed ordinance on Tuesday, Oct. 8 to expand the types of projects that must dedicate 1 percent of construction costs to arts.

The ordinance will be considered by the Anchorage Assembly at its regularly scheduled meeting.

A letter from the Municipal Arts Advisory Commission to the Assembly supports the additional projects to include roads, bridges, tunnels, parks, trails, playgrounds, and sidewalks.

Current regulations include 1 percent being subtracted from construction needs for arts during building, remodeling, or renovation of a municipal building, school, or other facility.

[Read the Municipal Arts Advisory Commission letter here.]

“Without designating 1% of the project for arts, the outcome is often public facilities that do not incorporate elements of our rich cultural heritage or unique artistic elements,” the group wrote to Berkowitz. “Large scale infrastructure projects lacking in art are more difficult to integrate into neighborhoods, and deprive the community opportunities for beautification that improve property values, reduce crime, and increase quality of life. Moreover, art in public spaces provide educational opportunities for young people to interact and learn about different art forms while engaging in day-to-day activities.”

Large-scale projects are also more likely to cost more than $1 million, which is the threshold for the 1 percent for arts requirement. A $5 million trail rehabilitation project would need to have a $50,000 taken from construction and dedicated to artistic expression.

The revised ordinance also proposes adding two more types of art to be covered by the 1 percent for arts program: Digital/video art that may incorporate laser, lighting, or sound; and ephemeral art — that which is not permanent, the tis biodegradable or that is performance art.

Adding roads, trails, tunnels, and bridges to the 1 percent program will, in fact, increase the cost of projects by that amount.

Of the 1 percent to be dedicated to art, a fraction of that would be shaved off for preservation of the city’s public art. So that the 1 percent for art would become a .09 percent for actual art, and the rest would be set aside. A city arts committee would be established, appointed by the mayor.

There is no fiscal note attached to the proposed changes.

Anchorage voters passed $4 million in parks improvement bonds during the last municipal election in April. If the ordinance passes, some of those projects will be subject to the new 1% definitions.

Other proposed changes to the 1 percent for arts program can be seen at this link.

Berkowitz this summer declared Anchorage in a civil emergency due to perceived and projected problems that might develop around the city’s notorious drug-addicted population of transients. The civil emergency ended in September, he announced to the Assembly.

[Read: Berkowitz’s civil emergency extended]

Now that it is behind Berkowitz, it’s onward to expanding public funding for arts.

Forrest Dunbar files for Anchorage mayor

8

As rumored would happen in early October, Anchorage Assembly member Forrest Dunbar has filed for the office of Mayor of Anchorage. The election for that seat is in April, 2021.

Dunbar, a solid Democrat who registered as a nonpartisan, and then re-registered as a Democrat, won District 5 Seat H of the Assembly in 2016.

Previously, Dunbar was a 2014 Democratic candidate for the the U.S. House, running and losing against Congressman Don Young in 2014.

Image from Ballotpedia.https://ballotpedia.org/Forrest_Dunbar

Mayor Ethan Berkowitz, Anchorage’s current Democrat-registered mayor, is term-limited and ineligible to run again. No other candidates have registered with the Alaska Public Offices Commission for the seat.

Anchorage Assembly considers tweaks to bag ban

14

The Anchorage Assembly’s ban on plastic bags will undergo changes if the assembly approves them at its Oct. 8 regular meeting.

The bag ban, which affects retailers and shoppers, prohibits single-use plastic bags, but allows retailers to offer paper bags — but they are required to charge a fee for them.

The problem with the government-mandated fee became apparent on the first day the ban was implemented — Sept. 15. As people began to frequent fast-food restaurants, they found they were being charged for the paper bag they had always received to hold their French fries, burgers and ketchup packages. And they were mad at having to pay an extra 10 cents for the bag.

The Assembly is looking to make adjustments with “Ordinance No. AO 2019-121, amending Anchorage Municipal Code Section 15.95.020, Prohibition on providing or distributing plastic shopping bags; fees for alternative bags; exceptions.”

The Assembly is likely to clarify that retail sellers are not required to provide alternative bags, but must charge a fee when they do. And the law will likely exempt some businesses like fast-food restaurants.

Sit-down restaurants are facing their own problems, as they try to package diners’ leftovers. Will they also receive an exemption or simply move to bigger cardboard boxes for diners to take home their meals? Are bakers still going to have to charge for the bag they provide to their customers for donuts and pastries?

A public hearing on the changes to the bag ban will be the subject of a public hearing on Oct. 8. The Assembly meeting begins at 6 pm, at the Loussac Library Assembly Chambers, 3600 Denali Street.

Trigger alert: A year ago, Brett Kavanaugh joined Supreme Court

5

NEW CASES INCLUDE LGBTQ, ABORTION, IMMIGRATION

Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Sunday completes his first year on the U.S. Supreme Court.

His opponents last year launched an unprecedented attack on him in the weeks leading up to the confirmation vote.

Alaska’s Left got in the act to oppose Kavanaugh last September, along with other anti-Trump interests from around the country. The ACLU paid for 100 women from Alaska to fly to Washington D.C. to lobby Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan to vote against Kavanaugh’s nomination. In the end, Murkowski voted “present” during the vote on Kavanaugh, while Sullivan voted in favor of him.

Murkowski was all over the national news as an important vote for the Left to turn, and her pitting of her vote against the president concerned Alaska Republicans. Because she seemed one of the more likely to turn against Kavanaugh, she became the target of a barrage of messaging.

[Read: Murkowski being pressured by Natives to vote no on Kavanaugh]

Kavanaugh had been accused of all kinds of wretchedness in the weeks prior, including sexual assault while he was in high school. There had never before been Supreme Court nominee hearings like the ones that America witnessed in September of 2018.

[Read: The pressure is on Murkowski]

But the real reason for opposition to his nomination was because the Left didn’t want to concede another seat on the Supreme Court to a conservative constitutionalist, and because never-Trumpers wanted to make every step of the Trump presidency a living hell for him.

[Read: ACLU paying for 100 Alaskans to travel to DC]

Even Gov. Bill Walker and Lt. Gov. Byron Mallott weighed in against Kavanaugh, as did the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault and Alaska Native groups such as the Alaska Federation of Natives.

Gov. Bill Walker and Lt. Gov. Byron Mallott weigh in on Kavanaugh nomination. Weeks later, Mallott was forced to resign over alleged sexual misconduct.

On Monday, the next term of the Supreme Court begins, and its calendar is filling with issues that matter to both conservatives and progressives: Abortion, LGBTQ+ accommodations, and immigration. A couple of more are expected to be announced on Monday, but so far, it’s a lineup of cases that will bring the Left out again to savage traditionalists.

The court will take up on Monday Kahler v. Kansas, the question of whether a state may abolish the insanity defense.

On Tuesday, an issue of employment discrimination will be heard. The question is whether the 1964 anti-discrimination laws protect gay, lesbian, and transgender employees. The cases are  Bostock v. Clayton County, and  Altitude Express v. Zarda. They will be heard together.

The abortion case to be heard later this year or early next year is a challenge to Louisiana’s hospital admitting privileges law, which would severely limit abortions in the state. Louisiana law requires doctors who perform abortions to have right to admit patients at local hospitals. It will be the first abortion-related case heard with the more conservative makeup of the court in the Kavanaugh era.

The court will also hear two cases concerning U.S. Forest Service powers to grant rights of way through lands traversed by Appalachian Trail for the purpose of a proposed gasline.

In US v. Sineneng-Smith, the Court will review 9th Circuit ruling that invalidated a federal law making it a crime to encourage or cause illegal immigration for financial gain.

UAA faculty group says ‘no confidence’ to UA president

10

Another emergency meeting of the University of Alaska Board of Regents has been called for Monday after the UA Anchorage Faculty Senate voted “no confidence” in UA System President Jim Johnsen.

It’s the seventh emergency meeting by the Board of Regents this year.

The issue raised by the UAA Faculty Senate complaint revolves, on its face, around accreditation and leadership. But there’s so much more: The subtext is the festering, long-standing rivalry between the Anchorage and Fairbanks campus over funding and campus prestige erupting in the public eye during a time when budget cuts are forcing a major university system downsizing.

UAA faculty have long felt that President Johnsen favors the Fairbanks campus. This was the second vote of no confidence the UAA Faculty Senate has taken since 2017; it passed by a 33-3 vote on Friday.

Between the first vote of no confidence in January of 2017, and the second vote of no confidence last week, the Anchorage campus’ School of Education lost its accreditation from the Council for the Accreditation of Education Preparation.

It was a major blow to the UAA campus to have one of its core degree programs close down, something that the Regents voted on this year subsequent to the loss of accreditation. The complete closure of that degree program is scheduled for July of 2020.

The UAA Faculty Senate responded to the crisis in the Education department by passing a resolution in April asking the Regents to reject President Johnsen’s proposed closure of the program and to support the continuation of it while it sought to gain back accreditation.

[Read: UAA Education program axed by Regents]

During the same timeframe that the Education program was disintegrating, the State of Alaska was up against the wall with deficit spending, and cuts were made to the entire university system that has forced the Regents into trying to manage a major restructuring.

As a result, the university system will be subject to $70 million in cuts over three years, according to the plan agreed upon by the Gov. Michael Dunleavy, President Johnsen, and Board of Regents Chairman John Davies.

[Read: Cuts to university system agreed on]

But faculty at UAA are rebelling against downsizing their campus or bringing all universities under one centralized governance structure to reduce administrative costs, and have taken their grievances to the NWCCU, the accrediting organization for the universities.

Many of them seem to fear that the Fairbanks campus will fare better than the Anchorage campus during a restructuring.

[Read: Accreditor puts university on notice over governance issues]

In addition to asking for the suspension of the University president, the UAA Faculty Senate wants also discussed whether UA Board of Regents Chairman John Davies should be removed from the role of chair. Ultimately that was set aside.

The group passed a resolution that charged that President Johnsen:

  • Repeatedly misled the Board of Regents in assuring the Board that the accreditation standards including NWCCU Standard 2.A.2, and Standard 2.A.1 were being met during the process to consider single accreditation and other administrative and structural consolidation.
  • Repeatedly ignored the accreditation concerns raised by faculty and other shared governance groups, in violation of NWCCU Standard for Accreditation 2.A.2, and Standard 2.A.1.
  • Repeatedly and willfully ignored the need for inclusive dialogue and decision making input from the chancellors, shared governance, and community stakeholders in violation of NWCCU Standard for Accreditation 2.A.2, and Standard 2.A.1.
  • Inappropriately used funds for advertising that misleads the public by promoting a University of Alaska that does not exist as a separately accredited university.
  • Repeatedly and willfully attempted to control communication of the chancellors in violation of Board of Regents policy P 02.01.040. and in violation of NWCCU Standard for Accreditation 2.A.2, and Standard 2.A.1.
  • Johnsen and the Board of Regents continue to sanction the ongoing administrative consolidation and the expedited academic review process driven by the president in violation of NWCCU Standard for Accreditation 2.A.2, and Standard 2.A.1, and;

The UA Faculty Senate also wrote that the Board of Regents are “violating their fiduciary responsibilities and their duty of care by not taking formal steps to address the violations of NWCCU Standards and by not taking formal steps to address the failure in the leadership of President Johnsen that led to those violations.

The faculty group wrote that it has “deep concerns about the Board of Regents continued trust in the leadership” of Johnsen, and recommends the Regents suspend the president “and statewide authority in taking action to consolidate any university functions or conduct academic review until a shared governance response to the NWCCU report is completed that identifies a viable path forward in reaching compliance” with NWCCU standards.

The faculty group included a demand that a review of Johnsen’s performance should be done to determine if he should be terminated, “and/or Chair John Davies be removed as chair of the Board of Regents.”

Johnsen has been seeking to consolidate campus functions, reduce duplication and discontinue some offerings, but has run into political headwinds from inside the university system, which has been buttressed by a warning from the NWCCU accrediting organization that more input needs to be incorporated from stakeholders such as student and faculty.

For Johnsen and the Regents, the clock is ticking on this year’s budget, which is now one-quarter of the way through the fiscal year. Because Johnsen and the Regents decided to fight cuts during the winter rather than start making the needed changes, they are now behind the curve.

An emergency meeting of the Board of Regents has been called for Monday, Oct. 7, at 8:30 at the Butrovich Building, Room 109, on the University of Alaska Fairbanks campus.

A likely outcome is that the Regents address the UAA rebellion by returning the entire system to a state of exigency, so they can proceed with the restructuring.