Saturday, July 12, 2025
Home Blog Page 1631

Smoking gun: Homer city council members intended to create ‘sanctuary city’

Homer, Alaska, an arts and fishing community torn apart by the efforts of three city council members seeking “sanctuary city” status.

RECALL PETITION IS CIRCULATING

Three Homer City Council members who championed an effort to make Homer a “sanctuary city” now face a grassroots resistance movement themselves. They face a recall petition.

Sanctuary cities are self-declared safe havens for illegal immigrants. They are controversial for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which is that being in the country illegally is against the law. Many left-leaning individuals support the concept of creating safe-space sanctuary cities so illegal immigrants won’t be deported. San Francisco, for example, is a sanctuary city.

In early February, three Homer City Council members introduced a long-winded resolution rebuking President Donald Trump and declaring the city a welcoming place for all. Their original draft resolution and their pattern of emails leading up to their action show their intent more clearly — this was a movement to establish sanctuary status without exactly saying so.

Now, Homer City Clerk Jo Johnson has certified a citizens’ petition drive to recall Council members Donna Aderhold, David Lewis, and Catriona Reynolds.

Petitioner Mike Fell, a retired local businessman, explained to Must Read Alaska that the three are unfit for office after they attempted to use subterfuge and held secret meetings to make Homer a “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants, for misleading the public about their actions and intent, and for using their offices for partisan political purposes.

Homer City Council members Donna Aderhold,  Catriona Reynolds, David Lewis

In a series of emails between the three, they sought technical assistance from a group that promotes sanctuary cities. The emails also show collaboration with the group, “49 Moons,” which is part of the so-called “Indivisible” grassroots movement to resist the presidency of Donald Trump. Must Read Alaska has written extensively about the group and others like it in Alaska.

Must Read has also obtained an extensive file of communications between the three council members, a fraction of which is excerpted here.

  • In this Jan. 30 memo, Catriona Reynolds reaches out to the radical group Mijente.net for technical assistance:
From: Catriona Reynolds <[email protected]>
Subject: sanctuary city

I am ready to introduce a resolution that Homer, Alaska is a sanctuary city. Do you have any templates for wording that I can use?
You may also reach me at  907-235-3436 or 907-299-3410(evenings)
  • Reynolds gets a quick response with helpful guidance from the group, and a link that contains a treasure trove of “sanctuary city” language:
From: “B. Loewe” <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [web] sanctuary city

Hi. Thanks so much for reaching out. 
We released a policy guide today and are currently crafting model language for legislation. 
You can find the guide at 
Mijente.net/blog
  • Ms. Reynolds also indicates she modeled the language for the resolution after the sanctuary language from Olympia, Washington and reminds B Loewe, communication director for Mijente, that she will be running for re-election in the fall:
 From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [web] sanctuary city

great!
So far I rampantly plagiarized Olympia Washington’s recent resolution… but would love to include language about transgendered individuals and LGBTQ individuals in general, which they didn’t.Our next meeting is february 13th and I plan to introduce it then, I would need finalized wording ASAP.

Thanks!
Catriona
p.s. This is my third year on Homer City Council, I will stand for re-election this fall
  • Council Member Reynolds the next day begins signaling her intent to local supporters, including the group 49 Moons, which is an Anchorage-based group that is identified not only with the “Indivisible” anti-Trump movement, but also the Democratic Socialists of Alaska:

Subject: RE: registry defiance proposal

Hi Melisa,
I am introducing a resolution that makes Homer a sanctuary city at the next meeting.

Thanks! 🙂

Catriona Reynolds
Homer City Council Member
  • Several emails between Reynolds, Lewis and Aderhold discuss the original draft, as well as the “softened” version. They set up meetings, shared drafts back and forth, and then this email is sent to Mayor Bryan Zak by Reynolds:

Hi Mayor Zak,

Please add a resolution “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOMER, ALASKA, DECLARING THE CITY OF HOMER A SANCTUARY CITY” to the upcoming council meeting agenda.
I will provide more detailed wording within the next few days.

Cheers,
Catriona

  • Mayor Bryan Zak responds to his City Clerk, indicating he is not on board with the effort:

From: Bryan Zak
To: Jo Johnson <[email protected]>
Cc: Katie Koester <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: resolution for next meeting

I would not like us to undertake this at this time.

Although the final proposed resolution is more tame, the original was leaked prior to the meeting, forcing the group to change their draft. The original draft of their group’s resolution is posted here.

CITIZENS ORGANIZE

Mike Fell, who helped organize the recall petition, says the three are unfit for office, “by their individual efforts in preparation of Resolution 16-121 and 17-109, the text of which stands in clear and obvious violation of Homer City Code Title 1.”

That section of law limits city officials from supporting political candidates or ballot propositions while in office.

Fell and others in the Homer community such as Larry Zuccaro were offended when the three took up two separate political resolutions that related to events not relevant to Homer City Council’s nonpartisan scope of work.

  • Resolution 16-121 supported Standing Rock Lakota tribe and opposed the Dakota Access Pipeline.
  • Resolution 17-019 was the softened sanctuary resolution: “A resolution … Stating That the City of Homer Adheres to the Principle of Inclusion, and Herein Committing This City to Resisting Efforts to Divide This Community With Regard to Race, Religion, Ethnicity, Gender, National Origin, Physical Capabilities, or Sexual Orientation, Regardless of Those Efforts, Including From Local, State or Federal Agencies.”

Both resolutions failed.

Fell and a handful of other Homer residents have less than 60 days to gather the 347 signatures needed to have a recall election. Lewis’ and Reynolds’ seats come open during the October election.

Fell, whose grandfather was born in Skagway in 1910, and who himself was born in Homer, is part of a five-generation Alaska family. When he was in business, he kept his head down regarding politics, because Homer is a small town. But he says he’s had enough: “We have to get organized. They are now pushing back with the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), but we have documentation from businesses in Homer who have had cancellations on bookings directly because of this. If Homer loses one dollar of revenue because of them…”

Larry Zuccaro sent a letter to the three council members, which said in part, “…you have brought and committed an act that none of us wanted forced upon our once peaceful community. What you have done is ripped apart the social fabric by design in an attempt to bring social destruction. I suspect you have little understanding of the depth of what you have done, but if it is the intent of this resolution to further divide, create hate, anger and rage, and move our citizens closer to some kind of civil unrest like we are seeing across our nation, then this is the very way forward to that destination.

“The process to have the three of you recalled has already begun. If you have any respect, honor, or any moral compass (which I doubt), you will submit your resignation before the shame of the process of a very public recall catches up to you.”

The pro-sanctuary side is also active, as evidenced by this social media exchange between Council member David Lewis and one of the supporters of the Homer sanctuary resolution, Jeremiah Emmerson. Here, Lewis reflects that in hindsight putting the resolution on social media was not the smartest move, and has him recommending Sun Tzu’s Art of War as a guide for future action:

Whatever the outcome, it promises to be a lively Spring in the quaint burg of Homer.

SB 26 – to stabilize economy – heads to Senate floor this morning

Senate President Pete Kelly explains the three principles behind the Senate Majority’s plan for fiscal stability.

Two different visions are emerging in the House and Senate, as the Alaska Legislature heads into the second half of this session.

House Democrats, firmly in charge with a budget-bloating 22-vote bloc, say that to avoid an economic crisis, the State is going to need more State spending, and heavy new taxes to pay for it.

The tax-and-spend majority, of course, has the help of two indeterminates (Dan Ortiz and Jason Grenn) and three Democratic-aligned Republicans (Gabrielle LeDoux, Paul Seaton, Louise Stutes).

The alliance marching under the Democrats’ flag believes state spending must grow, not shrink, even as private sector jobs flee the state.

On the other side, Senate Republicans are saying we must not only bring down State spending, we must cap it to provide stability to the rocky fiscal situation State government faces.

Let’s limit revenues, use our Permanent Fund Earnings Account wisely, and give our state some breathing room as it bumps through the recession, Senate leadership says.

Senate Bill 26 is the vehicle for that philosophy. Originally offered by the governor as a “spend-more” bill, SB 26 has been gutted, and the language from Senate Bill 70 placed in its stead.

SB 26 is now a “limit government and protect the dividend” bill.

It limits state spending at $4.1 billion, paring down the governor’s spending request of $4.3 billion.

It limits what can be used out of the Permanent Fund Earnings Reserve Account for government, and it puts a temporary cap on the Permanent Fund dividends Alaskans get each year.

SB 26 reflects a credo of government living within its means.

“The state is in a recession, there’s no question about it. We’re not in a recession because the government spends too much or too little — in fact the government does spend too much,” said Senate President Pete Kelly in a recorded message.  But past legislatures have pushed agency operations to unsustainable levels, he said, and it’s time to bring spending down out of the statosphere.

“The math is simple but the politics are a little bit difficult,” Kelly said. Difficult may be an understatement, but the Senate is in alignment with a solid solution that doesn’t include taxing the working men and women of Alaska.

“There sometimes is a lot of noise that comes out of Juneau. It sounds like a of kind of madness,” he said. “The Senate is not on that page. We have a solution, we will deliver it, and it will work.”

Few will claim that SB 26 is a perfect solution, but it is a solution that is mindful of some important things:

Alaskans are in the mood for a smaller state government. There are about 144,000 registered Republicans in Alaska. Those are your smaller government people — and they want less government, not more taxes.

They are the people who voted for Donald Trump or Libertarian Gary Johnson for president — 182,000 Alaskans voted that part of the ballot.

As for Alaska Democrats, 116,000 voted for Hillary Clinton.

SB 26 with its spending and revenue caps is closer to what two-thirds of Alaska wants.

Alaskans want their Permanent Fund dividends, but they’re willing to cap them. SB 26 guarantees a dividend for Alaskans, which seems to be a sticking point for many, including conservatives who don’t normally like seeing people get government checks.  Some view the Permanent Fund as a birthright, while others praise it as a welcome stimulus for the Autumn economy.

Whichever it is, $1,000 per Alaskan is what SB 26 provides, which is more than what the dividend was in 2013 and 2014, but less than what it was in the salad days of the Palin Administration, when the governor distributed $3,269 to every man, woman, and child.

The legislative intent language says the Legislature will reevaluate the use of Permanent Fund earnings reserve in three years.

But for now, instead of allowing the governor to choose how much to pay each year (as he did in 2016), SB 26 provides some certainty: For 2018,  2019, and 2020, the dividend is $1,000, higher than in some recent years, lower than in others. But still a welcome deposit into family bank accounts.

Alaskans will not tolerate an income tax. Living in Alaska is expensive enough already and fewer Alaskans are working, which means an income tax would impact middle class Alaskans the most.

In addition, giving all Alaskans a Permanent Fund dividend with one hand, and taxing them with the other, is certain political death for anyone who attempts it.

The Democrats running the Alaska House will push for an income tax, because they’re pushing for higher spending and they’ll need to come up with the money somewhere. Many of their constituents won’t have to pay the tax. They envision Alaska’s future as one big income transfer program, where some are taxed to support spending and dividends for others. In other words, it’s government Democrat style.

The governor is on record supporting an income tax, and his poll numbers have fallen through the floor. The income tax will likely cost him his re-election.

Alaskans want stability in their economy. With a recession well under way in Alaska, an additional 7,500 jobs will be shed this year. Alaskans don’t want the public sector to become a larger share of the economy as private sector jobs dissolve. A State employee workforce of 18,000 means there is already one state worker for every 50 Alaskans, which is not a sustainable model. And the boom and bust of oil prices, coupled with the roller coaster of oil tax changes the state has bumbled through, has not helped.

Imposing an income tax while the economy is in a free-fall is a prescription for accelerating job losses — an economic disaster. It would deepen and lengthen the already sharp downturn of the past 24 months.

By contrast, SB 26 would stabilize the economy by injecting fresh money. It would buy us time to continue to manage state spending downward, as most Alaskans know that we must do.

SB 26 deserves consideration. The bill will reach the Senate floor on Wednesday, March 15 at 11 am. We predict there will not be much chest-beating from Republicans, although SB 26 does have its detractors.

This is serious legislation. Thoughtful members of the Senate will likely prevail when it comes time for them to hit the red or green buttons — that is, when they are called upon to make serious, grown-up decisions.

No cab coming? Call your lawmaker for a ride

Sen. Mia Costello

Alaskans Renee Limoge and Rebecca Logan were sitting in Salt, a downtown Juneau restaurant popular for its small plates and generous pours. The two were biding their time while waiting for a cab to the airport. And waiting. And waiting.

While the cab didn’t show up, their state senator did stop in. Sen. Mia Costello noticed the two travelers fidgeting and looking at the time on their phones, and she quickly offered to give them a lift 10 miles north to the airport, so the women could catch their flight home to Anchorage.

“They hopped up so fast,” said Costello. “They were really getting stressed about not making that flight.”

Costello, as it happens, is the key mover and shaker behind Senate Bill 14, the ride-sharing bill. Alaska is the only state in the nation where ride-sharing technology platforms such as Uber and Lyft are not operating because municipalities control taxi permits, and drivers can’t go between jurisdictions with ease.

In Fairbanks, Anchorage resident Judy Eledge was trying to get a cab to the airport this week, but because of the Iditarod Sled Dog Race, could not get one. She was at risk of missing her flight when she saw a young man with a pickup truck and offered him $40 to give her a ride.

 “Well if you don’t mind the smell of pot. I smoke pot,” the young man said.

“Mister, if you can still drive you have a deal,” responded Eledge, and off they went to the airport.

Across the state, Alaskans are finding that cab companies and their spotty records are no longer acceptable in a world where others can hail a ride simply by using the technology on their phones. Without Uber, Alaskans are now bartering for rides and taking their chances with pot-smoking strangers like they’ve never done before.

As the bills move through the Legislature, free-market enthusiasts are optimistic that this year will be the breakthrough year when Alaska joins the rest of the country in allowing the ride-sharing economy to flourish.

The House version of the ride-sharing bill, HB 132, will be heard in House Labor and Commerce on Friday at 3:15 pm. Americans for Prosperity Alaska has information on how Alaskans can testify or send a letter to the committee.

Not a single cut allowed by House Democrats — not even their personal chef

Rep. Tammie Wilson, R-North Pole, offers a budget cut on the House floor today. It was voted down by the Democrat-controlled majority.

Not a single cut. Not one more position in Alaska State government’s 18,000+ workforce can be eliminated, according to the new majority caucus in charge of the House of Representatives.

The Democrats and the three exiled musk ox Republicans in control are not allowing any budget amendments to be made in the governor’s proposed $4.2 billion general fund budget. Not if they are reductions — not one position, and not one program.

Instead, they’ve actually grown the governor’s budget to $5.07 billion. Some of that increase is because they have added money back to the Permanent Fund Dividend program.

The House gaveled in this afternoon and started working through what is expected to be hundreds of surgical budget reductions that were recently offered by Republicans and rejected by Democrats in House Finance Committee, where the D’s are also firmly in control. Rep. Paul Seaton of Homer co-chairs that committee. He is a Republican who has been exiled from the party for aligning with Democrats in exchange for a powerful position.

One by one, those budget cuts that died in committee died a second death on the House floor today. The process will begin again at 9 am on Tuesday, as more amendments are offered. They’ll likely die too, along caucus lines, but it could take hours, as each one is subject to debate.

The Democrats and the three “musk ox” Republicans who joined them to form a majority originally told the public that everything is on the table regarding the budget, but apparennly that didn’t mean real cuts such as these, which they rejected soundly:

  • $250,000 – Amendment 1 would have cut a new program offered by the governor that would have encouraged school districts to work together to promote innovative thinking. Republicans said that is something schools ought to be doing already.
  • $200,000 – Amendment 2 would have cut the equivalent of 1.25 positions from the Alaska Marine Highway System. Democrats Sam Kito and Neal Foster said that would imperil the system.
  • $137,000 – The Legislature’s personal cooks. Republicans wanted to let go of these positions in the legislative lounge; Democrats said no.
  • $400,000 – Amendment 15 – The Governor’s House contingency fund, which has $550,000 budgeted for broken glass, frozen pipes, or some other repairs that might need to be made to the Governor’s Mansion. Republicans wanted to leave $150,000 in that fund. Democrats said no, the entire amount cannot be touched.

On Tuesday, the Democrats running the calendar in the House of Representatives have cancelled most committee meetings so the House can take up the rest of the hundreds of amendments that are expected to be offered by Rep. Tammie Wilson, R-North Pole, and Rep. Cathy Tilton, R-Chugiak-Wasilla, two of the Republican minority’s budget workhorses.

As she did today, Wilson will pop up from her seat time and again and cheerfully offer the House a strategic surgical cut to consider. A few Republicans will chime in on the importance of the cuts. Democrats will stand to defend the spending.

And on a 22-18 vote along caucus lines, Democrats, trans-Party Reps. Dan Ortiz of Ketchikan and Jason Grenn of Anchorage, and their three Republican musk ox will vote each one down, as they did today.

But, House Republicans will be unified on record offering a different vision of the Alaska state budget than House Democrats and their musk oxen enablers.

You can watch the proceedings on GavelAlaska beginning at 9 am.

 

What would it take to permit the Panama Canal in 2017?

The Panama Canal, as seen from the bridge of the Rotterdam in February. (Win Gruening photo)

By MURRAY WALSH

I was with 49 Alaska Republicans transiting the Panama Canal in February aboard the 780-foot M/S Rotterdam. We enjoyed many great events together and at one dinner, a fellow diner who I knew was in the government-authorization-seeking business, asked a question:

What would it take, permit-wise, to build the Panama Canal today?

I can speculate with some accuracy on what it would take if the thing was proposed to be built in the United States. However, the Canal Zone, as it used to be called, is now entirely under the control of the country of Panama and I don’t know what kind of environmental review programs operate there.

PANAMA, ONCE PART OF COLOMBIA

It is darkly amusing to recall the history of the canal in this context. The area now known as the independent country of Panama was actually part of Colombia at the time France initiated construction of their attempt at a canal. Remnants of their efforts can still be seen on the eastern side.

The French effort fizzled after millions of francs and 20,000 lives were expended. The country of Colombia was surely disappointed and would have seen new hope when America came calling a few years later.   That hope was not enough for Colombia to consent to the American demand that it must control the canal if it was going to make the investment.

No deal seemed possible and that would have ended the matter except that somehow the province of Panama, with encouragement from then-President Teddy Roosevelt, revolted – nearly bloodlessly – to gain its independence. Another few years of work and 5,000 more lives, and we had a canal.

The canal makes money. The passage fee for our ship was $300,000, according the cruise director (a carbon copy of the cruise director from the Love Boat TV show.) The Panama Canal has revenues of $2 billion and costs of only $600 million per year according to The Economist. That margin is what paid for the new locks and other improvements that recently opened.

Fomenting revolutions and annexing territory is seen as rude today, except for Russia, where style points are still awarded for such activity. At any rate, once the canal zone was in a country that wanted the canal built and was willing to endure US control, no other permitting would have been needed.

The 1890 Rivers and Harbors Act, by which the Corps of Engineers regulates structures in waterways, would not have applied in Panama and none of the other more recent legislation, like the Clean Water Act, existed at the time. All you needed post-revolution, was enough snoose and dynamite, in the words of the Michael Heney, who built the White Pass and Yukon Railroad from Skagway to Whitehorse.

LESSONS FOR A FLORIDA OR ALASKA PROJECT

So, what if you wanted to build a big canal across part of the USA to accommodate ocean-going ships? Let’s say across Florida from Jacksonville to a fictitious industrial port city of south of Tallahassee on the Gulf Coast. Your reason is to shorten the shipping distance between those two cities and between our fictitious city and Ireland. This would knock off about 1,200 nautical miles from either route, greatly benefitting the whisky and rum trade.

Alaska thinks big too and began work on permitting for the Juneau Access Project several years ago. The result, now called the Lynn Canal Highway, could accommodate much higher volumes of traffic at much lower expense to the traveling public.

On the national scene, private companies are thinking big and trying to build a couple of new pipelines to make crude oil transport safer.

Alaska and the pipeline companies set off gamely to pursue authorizations for their projects. All three are experiencing opposition from environmental groups. Claims were made that there would be air and water pollution, habitat loss, and the creation of risk to the public. The sponsors batted down these claims with science, design and engineering but resistance continues anyway. Why that is will be discussed below.

Would our trans-Florida canal encounter resistance? Using locks and various water control measures, the existing trans-Florida canal (at the south end through Lake Okeechobee) was built without too much opposition but it is a small canal used primarily for recreational watercraft.

The same measures could be used to protect water quality and habitat for the Jacksonville canal as well. So, resistance based on legal requirements and environmental impacts could be dealt with but would the resistance end there?

It depends. The federal authorization system is clumsy and slow but you can get there if you persevere. I have sought about 40 Corps of Engineers permits in my 20 years as a consultant and gotten every one of them.   Some were initially resisted but on valid and legally relevant concerns. Once I addressed those concerns, I got my permits.

That is not the case for the Juneau Access Project and the two pipelines. The resistance to all three is based – in my experienced and semi-humble opinion – on issues other than what the law requires. The resistance to the pipelines is not based on fear of water pollution (although that is a scapegoat) but rather on resistance to the use of fossil fuels. There is nothing in federal law that says hatred of oil is a valid basis for denying an authorization.

The resistance to the Juneau Access Project might overtly be based on fear of air pollution but that issue was dealt with. No, the real reason is the desire to thwart economic expansion and growth in Southeast Alaska. That was why the timber industry was attacked and why the cruise ship industry was attacked.

So, is there a hidden or legally non-relevant agenda that would thwart our trans-Florida canal?

Very likely there is and I think such a proposal would draw ire from the anti-corporation crowd that riots in Seattle and Davos and other places where those world economic conferences are held.

Again, the resistance would take the form of overt concerns about environmental impacts but would be fueled by hatred of corporations and economic growth around the world.

I think this would also be true if you wanted the USA to build a new Panama Canal today. The whole panoply of federal regulations would very likely apply, even in a foreign country.

The US Navy has been engaged for years in an environmental study for exercising in the northern Pacific Ocean, far from US territory. The key concern, legally, is that a federal agency, the Navy, is proposing to engage in a “major federal action” and it is that action, not its location, that triggers the need for federal environmental review.

So, the first thing to do, if you want to build a giant project, is you must persuade Congress to give a waiver of the type that was granted so long ago for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Even then, the anti-growth forces were rampant, along with the lunatic fringe and TAPS would never have been built without a congressional get-out-of-jail free card.

From a political opportunity perspective, it might be a good idea, right now, to order up a whole deck of them.

Murray Walsh owns a government permitting consulting company and has been involved in land use management and planning for more than 40 years. He lives in Juneau.

Alaska will get ride-sharing — by app or by bootleg

Jeremy Price of Americans for Prosperity is surrounded, left to right, by Lloyd Bradley, Ryan McKee, Samuel A. Moore, Megan Alvanna Stimpfle, and Erica Simpson Qureshi at the Alaska State Capitol. They were there to promote ride-sharing legislation.

Senate Bill 14 could really be titled “Adulting Alaskans vs. their Oldie Government.”

It’s lead, follow, or get out of the way with the Millennials who want things to work better and smarter.

In a world where the ride-sharing platforms of Uber, Lyft, and Fasten are available in 49 states, Alaska local governments seem to be fighting Alaskans who simply want to hail a ride from something other than a cab.

Fighting against ride-sharing is fighting on the wrong side of history. It is fighting against economic freedom in favor of an entrenched special interest.

Frustrated riders who can’t get cabs in Alaska, but who have used ride sharing systems elsewhere, are gerry-rigging their way around the anti-free-market government. If not Uber or Lyft, then how about Facebook direct? Let’s try it:

This week in Anchorage, a morning ride to the Ted Stevens International Airport was bartered via Facebook for a bottle of Pinot Grigio. Wine was, for the day, the coin of the ride-sharing realm. For less than $20, this rider hacked a solution to not being able to use Uber in Anchorage, which works like a charm in more than 300 cities over six continents.

The House version — HB 132 — of the ride-sharing legislation is sponsored by Rep. Adam Wool, a Fairbanks Democrat who owns a bar and realizes that people need rides, and ride sharing promotes safety.

His legislation will be the subject of a public hearing in the House Labor and Commerce Committee this Friday. That committee is chaired by his fellow Democrat Sam Kito, who routinely carries water for unions, has been instrumental in the Democratic caucus, and who has not signaled his intentions on HB 132.

Last year, a similar bill died in House Labor and Commerce, killed off by Chairman Kurt Olson, a Kenai Republican.

This year, supporters such as Jeremy Price, Alaska Director for Americans for Prosperity, have high hopes for success.

Price uses Uber on his frequent trips to Washington, D.C., and he was in Juneau last week with a handful of ride-share enthusiasts, including 30-something Sam Moore, who is legally blind and has been pushing for ride sharing services that would make Anchorage quality of life better for him and others who don’t drive or who don’t want to own their own cars.

Viewers may be able to watch the hearing on 360.north.org. They’ll have a chance to comment during the 3:15 pm public testimony period on Friday by heading to their local Legislative Information Office.

Uber recently celebrated its millionth driver. Only a handful of riders and drivers were Alaskans during the brief and poignant time in 2015 when Uber operated in Anchorage before the municipality shut it down.

But it’s a disruptive technology, like vaping, Bitcoin, Airbnb, and car-sharing platforms such as ZipCar.  These innovations are nearly unstoppable — they will not be going quietly into the good night. Luddite governments in Anchorage and Juneau may be able to stall and even manage disruptive technologies, but they’ll not thwart them.

On a side note, the author’s Pinot Grigio-bartered rideshare program just celebrated its first successful ride in Anchorage. With any luck, a credit-card, app-transacted, ride-sharing platform — like Uber — will make the wine-for-ride program  a fleeting fancy of 2017.

Uh-oh: Juror statements can undo guilty verdict

If you’re on jury duty, watch what you say. Your words during secret deliberations are not so secret anymore, and may be held against you in a court of law.

United States law has moved into the era where your juror comments, which are to be held in secrecy to allow you to speak frankly as you decide a case, may undo your jury’s entire decision.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that statements made by a juror during deliberations were enough to call that verdict into question.

By a vote of 5-3, the Supreme Court tossed the case of Miguel Pena-Rodriguez back to a lower court to consider the allegations made by two jurors about comments made by a fellow juror.

Pena-Rodriguez was required to register as a sex offender after he was convicted in 2010 of sexual contact with two teenage girls in Colorado. He was originally charged with trying to grope the girls in the women’s bathroom at a Denver horse racing track where he worked. He was also charged with harassing them.

The jury had deadlocked on the felony charged but convicted Pena-Rodriguez of three misdemeanors and sentenced him to two years of probation.

Pena-Rodriguez is Hispanic.

After the verdict, two jurors accused a third juror of saying that Mexican-American men, 9 times out of 10, were guilty of being aggressive toward women and young girls. “I think he did it because he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want,” the juror, a retired police officer, allegedly said during deliberations.

Pena-Rodriguez’ defense attorney obtained affidavits from the two jurors who alleged the politically incorrect juror also said that Mexican men are physically controlling of women because they have a sense of entitlement, and that the alibi witness was not credible because, among other things, he was an illegal immigrant.

Never has a case been tossed because of remarks made during the secret deliberations that could considered racist. The decision opens up the door to a flood of appeals that could be based on such comments as, “He doesn’t seem gay,” “He acts so macho,” or “That tattoo is ghetto.”

The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial. Avoiding racial bias is just one aspect of fairness. There are others.

Could utterances made by citizens regarding other qualities, such as religion, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, or intelligence, now be used to unwind a verdict? It appears so.

If a defense team fails to adequately screen potential jurors about their racial bias during voir dire, can they get a “do-over”? Well, now they can.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts noted in October, when the case was being deliberated, that allowing an exception for a race bias would open the door to challenges for other types of bias.

“The next case is going to be religion,” he said. “So whatever we say on race is going to have either a limiting principle that makes sense, or it’s going to open up a broad category of cases.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor shrugged off that concern, because race is  “the most pernicious and odious discrimination.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan made up the majority decision on Tuesday, weakened what is known as the “no impeachment rule,” which allows open, frank debate and discussion among jurors, whose utterances are kept in complete secrecy so that there will be finality when the verdict is read.

Under the “no impeachment rule,” jurors don’t have to worry about being politically correct or stepping on other jurors feelings when they debate a case. Until now.

The decision means political correctness has overcome the constitutional requirement for secrecy in deliberations.

In the case of Pena Rodriguez v. Colorado, it appears the jury screening process failed. That is the defense team’s fault. It can happen sometimes, as justice is not perfect.

Yet, it is unlikely that overturning the constitutional requirement for secret deliberations in favor of the changing whims of political correctness will result in better justice.

Congrats Alaska voters — Armstrong, Repsol, and SB 21

Rarely does a new state tax policy deliver such unambiguously positive results, so quickly.

But, the announcement yesterday that Repsol and Armstrong Oil have confirmed that their huge North Slope oil discovery is on the higher side of initial estimates is the latest indication that the More Alaska Production Act of 2014 (SB21) has been an unqualified, blockbuster success story.

Alaska voters can give themselves some hearty pats on the back for that — about 90,000 pats, in fact, which is the number of voters who voted no on the 2014 ballot initiative that sought to repeal SB21.

By ratifying SB21 in no uncertain terms, voters kept a policy in place that has delivered to Alaskans their first increases in pipeline throughput in over 15 years.  Yesterday, those voters got the news that a major new find has been confirmed that could add a jaw-dropping 20 percent to Alaska output.

ARMSTRONG

Bill Armstrong

Armstrong Oil and Gas is no stranger to Alaska oil tax whims, especially the efforts of left-wing legislators to treat the producers like their own political piggy banks.

Armstrong for two decades has been among the independent oil companies that, in a world of big oil, are the little engines that could.

President Bill Armstrong has hung in there through the tax mood swings of the disastrous “ACES” policy and its predecessor tax hikes, and was finally rewarded in 2014 when the More Alaska Production Act (MAPA, or SB21) was passed and ratified by voters.

Today, Armstrong too can pat itself on the back. After joining forces with Repsol, Armstrong is now the proud majority stakeholder of a great set of holes at the Pikka prospect, which is described by the company as the largest North American find in 30 years.

Although it made headlines this week, this find has been in the trade journals since early fall. After drilling some additional delineation wells this winter, Armstrong and Repsol confirmed that the find is, indeed, a whopper.

With an estimated 1.2 billion barrels of recoverable oil, the Horseshoe-1 discovery well indicates more than 150 feet of net pay — a way of calculating the total from various holes — in several reservoir zones in the Nanushuk section. A sidetrack, Horseshoe-1A, found more than than 100 feet of net pay. Those are some sweet pay zones. Drilling took place during the 2016-2017 winter season.

Republican Alaska lawmakers and former Gov. Sean Parnell can also pat themselves on the back. They are the ones who put forward and passed the important tax reform legislation in 2014. The MAPA reforms modified some of the worst aspects of the old ACES taxation plan, which had made Alaska a very unattractive place to produce oil.

The proof of that lies in the sharp production declines that occurred year after year during the bad old days of the ACES era. ACES punished producers with extreme taxes when prices were high, although taxed less in a low-price environment.

The More Alaska Production Act (MAPA), as SB 21 was called, evened it out so the low-price years brought in more tax revenue, but when prices soared the severance tax rate was not as confiscatory.

That turned out to be a good thing because, shortly after SB 21 was passed, oil prices dropped like a rock.  MAPA is now bringing in much more revenue than the old ACES system would have at today’s prices.

On top of that, production increased even at these lower prices, which is bringing in even more revenue than ACES.

This has helped Alaska limp through the painful economic adjustments brought on by too-big government and not enough revenue to pay for it.

“The North Slope project is representative of the new movement in Alaska where smaller independents work and operate in areas previously dominated by major oil companies.  Armstrong has participated in 16 wildcat and appraisal wells on the North Slope in the last four years,” Armstrong told Oil & Gas 360 last year.  “Every single well was successful, and a third-party engineering firm places total proven reserves at 497 MMBO in the region.”

Those reserve estimates just jumped markedly.

HARD FOUGHT TAX REFORM

ACES and MAPA had some things in common, including providing for tax credits to incentivize more exploration.  Those credits led Repsol to drill in the Pikka area, where they and Armstrong have drilled 13 wells. First production is expected as soon as 2021, with a potential of 120,000 barrels of oil per day. That should warm up a cooling Trans Alaska Pipeline.

The repeal of ACES in favor of MAPA was a hard-fought battle.  For example, Rep. Harriet Drummond, D-Anchorage, stood outside the bill-signing ceremony carrying a protest sign that read: “Corrupt Bastards Club – Third Floor.” The third floor of the Dena-ina Center is where Gov. Sean Parnell and Republican leaders were signing SB 21, and Drummond and a handful of Democrat protestors were having none of it.

Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, also hated the legislation, writing in the Anchorage Daily News at the time that “SB 21 took us back to a failed policy we had in place for three decades and cost us hundreds of billions in lost revenue. We got nothing in exchange for this bill.”

Nothing, if you don’t count more revenue and more production.

Even today, the left-leaning majority in charge of the House of Representatives is trying to rewrite SB 21, with HB 111 being offered by Rep. Geran Tarr and Rep. Andy Josephson, Anchorage Democrats now infamous for telling the Alaska Center for the Environment last fall that they should use their official legislative offices as satellite offices for their environmental lobbying.

Tarr and Josephson want to increase taxes when prices are low, as they are now. But is that wise?

Roger Marks covered the topic at the Alaska Support Industry Alliance on Friday. His talk was titled, “Evaluation of HB 111: Allocating Misery of Low Prices.”

Marks told the breakfast meeting that, in its current form, HB 111 might exacerbate a flaw in the current tax system. He explained that while SB 21 may have stimulated exploration and production, the law shifts does shift the low price risk to industry taxpayers. HB 111 shifts it even more.

Marks also doesn’t think the cuts in production from OPEC countries are something Alaska can depend on to keep prices higher. Even as prices rise — and they eventually will — shale oil production will return in the Lower 48 and elsewhere. The technology of shale oil fields has been a game-changer.

Right now, companies have a hard time making money in Alaska, where the cost of doing business is high and taxes and royalties take a big bite. HB 111 increases the minimum tax from 4 percent to 5 percent of gross, and decreases the per-barrel credit from $8 to $5 at prices below $110 per barrel.

That 1 percent might raise the state another $37 million, but it might also act as a damper on production.

HB 111 also ends the state purchase of refundable credits, but producers can still carry the credits forward until they have income to offset them.

Putting future tax credits on hold might be necessary, since there is a shameful backlog of existing credit obligations that the governor has not paid to several companies. But the evidence is in that past tax credits, combined with sensible tax policy, are resulting in exciting new oil discoveries.

Now, if tax policy remains steady and bills like HB111 do not see the light of day, Alaska might even see production of that oil.