The Camel In The Tent

Not long ago I was in a short discussion about the state of our world and especially the way our federal government is conducting it's business these days. Ever hear about the camel in the tent during a sand storm? In this story the tent owner allows the camel to put only its nose in the tent but soon the tent owner finds himself kicked out of the tent for the camel has taken it over. I used this analogy to illustrate what our lives will be like as long as we keep allowing our responsibilities to be outsourced to governmental entities or other such institutions. If we continue to allow others to stick their noses where they don't belong we will soon be perplexed and unprepared finding ourselves kicked out of our own tents and into the sandstorm.

I was then asked, "How can "we the people" get rid of the camel?"

My response was thus:

"There is a book called The Fourth Turning which talks about the cycles of societies the world over. Any reader of Scripture will also see these cycles. I think mankind will always institute some sort of government and it’s greatness will vary by where it falls in the cycle. There is always a downfall of these governments. There is another book called The 5000 Year Leap which discusses keys to liberty but one essential key is virtue. I think all we can do is do the best with the hand we are dealt.

Confucius in his classic essay The Great Learning said:

The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue throughout the kingdom, first ordered well their own states. Wishing to order well their states, they first regulated their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their persons. Wishing to cultivate their persons, they first rectified their hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first sought to be sincere in their thoughts. Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost their knowledge. Such extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things.

Things being investigated, knowledge became complete. Their knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere. Their thoughts being sincere, their hearts were then rectified. Their hearts being rectified, their persons were cultivated. Their persons being cultivated, their families were regulated. Their families being regulated, their states were rightly governed. Their states being rightly governed, the whole kingdom was made tranquil and happy."

In an article titled Education Must Precede Activism the author, Stephen Palmer, used the above quote. Mr. Palmer goes on to say, “Not only does turning inward lead to wisdom, but it also leads to power. This is the core message of the Cause of Liberty. Fixing ourselves as individuals is what fixes the world.”

The best resource for fixing ourselves is scripture or for a more secular reference As A Man Thinketh.

I realize this may sound disappointing but really the best we can do is educate ourselves and those in our circle of influence on the cause of liberty and the best way to institute it so we (or our descendants) are ready to step in when the fall happens. In other words, don't outsource your personal responsibilities, be prepared and have a spare tent ready!

The Dangerous and Misleading Problem With Our Elections

This is an interesting email I got about voting. I'm copy and pasting it here in it's entirety because it is not yet on the website it normaly is published to. I will keep checking and fix to be a link up once the author has uploaded it to their website: http://www.thesocialleader.com/

The Dangerous & Misleading Problem With Our Elections

By Oliver DeMille

OUR POPULAR CULTURE is given to extremes--everything from extreme sports to extreme makeovers.

If this trend were limited to our entertainment, it might be just fine.

Unfortunately, it is found even in our elections, where the stakes couldn't be higher.

The American founding generation was known for how strongly its members took sides and promoted their views, but also for its openness in listening to other views, learning from contrary perspectives, and changing its mind when the ideas of opponents made sense.

In our time, this wisdom is practically nonexistent.

We may not admit it, but we seem to want extreme politics.

We want our candidate to blast the flaws, weaknesses, and misguided views of the opponent.

The more extreme and angry the language, the more we support a candidate. We want a fight, and we want our candidate to bloody the opponent.

Voters claim to want respectful and civil discourse, but the majority votes for the outspoken, loud, and aggressive.

The Effectiveness of Attack Politics

When President Obama is moderate, measured, and judicious, conservatives say he lacks leadership, while liberals call him ineffective, uncommitted, and disappointing.

When he pushes back, takes strong positions, and goes on the attack, conservatives call him a terrible leader and a dangerous opponent, while progressives flock to support his "revitalized" presidency.

The majority responds to aggression, not to wisdom or civility.

Likewise, the liberal media once routinely praised Senator John McCain for his "fair, balanced, and moderate" approach to the issues--until he became the Republican candidate for president and the media turned on him as an "extreme conservative."

At the same time, conservatives supported his Senatorial leadership but then angrily labeled him "a liberal in conservative clothing" during his presidential bid.

Mitt Romney failed to capture widespread conservative support mainly because he seemed to lack passion, anger, and edginess. The charge of flip-flopping is really a frustration with Romney's modulated tone.

Both Obama and Gingrich have a long record of switched sides on numerous issues--more, in fact, than Romney. But they know how to go on the attack, and this quickly dissipates any sense of them being wishy-washy.

Even when Romney goes on the attack, his words sound like they are being dictated from a teleprompter--not shouted from his angry gut.

Aggressive and angry candidates generally have more success than those who are mild and soft-spoken. In the following chart, the more aggressive candidate from each election era is marked in bold:

Election More Aggressive/Strident More Mild/Gentlemanly
1980 Reagan Mondale
1984 Reagan Mondale
1988 Bush Dukakis
1992 Clinton Bush
1996 Clinton Dole
2000 Bush Gore
2004 Bush Kerry
2008 Obama McCain


Note that in recent elections the more vocally aggressive person has always been the winning candidate.

Looking ahead to the 2012 election, this trend provides several interesting scenarios (some of which won't happen but are still instructive):

2012?

Obama Romney

Gingrich Obama

Christie Obama

Trump Obama

Obama Paul

Bachman Obama


The practical problem for candidates is this: To win their party nomination they need to appeal to their base by strongly attacking the other party's candidate, and then to win in the general election they must appeal to independents by not being too extreme.

Thus candidates such as Mondale, Dukakis, Dole, or Kerry get the nomination but not the support of independents.

An interesting twist on all this is the technique of attacking someone other than the opposing candidate.

This allows candidates to tell independents they're taking the high road and simultaneously show their base that they are sufficiently angry on the attack.

Reagan, Clinton, Obama and others have used this by positioning themselves as Washington outsiders with Washington as the enemy and changing the culture in Washington as the great mandate.

Gingrich has recently put a new spin on this by shrewdly turning his anger against the media--something that clearly resonates with his conservative base and even many independents.

Obama has attempted to do the same thing by turning his anger against Wall Street and the rich.

Mirroring domestic politics, voters connect more with candidates who talk tough and take a hawkish stance toward potential national enemies like China and Iran.

Those who argue for moderation toward nations such as China or Pakistan--e.g. Gore, Kerry, Huntsman, Paul, or Santorum--tend to lose support to those promising more belligerent positions.

Aggressive "Leadership"

Our societal conception of leadership idealizes aggressiveness, killer instinct, and strength as much or even more than virtue, wisdom, and integrity--from our high school football fields to our Ivy League lacrosse teams and from our corporate boardrooms and reality television programs to our prom queen elections and even the U.S. Capitol building.

The old Greek proverb that "God loves the good but blesses the bold" is a good description of how our modern voters seem to think.

Is the Anger Warranted?

All of this obscures the problems of a nation literally on the brink in far too many ways.

Unemployment remains painfully high, and even small decreases in the unemployment rate are the result of more people giving up their search for work rather than more real jobs in the economy.

Consider these sobering realities:

•Of those who have lost and then found new jobs since the Great Recession, only 7% have found a job that pays as much as the one they lost.
•When those not seeking jobs or only finding part-time work are included in the statistics, our real unemployment rate is nearly 20% (see further commentary and details here).

•An astounding 44% of Americans receive food stamps or some other form of government food assistance.

•Since 2008, the average U.S. household has seen its net worth decrease 9.9%. In contrast, during the same time period the increase of net worth for those serving in Congress is a positive 24%.

•In 2008, 9% of Americans and 16% of Chinese struggled "to pay for food." By 2011, 19% of Americans and 6% of Chinese struggle to pay for food.

Things are worse than the numbers reflect, and currently they are not getting better.

No wonder many voters are deeply frustrated and genuinely angry with numerous government policies that hurt the economy, and while they don't really want violence, they don't feel understood or supported by moderate words, restrained plans, or relaxed rhetoric.

They want angry words, their candidates to win, and those they blame for all our problems to lose and lose painfully.

"Sound and Well-Informed Judgment" Trumps Anger

Madison foresaw such challenges when he called elections "peaceful revolutions"--not actually violent, but passionate and extreme like all true revolutions.

The founders knew that in elections passions run deep, and they knew that lasting freedom depends on the wisdom of the people.

As he wrote in Federalist Paper 1:
"[W]e, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance...furnish[es] a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy."
And even those who are right, Madison continues, aren't always motivated for the right reasons:
"Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives...are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question...[In every major national discussion] a torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposing parties, we shall be led to conclude that that they will [promote the justness of their argument and] increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declarations and the bitterness of their invectives."
The only lasting solution, Madison says, is for the citizens to calmly and closely examine the details and apply their "sound and well-informed judgment."

To help reduce the negative influences of too much emotion in politics, the framers filtered the direct vote for presidents through the Electoral College and the election of Senators through state legislatures.

Still, they knew that the key to successful democratic society is effective elections by the people, and the key to effective elections is a wise, informed and virtuous people.

The Critically-Needed Reversal in Focus

So, we have a problem.

The two biggest facets of this problem are:
1: In our current system we tend to almost universally see the presidential election as the most important in the nation, the congressional elections as more important than state elections, and state elections as more important than local. In the same vein, we tend to see government programs as more important than private enterprises and philanthropic programs, and institutions as more important than families.
2: We tend to think that the solution to our problems is better, wiser, more civil, prudent and noble candidates rather than better, wiser, more civil, prudent and noble voters.
In the founding era, it was the opposite. They saw families and private entities as more important than government institutions and the local and state as more important than the national level.

They also felt that the future of our nation depended not on better candidates but on better voters.

We may or may not need better candidates, but more importantly we need to be much better spouses, parents, neighbors, leaders and voluntary servants in our communities, churches, charities and families.

We do have an election problem, because we have a leadership problem--on all levels.

The most effective way to overcome this challenge is to become greater leaders in our homes and communities.

Excellent leaders are more likely to use wisdom in elections, and less prone to being swayed by angry and aggressive rhetoric.

As long as we put our faith in aggressive candidates on the attack, we are going to keep being disappointed with the results of each election.

The 2012 election will be no different.

The Solution: Better Voters

This isn't to say that milder, less aggressive, or more civil candidates have the answers--not at all.

The solution to our modern American election problem is simple:Better voters.

Voters are the hope of our future, specifically voters who are more calmly and consistently involved in politics on a daily basis both during and between elections, more locally focused, less emotional and wiser, less swayed by the media and the experts, more principle-centered, and more deeply studied in the principles and details of freedom.

If becoming a nation of such voters is too much to ask, then the future of freedom will be short.

*******************

Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.


He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom, and FreedomShift: 3 Choices to Reclaim America's Destiny.


Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.

2011 Election Results

With 98% of the votes (a paltry 27% of registered voters) the following people took the seat in this round of musical chairs:

Assembly Seat D: Michael Dukes

Assembly Seat E: Guy Sattley

Assembly Seat H: John Davies

School Board Seat E: John Thies

School Board Seat F: Sean Rice

School Board Seat G: Sharon McConnell

In proposition news:
25.20% of registered voters are requiring the rest of us to have our property taxes raised by passing the two school bond propositions #'s 1 & 3.

Proposition 2: More voters said No then Yes.

Next Year Elections 2012:

FNSB

Mayor: Luke Hopkins

Assembly Seat A: Matt Want

Assembly Seat F: Nadine Winters

Assembly Seat G: Mike Musick

School Board Seat A: Silver Chord

School Board Seat B: Wendy Dominique

Primary Election Day August 28, 2012

General Election Day November 6, 2012

Unofficial Results Page

Here is a link to the unofficial results:

http://www.co.fairbanks.ak.us/results-1.htm

Still Not Sure How to Vote? Some Hints and Tips…

First of all what do you classify yourself as and what do the candidates classify themselves as?

Basic Definitions
Classical Liberal: Juris naturalist. One who believes that the country should have a small, weak government, and free markets, and that the individual is endowed by his Creator with inalienable rights to his life, liberty, and property. Also, one who believes in Natural Law and common law, or Higher Law.

Centrist: Moderate.

Conservative: A person on the right side of the left-right political spectrum. Conservatives believe in economic freedom and social control.

Democrat: A person on the left side of the political spectrum.

Juris Naturalist: syn. Classical liberal. Believes in Higher Law or Natural Law, that right and wrong are not matters of opinion. Believes political power corrupts both morals and judgment. Wants a government that is small and growing smaller.

Liberal: A person on the left side of the left-right political spectrum. Liberals believe in social freedom and economic control.

Moderate: One who is in the middle of the left-right political spectrum. Moderates advocate both economic encroachment and social encroachment, but perhaps not to the extremes that left and right do.

Progressive: One who is on the left side of the political spectrum.

Republican: Conservative.

See my Terms Defined page for more info.

According to the News Miner the candidates have classified themselves as:
Dukes: “I’m conservative. I believe we need a government, but I believe we need a government that is as small as can be but can deliver the needed services.”

Lawrence: “I think politically I’m a centrist who wants to make government work effectively and efficiently for the people.”

Aaron Bennett: A classical liberal, dedicated to upholding the Constitution and representing the people. “We’re supposed to be a constitutional republic. The Constitution is supposed to limit government, and obviously we’ve gotten away from that.”

King: “I would say that I’m very moderate and non-partisan. I don’t follow any political party lines.”

Kohler: “I’m a jumble. I would say I’m a fiscally conservative, pragmatic classic Republican type. Call me a moderate, I guess.”

McFarlane: “I’m a conservative, but on the assembly I will look at each proposal on its worth, not judge it politically.”

Palembas: A registered independent, he said he’s voted in both Democratic and Republican primaries in recent years. “I have no hidden agenda. I think there’s a lot of party agenda being played out in the Borough Assembly right now, and I don’t think it belongs there.”

Sattley: Describing himself as a fiscal conservative and social moderate, Sattley said he’s earned a reputation for being tight with funds. “I don’t waste money, whether it’s my own or public money.”

Joshua Bennett: “I’m limited government. I don’t want to get rid of the government, but I want it to be limited. The purpose of government is to protect private property.” *In an interview I had with Mr. Bennett he said he could also identify himself as a Juris Naturalist.

Blanchard: “I feel I’m a moderate conservative. I’m not anti-government, but it needs to be as small as possible to work best.”

Davies: “You could describe me as a progressive. I believe that we need to work together in a variety of ways, including through local government, to improve the quality of life.”

From my interviews/assessment the School Board candidates appear to be:

John Thies: Unknown

Sean Rice: Classical Democrat (based on interview from 2010)

Ryan Smith: Classical Liberal aka. Juris Naturalist (based on phone interview 9/11)

Sharon McConnell: Unknown

More hints and tips:

• If you’re really not sure on an issue, try applying the Golden Rule or ask yourself if you willing to accept the costs associated with passage of the issue. Ask yourself if you have a right to compel your neighbor to accept those costs.


• It’s okay to leave a blank circle if you feel neither answer/candidate fits your view. Just fill in the circle where you have conviction that your choice is a good one.


• Look at who is sponsoring the candidates. Generally they will be in the same political classification.


• Unions tend to support bigger government legislation. Also, Unions lean toward the social freedom and economic control ideals.


• Centrist/moderates appear to be trying to get as many votes as they can, thus identify themselves as centrist/moderate to hit what they feel the majority of the population leans to. This is not necessarily desirable if you have strong ideals where you feel your representative should be unwavering.
  

Ultimately, no matter what a candidate classifies themselves as, it could change in actual policies they end up supporting. This can be due to a desire to compromise with the perceived “other side” or it could have been the plan to begin with. We all know some candidates will do or say whatever they feel will get them the winning vote. This is why we need to look at records, keep up on issues, and call them out if they seem to change from their running platform once they are voted in.

Thanks for informing yourself to vote!

Propositions 1 and 3 School Bonds: Questions to Consider

FNSB Proposition 1 - $9,900,000 General Obligation Bonds for Ryan Middle School Capital Improvements (Ordinance No. 2011-39)

FNSB Proposition 3 - $10,390,000 General Obligation Bonds for Capital Improvements to Salcha & Woodriver Elementary Schools, North Pole Middle School & North Pole High School (Ordinance No. 2011-39)

Fact Sheet link: http://www.k12northstar.org/sites/default/files/2011_school_bond_fact_sheet.pdf

Both bonds are grouped together in the ordinance and fact sheet.

Passage of bond will result in:

Proposition 1
Ryan Middle School: renovation and system upgrades particularly to gymnasium wing (to include a weight room & dance floor according to Ryan Smith – I have not verified), preliminary design of future phased renovation and upgrade alternatives.

Proposition 2
Salcha Elementary: Replace and upgrade roof and building envelope.

Woodriver Elementary: Upgrade gymnasium interior, finishes, and mechanical, electrical and other systems.

North Pole Middle: Replace and upgrade roof and clearstories.

North Pole High: Renovations and mechanical, electrical, and other systems upgrades to the vocational wing.

If you’re not sure what a bond actually is read this article first: http://interioralaskavoterguides.blogspot.com/2011/09/repost-bonding-101.html

The estimated additional property tax amount due per $100,000 assessed value of property per year is $5.69. This is based on if the State reimburses 70%. If it doesn’t then the additional tax increase could be $18.96 per $100,000/yr.

I have not had time to research out the answers to the following questions but I believe they have merit to consider in deciding how to vote, especially considering our world economic variations.

• If my home is valued at $150,000 will my property tax be pro-rated accordingly?


• When is the state expected to reimburse the 70%? What if the state can’t or won’t reimburse the 70%?


• What if the number of property owners changes significantly? Is the “approximate amount” taxed redistributed every year?


• How many years will we be paying for this? When is the bond “due”?


• Who buys these bonds? What if no one wants to /buy them?


• How many school bonds are we paying on already?


• If I vote no can I opt out of the property tax increase and the accompanying “mortgage” responsibility? (I did find the answer to this: NO)


• According to the ordinance (2011-39) Section 2 it states: “…the Borough will levy ad valorem taxes* upon all taxable property in the Borough without limitation as to rate or amount to pay when due”. I am very uncomfortable with the idea that the borough can levy a tax on me “without limitation as to rate or amount” if need be. Essentially, a yes vote on this is putting up “our” property as collateral.


• Is the return for my risk acceptable?

Ultimately the bond litmus test question is:
Do I have a right to force a mortgage on my neighbor?

*Ad valorem tax: tax based on the assessed value of property.

Updates To Check Out

The following updates took place today 10/3/11:

1) Change to include links to voter guide articles on Assembly Seat D page and a News Miner article on those candidates (Dukes, Lawrence).

http://newsminer.com/view/full_story/15625600/article-Dukes--Lawrence-are-candidates-for-Assembly-Seat-D?

2) Change to include links to voter guide articles on Assembly Seat E page and a News Miner article on those candidates (McFarlane, King, Bennett, Palembas, Kohler, Sattley).

http://newsminer.com/view/full_story/15641362/article-Six-vie-for-Fairbanks-Borough-Assembly-Seat-E?

3) Change to include links to voter guide articles on Assembly Seat H page and a News Miner article on those candidates (Blanchard, Davies, Bennett).

http://newsminer.com/view/full_story/15658419/article-Two-challenging-Blanchard-for-Assembly-seat?

4) Change to include links to voter guide articles on School Board page and News Miner articles on those candidates (Thies, Rice, Smith, McConnell).

http://newsminer.com/view/full_story/15567655/article-Rice--Thies-unchallenged-for-Fairbanks-area-school-board-seats?

http://newsminer.com/view/full_story/15573455/article-McConnell--Smith-vie-for-Fairbanks-North-Star-Borough-School-Board-Seat-G?

Still to come, then I should be done for this year.

5) Change to include links to voter guide articles on Proposition page and information links.

6) Article: School Bond Propositions 1 and 3.

7) Article: Still Not Sure How to Vote? Some Hints and Tips…

Update 10/4/11 I just discovered another blog doing the same type of thing. Here is a post: Meet the Candidates that has questions and answers from several of the candidates I was unable to get responses from.

School Board Seat G: Sharon McConnell Summary

Sharon McConnell is the incumbent and this would mark her third term if she wins. She works at Doyon.

School Budget: Funding should stay closest to the classroom and keep class sizes small. Security safety is also a big issue. In regards to cuts she uses administration and public recommendations to decide. New construction takes time and should be considered.

Teachers vs. Buildings: She values the staff but felt it inappropriate to comment during negotiations process.

Adequate yearly progress system: It could be improved, it is often unfunded.

Bond Measures: Yes to both.

Summary extracted from this article.

School Board Seat E: John Thies Summary

John Thies owns Worry Free Alaska and Worry Free Restoration. He is new to running for an office.

When it came to financial questions about the budget Mr. Thies was not comfortable answering without having studied the current budget.

Teachers vs. Buildings: Buildings and teachers are both foundations for students. “I don’t think one’s really high over the other.”

Adequate yearly progress system: “The standardized tests are for once a year” and may not portray an accurate picture of a student’s entire education, he said. “But how else do you do it (measure student success)?” he asked. “It might be, at the end of the day, one of the best options.”

Bond Measures: Mr. Thies is still looking into them. Thinks Prop. 1 Bond is a bit excessive.

Summary extracted from this article.

Assembly Seat H: John Davies Summary

John Davies has served in state politics in the past. He has also worked at the Cold Climate Housing Research Center.

Prop. 2: Will vote Yes, believes voluntary measures will not solve the problem.
Natural Gas: “The assembly can play a significant role in the development of a plan. We should do whatever we can as long as it solves the problem of delivering low-cost gas to homes.”

Pay Freeze: Thought “it was a really bad idea.”

Accepting Federal Money: No reason why we shouldn’t take it. It helps our economy. He indicated some consideration for purpose in selection of funds.

Goals for Borough if elected: “My main goal is to bring a more thoughtful discussion to the assembly. One of the biggest issues facing the borough is energy, and that’s where I have expertise.”

Political Stance: “You could describe me as a progressive.”

This summary extracted from this article.

Assembly Seat H: Joe Blanchard Summary

Joe Blanchard is the incumbent. He works at the Princess Hotel and studies political science at UAF.

Prop. 2: Thinks the education, voluntary, and change-out programs are doing well in dealing with the issue.

Natural Gas: The borough can help via private partnership.

Pay Freeze: “That people got automatic pay increases without merit was a bit insulting to the taxpayer. It was never my intention to deprive them of funds but to provide a new mechanism for evaluating the increase in funds to them. It’s not a cost-saving measure, but we need to be more accountable to the folks that we’re taking money out of their wallets.”

Accepting Federal Funds: Blanchard believes they help with infrastructure but the borough needs to be prudent selecting which federal funds to accept.

Goals for Borough if elected: Costs need controlled. “In public works and transportation there is this major ramping up from the federal government from regulation. We need folks on the assembly that can push back and not just embrace regulations.”

Political Stance: “I feel I’m a moderate conservative. I’m not anti-government, but it needs to be as small as possible to work best.”

This summary extracted from this article.

Assembly Seat E: Michael Palembas Summary

Mr. Palembas ran against Michael Dukes last year. He has degrees in social work and psychology and is unemployed right now.

Prop. 2 stance: Thinks there is still time for voluntary measures to take hold, will vote No.

Natural Gas: He supports free enterprise and thinks the borough should stay out of it.

Pay Freeze: Thought it was unfair.

Accepting Federal Money: “I’m all for it."

Goals for borough if elected: “He said he supports funding for the library and bookmobile but doesn’t enter the race with big borough goals. “I’m not running with an agenda.”

Political Views: “Has voted in both Democratic and Republican primaries in recent years. ‘I have no hidden agenda. I think there’s a lot of party agenda being played out in the Borough Assembly right now, and I don’t think it belongs there.’”

This summary extracted from this article.

Please Keep Checking

I realize we are getting down to the wire with the vote tomorrow. I do have a few more articles to finalize and I am making sure there is some reference for each candidate and proposition. I hope you will check back later today if you were not able to find information on the person or issue you were hoping to find here. Thanks for taking the time to be a better informed voter!

Research efforts include: personal phone calls, personal emails, listening to and taking notes on radio and TV interviews, News Miner articles, interviews I did in 2010 elections, and other research as indicated in particular articles.

School Board Seat G: Ryan Smith Round 2 Q & A

What is your day job?
I am an Advisor for UAF Engineering Students. I see many of them entering UAF with a 7th to 9th grade math level. They then need to take remedial math courses to get up to the level they need to be at to begin work on their degree. This is why I’m running.

What is your stance on the propositions?

1) School Bond Ryan: I don’t like it. Too much money is going to a weight room and dance floor. The science part good. If it was separated I would vote yes on the Science part and no on the weight room and dance floor.

2) Healthy Air Now Citizens Initiative: No, it is poorly written, too vague, and too open to opinion/interpretation.

3) School Bond Salcha, Woodriver, North Pole schools: Yes, it is obviously needed.

Who is responsible for educating?
This is a 3 tier response: teacher, parent, student. If all three are not working for same goal success will be limited.

Should sex education be part of the public school system? If so when should it start and what should it encompass? If not, why?
Definitely not in K-6, middle school should consist of health informative classes due to puberty. High school yes. The High School level should have an “opt in” for parents with a notice as to what will be taught. The program can’t overlook abstinence and should also touch on preventative measures.

What is school for? What is education for? Are they the same?
They are not the same, School is more a body or place, you go to the school. You don’t need the structure of school to get an education. You can find education at school to achieve and take with you.

School Board Seat G: Ryan Smith Round 1 Q & A

Here are the answers from your first round of questions.

Thanks for taking the time to get to know those of us running for election this year. I am running for School Board seat G:

For me the most important attributes for a candidate are integrity, honesty, and responsibility.

It is difficult to think of the five principles that I live my life by because it is not something that I really think about it is simply how I was raised. I guess I would have to go with reliable, trustworthy, respectful, honest, and caring.

Reliable is a must because I feel follow through is very important. When I tell someone I will do something or work on something it is important to me to know they feel comfortable knowing I will follow through with what I said.

Trustworthy is something everyone should hope to be. For me my word is my bond, it is probably one of the most important and valuable assets a person can ever have.

Respect is something that should be shown to everyone. I have seen a lot of people who resort to name calling when they have a disagreement with another person and I feel that is counterproductive. There is no reason to treat anyone as less important or their ideas as worthless. There is a civil way to disagree with anyone and it is simply professional to do so.

Honesty goes hand in hand with trustworthy. I think it is vital to be able to look out at a group and tell them the fact and have them know in their hearts that you are telling them the truth. Once anyone starts to become dishonest they lose all credibility and they will no longer be able to make an impact until they earn that credibility back again.

Caring is a must when running for any office. It is hard to be fully engaged in any action when it is not a high priority in daily life and that is one reason so [many]items seem to fall through the cracks. I do think anyone running for school board has [this] principle or at least I hope they do because there is to much at stake to go at this half way.

I think what makes a community a great place to live is the people. When looking at the involvement of those around the community and the different kinds of fund raising that takes place for a variety of causes I would have to say Fairbanks is one of the kindest communities I have ever lived in.

This is the first time I have done anything in the way of politics so I am unsure if I have taken any missteps yet or not but one thing is for sure, we will find out in October.

I would say experience can be a great asset or a great hindrance depending on the office one is seeking. When it comes to the School Board I don’t see experience as any kind of golden goose. The test scores for the school district have been stagnant for years with very little movement up or down. I think it is time to try something different. As an academic advisor up at UAF, I think I am the only person running for the School Board that actually has experience with these students once they get out of the system. I see the test scores and I know how college ready the students really are. I know for the engineering department (where I work) of the students that are not college ready only 7% graduate with an engineering degree. That is a real life vision of what happens when students are not held to a higher standard while they are in school, a more profound vision is the fact that about 40% of our students are not college ready when they get here. I see the results of a just pass them through system and I feel I can help get things back on the right path.

As I said above I am new to this so I don't have a blog of anything set up but once I find out how to do that I will pass it along to you.

Thanks for being part of the election process and if you have any additional questions or know anyone that does please fell free to send me another message.

Ryan

Proposition 2: Real Numbers and a Prediction

Okay, this should be my final post on the Proposition 2: PM2.5 issue. Post before last I mentioned a coal boiler. This boiler is running with more heat output and less fine particles per million BTU of heat then the wood pellet stoves that are still "approved" according to Prop. 2. Here is the test result:

Note the heat output of 273,041.69 BTU’s/hr with Average Emission of 0.035 lb/MMBtu.

Now compare this number to several of the EPA approved wood pellet stoves link here. The top two listings are:

1) Northwest Manufacturing, Inc. Flex-Fuel 30 KW indoor/outdoor Heat Output 110,167 BTU/hr and Average Emission Level 0.04 lbs/million BTU output

2) Central Boiler Maxim M250 Heat Output 212,453 BTU/hr and Average Emission Level 0.06 lbs/million BTU output

The Titan II has better heat output with lower emissions then the EPA list of "Cleaner Hydronic Heaters" using wood pellets. If meeting EPA PM 2.5 requirements really is part of the goal of Prop. 2 why are less efficent wood pellet stoves still approved under this proposition yet coal burners for homes are not. Why are the various coal burning commercial industries accetable and how did the research delineate the difference of PM 2.5 from these commercial sources from individual home devices? Update 9/30/11 Mr. Muir sent a link to video footage of the Titan II.

Information above provided by Mark Sanford of Alaska Interior Transport and North Pole Gravel Products who had his commercial Titan II Coal Boiler tested.

Did you know that the scientific paper recommendations used as the basis for Proposition 2 was written in part by Mr. John Davies who is running for Borough Assembly Seat H? You can find the paper here. The title is Reducing PM2.5 Emissions from Residential Heating Sources in the Fairbanks North Star Borough: Emission Estimates, Policy Options, and Recommendations.

Here is a screen print:



According to the report (Table 4 p. 25) estimated numbers of Hydronic heater devices is 1500. I have personally contacted know dealers of coal and wood outdoor boilers and the actual number of known hydronic heaters sold in this borough is 389. About 6 in the past 3 years from Ken Hansen the WoodDoctor. No more than 200 units from Don Trometter of North Pole Pipe and Supply (a Central Boiler Dealer) since 2004. Mr. Kelsch, a former dealer for Alaska Warm Wood in 2008 sold 12 combined coal and wood boilers, 1 to someone in Delta Junction. Robert Dibble of Arctic Spas and EcoWater Systems (no longer sells hydronic heaters) has sold 125 combined wood and coal boilers since 2008. Ron Muir and Mark Sanford have sold 46 coal boilers since 2008, they are part of North Pole Gravel. Granted there is potential for wood/coal boilers to have been purchased outside the limits of dealers in the area and outside the quoted business operation years so lets add 10% to the numbers. That gives us a potential of 428 actual outdoor heaters in the non-attainment area, still less than 1/3 the estimated number used by the white paper.

What does all this mean? The actual number of Hydronic Heaters is much less then what the white paper research is based on - which is the template for Prop. 2. So the real impact of removal of banned heating burners and fuels will not be enough because there were not that many to begin with. It means that no matter what is implemented with this proposition we are destined to fail reaching the EPA goals. None of this takes into account the particulates we get from China in the spring, how will we stop that?

So, here is a prediction if this passes. The EPA PM 2.5 goal will not be attained in the non-attainment area by the due date of April 2014. There will be a push within that time frame to do more to meet the requirement. This push will bite into home owners’ indoor fireplaces and woodstoves. Although Healthy Air Now proponents claim this proposition will not affect woodstove owners many woodstove owners will face fines regardless of proper burning technique. Opacity limits of smoke plumes will be lowered from 30% to 20% or less. More outright bans will be instituted; this could be bans of ever increasing home heating devices and/or fuel types, burn days (think super cold days), even particular areas of the cities of Fairbanks and North Pole (think School zones). In fact, I predict that all of this could happen even if Prop. 2 doesn’t pass!

The long term effects of FNSB trying to attain the ever changing, unattainable, and arbitrary requirements of an entity of the Federal Government manned by appointees will crush us. We need to tell them to go fly a kite! We do, can and will do our best to educate and voluntarily adapt to keep our air as clean as we can reasonably do so.

This is not about PM 2.5; it’s about filling the Borough coffers with revenue. This is not about healthy air now; it is about producing greater reliance on expensive fuels and government. This is not about safe breathing, this is about warm homes. This is not about EPA; it’s about our liberty to choose self-reliance.

No on Prop. 2

Update 10/4/11 Just found an article for No on 2 view. I found it because it had a link to this site. I didn't read it all, just browsed it; it appears to be all Q & A format. So here is the article: Where's The Smoke?

More Info. on Proposition 2: Alaska Pride

Another blogger down in Anchorage has done a post on this issue check it out:

http://alaskapride.blogspot.com/2011/09/more-facts-and-stats-about-2011.html

Proposition 2: PM 2.5 Ban Expansion and Fee Increase

I have gathered a lot of information on this proposition. Although I provided some of this information on the Proposition page I will include it here again for your convenience.

FNSB Proposition 2 - Healthy Air Protection Act (by Citizen's Initiative Certified July 13, 2011) (Ordinance Submitted by Petition)

A YES vote on Proposition 2 will result in the following:

• Removing 4 of 7 approved "Solid Fuel Burning Appliance". Removed: Coal stoves, wood-fired hydronic heaters (outdoor wood boiler), coal-fired hydronic heater, and coal-fired furnaces.



• Ban coal use (including Healy Clean Coal) for homeowners, churches, etc. Exemptions for: Power Plants* (which burn coal).



• Establish that a smoke plume not cross property lines at values of "35 micrograms per cubic meter or greater than the surrounding neighborhood background PM 2.5 levels".



• Establish that a smoke plume be no greater than 30% opacity for more than 15 minutes in any hour.



• Provide for up to 3 "code enforcement officers".



• Raise current offense fees: Misuse 1st offence with 1 warning from $30 to $100 (minimum change ) - Misuse during Air Quality Zone 2nd offence (new) from a offence with 3-day warning period of $100/day to No warning and $400 fine.



• Greater government control over your natural given (some say God given) right to self-sufficiency.



• All above listed results are assured.



• Maybe, speculative at best, enough of a reduction of PM 2.5 particles during "Air Quality Alert" Days (think -40 with inversions which cause "smog" to stay low to the ground) to satisfy the EPA.

Did you know there is a Coal Boiler in the borough that burns at greater efficiency (btu)then oil and much lower PM 2.5 output then the Healthy Air Now group will acknowledge? More in another post.

*GVEA 2 facilities, Military plants, UAF facility, Aurora, Flint Hills (I'm not sure if all burn coal but I know most do)

Assembly Seat H: John Davies and other Candidates

Still waiting for a response from Mr. Davies but he does have a website and here is a link to his "Why I Am Running" letter. It's very informative as to his stance on many issues.

I have yet to interview School Board Candidates but am getting closer to that.

I have spoken with Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Dukes, and Mr. Blanchard and am expecting email answers from them soon.

Mr. Davies, Mr. Aaron Bennett and Mr. Palembas are in my to call cue.

Assembly Seat D: Van Lawrence Radio Interview

On 9/21/2011 I listened to Problem Corner on 660am. On this program Steve Floyde interviewed Mr. Lawrence and callers were able to ask questions as well. Here are my notes from the interview:

Q:Mr. Floyde asked about a solution for our energy problem.
A:Mr. Lawrence responded that the near term solution is trucking natural gas.

Q:Mr. Floyde asked, "Is it the governments job to make sure people have heat in their home?
A:The infrastructure is too expensive for a local business to take on. The Borough government can take a vital role as far as infrastructure goes. I don't know of any other source to help with high priced oil.

Q: caller: Frank Turney: Do you agree with Jury Nullification?
A: No, this is a country of laws. There is an objective standard as to what that law is.

Q: caller: Randy: Is concealed carry okay?
A: Yes, it's okay.

Q: caller: Gary: Where do your rights come from?
A: Mostly from the Constitution of the United States. It is a law interpreted by courts and not by jury. Jury Nullification creates uncertainty and unpredictability.

Assembly Seat E: Guy Sattley

I interviewed Mr. Sattley via phone on 9/23/2011. Although I emailed questions he preferred the phone method of answering questions over writing.

Please explain your thoughts on Jury Nullification.

No to jury nullification.

What is your stance on the Propositions?

Prop. 1 - Yes
Prop. 2 - No
Prop. 3 - Yes

Many politicians (whether they run for Senate or School Board) always claim their best for the job due to “experience”, is experience all its cut out to be or are there other attributes we should be looking for?

Experience helps. It's especially important for assembly members to be property owners and have experience in paying property taxes. This provides a vested interest in the budgeting process as property taxes are a large portion of the borough budget funding. Mr. Sattley also feels it's goo for "young blood" to get involved with the political process (like Natalie Howard who is 35).

Mr. Sattley is the one who informed me that there will be no Voter Guide Supplements mailed out this year. He expressed disappointment in that.

Assembly Seat D: Michael Dukes Round 2 Q & A

These questions were answered by phone interview on 9/23/2011

Please explain your thoughts on Jury Nullification.

Mr. Dukes believes there is a place for it. The Founding Fathers were concerned with the Judiciary having too much power and saw Jury Nullification as a way for the citizens to check that power.

Can a tax rate be so high that it’s not acceptable?

Yes, a tax rate can be too high. The FNSB is 2nd or 3rd highest property tax rate in the State. A balance between services offered by the Borough and property tax rates is necessary.

Please explain your thoughts on affirmative action.

The concept is a great idea but in practice it creates inequality. It's a bad deal. Jobs should be based on ability for the job.

What is school for? What is education for? Are they the same?

School is something with a limited timeline. It should be used to instill a love of learning. Education is continual and forever. They are two interlocking halves of the same hole.

Proposition 2 Public Forum Part 2

For the Yes on Proposition 2 public forum I was able to turn in two written questions.

1) Please explain the observer certified EPA Reference Method 9. (This is how certified observers will visually look at smoke plumes to determine opacity, which according to this propostion the limit is 30%).

A: Observers will recieve two 1/2 day trainings in which they have to certify every six months. They must identify opacity correctly with in 5%, if they miss 2 they fail. They will be trained in Night/Day, Black/White smoke, and how to distinguish between Smoke/Steam.

Now, here is an instance where I would have like the opportunity to clarify the answer via follow up questioning as in my research one really cannot acurately determine opacity without the sun.

2) When do air quality alerts most often occur? (An air quality alert is declared when the PM concentration reaches the onset level and is expected to remain at that level for 12 hrs)

A: Alerts most often happen when its cold outside, when people are home more and woodburning is used most. Also, there are daily peaks at 9am and 10pm.

During the panel I had new questions that I was unable to submit but after they ended I spoke with one of the panel member, Cathy Cahill. The Q & A is as follows:

Q. Can an increase to “sick days” be attributed to other factors then just wood smoke?

A. The health effects are directly related to the Total PM 2.5 mass which is made up of automobiles, diesel, ammonium nitrate, sulfate, woodsmoke and unexplained particles. So, yes other factors could play into the “sick day” health effects.

Q. Why do the EPA guidelines matter anyway? Why should we care?

A. They are set to protect health, based on studies that began in the 90’s.

Q. Really, what is the EPA threat? Is it tied to money?

A. Yes it ties into money. Ms. Cahill has a presentation outlining the EPA threat here. (What's Smoking Now? Fairbanks Air Quality and PM2.5
Presented by Cathy Cahill)


You can find more information at: www.healthyairnow.org

Next I hope to focus more on the other side of the issue. I’m still working on gathering that information.

Proposition 2 Public Forum Part 1

I was able to attend the Yes on Proposition 2 public meeting at the library. There were a lot of fliers and handouts, a few slide show presentations, and a Q & A panel. For the Q & A portion pieces of paper and pens were distributed to the audience to write their questions. A moderator then read the questions for panel members to answer. While I understand the way the Q & A was handled to be an effort to prevent anticipated outbursts, it also prevented questioners from follow up to clarify understanding of the answers.

The News Miner article can be found here.

According to the article the organizers of the meeting are open to a debate. I think this would be more useful to the public. “Panel organizer Joan Franz said they avoided making the event into a debate because they hoped to educate people about the proposition, but didn’t rule out the possibility of a future debate.“

This is a heated issue as reflected by the comments to the News Miner article. Some comments are as follows:

« Lance_Roberts wrote on Tuesday, Sep 20 at 12:36 AM »
The EPA tested their coal boiler and was blown away with how clean it emitted. They wouldn't give them the paperwork, instead sending it to the Mayor, who is holding the results off until after the election.

Navin wrote on Tuesday, Sep 20 at 07:09 AM »
I, also attended the gathering. Yes, it could have been educational, but the panel didn't seem to know the answers to the screened questions. Oh, there was one, it was a planted question for the Yes vote, "How can I help?". Seemed like a waste of an hour and a half.

It just feels like the Borough Mayor is trying to add another layer of government to the already bloated bureacracy. How much is going to cost us tax payers for the sneaky smoke sniffers? They aren't telling us that are they?

If you have a concern about a blatant violator, call the State DEC. They have the POWER to regulate and control the wood and coal burners in this Valley, let them do their job. The borough has no police powers and they are trying to attain some by passing the Prop 2. I say NO to the Sneaky Smoke Sniffers.

I was very impressed with Ron Muir of North Pole Gravel Products. He brought his flatbed truck loaded with a Titan 2 coal-fired stoker boiler. He said it was producing 40,000 BTU's, enough to heat the Noel Wien library. There was no smoke that I could see coming from the stack.

I guess it all boils down to surviving the winter the warmest and cheapest way we can. The cost of heating fuel determines everything. Flint Hill could lower their prices and save us all, but they won't. Why, it's called GREED. Why, again, it's called GREED. Anchorage fairs better than we do and they get fuel from North Pole as well.

Hey, let's call our representatives and see if they can help us out. Wait, then again, it's election time and they remember they have to have an issue for us to believe in, so we can send them back to Juneau. I don't think they really care that much or they are not that effective down in Juneau. Which is it? Can't help us at home and can't help us in Juneau.

I am voting NO to the Sneaky Smoke Sniffers on Prop 2.

FBX79 wrote on Tuesday, Sep 20 at 07:22 AM »
I too was at this session. I have a different impression than what the commentors below have. The pannel included respected experts in different fields. The information given was excellent. It is clear from each perspective our PM 2.5 pollution is creating a huge problem for our health and the health of our children. And it is clear that it is the wood boilers and coal stoves that are creating most of the problem. Those maps showing the PM2.5 levels show this clearly.

The panel took questions from anyone in the audience. There were clearly questions from both sides of the issue. Here are some of those questions that I heard, along with a summary of the answer that was given:

Q. Aren't most of the PM2.5s sulfate based, from cars, trucks, fuel oil? A. No, the data clearly shows that 60 to 80% is from burning wood.

Q. Why won't EPA give a variance for Fairbanks? A. There are other communities in the lower 48 that have similar geography. EPA didn't give them variances. EPA does give us a variance for summer wildfire smoke, but they won't for winter smoke since it is man caused.

Q. We have not lost one single military unit. Who keeps saying we have? A. We have lost the A10 and the F14 units. Huge cuts to the Department of Defense are coming. The military is responsible for 38% of the employment in our community. Why should we risk losing this component of our economy? And why should we keep hurting our children, our hope for the future?

Q. The North Pole monitor showed violations of EPA standard 11 times in 2009 (6 from wildfires), 8 in 2010, and only 4 this year? How is this getting worse? A. These figures are not correct. The number of exceedances was many times higher than this. (I need to correct the answer FBX79 gave to this question as the individual who answered the question stated that the North Pole filter only takes samples every 3 days so we could actually triple the numbers)

There were more questions from both sides, these are just the few I took notes on.

After the session I went out and looked at the coal stove. They guy was right, it wasn't putting out much smoke at the time. But what about all the coal stoves in our community that do belch smoke? And what about the lead, mercury, and other heavy metals that is found in the Healy coal? Google "USGS Report DDS-77." According to USGS, Healy coal has high concentrations of lead and selenium, and also has mercury and beryllium. The recent coal ash study found mercury levels inthe coal ash 70 times higher than background. We certainly don't want lead and mercury in the are we breathe.

We absolutely need a cleaner, cheaper fuel like natural gas. But we also need healthy air to breathe, and we need it now. Voting yes will get us healthy air.

OneDad wrote on Tuesday, Sep 20 at 07:24 AM »
I also attended.

First off, no questions were screened. They were simply collected in a stack and passed to the moderator and read in order (anyone actually at the meeting could see this, as the comments were visible in the room the entire time). One person with the mic reading questions is much faster, and prevents the yelling and drama that can build with emotional discussions like this one. That they did not eliminate questions is shown by some of the questions that were asked, such as "Unenforceable. How will the borough enforce this ordinance?"

Well, the Borough Mayor, Luke Hopkins happened to be there, and answered "The borough is required to use current staff for enforcement, to have three people do the job, and are required to begin enforcement on all fines at the same time. The Mayor at the time will decide on the scheduled for enforcement."

So, no, the questions were not screened.

and No, the Borough is not "just looking for a way to add another layer of government that the taxpayers will have to pay for. All they want to do is to increase the budget, add more employees, more salary and health insurance, more bloated expenses" They *can't* according to current law.

and anyway, this is a Citizen's Initiative! The Borough had nothing to do with it.

The DEC has been completely ineffective at stopping polluters so far, what makes you think they will suddenly become efficient pollution fighters?

Prop 2 will help our community take care of its own problems. Stand on your own two feet and vote yes on Prop 2.

More from the forum in my next post.

Repost: Bonding 101

Original post: Friday, October 22, 2010

Bonding Propositions and Ballot Measure Up Next but first...
Despite having been an excellent student in public school I did not learn much. I knew how to test well but what I studied did not stick! I'm sure most of us can relate to that. Now I am on a learning adventure and boy is it fun!

Let me ask you something.... do you know what a bond is? Do you understand the different types of bonds? Who sells them, who buys them? If you wanted to, how would you buy one? What is the rate of return on one?

In researching for this upcoming election these are some of the questions I have had and am currently (in my mid 30's) learning about. I have been voting since 18 and am just now trying to be an informed voter instead of a blind approver.

When "we the people" vote yes on a bonding proposition we are authorizing an investment proposal without knowing all the detail's of it. And from what I have learned I'm not sure I want to approve an investment proposal with out that information.

Here's what I've learned so far:

"A general obligation bond is a common type of municipal bond in the United States that is secured by a state or local government's pledge to use legally available resources, including tax revenues, to repay bond holders.

Most general obligation pledges at the local government level include a pledge to levy a property tax to meet debt service requirements, in which case holders of general obligation bonds have a right to compel the borrowing government to levy that tax to satisfy the local government's obligation."

Emphasis added, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_obligation_bond

In case you don't know, levy is defined as 1. impose tax: to use government authority to impose or collect a tax.

To me, and if my understanding is wrong please comment, the bond propositions are essentially "we the people" approving our government to sell pieces of paper (bonds) to investors who will then be paid back over an undisclosed period of time and at an undisclosed rate of interest. What money source will be used to pay back the investors? Who will the investors be? Why would they invest? If the money source is depleted before investors are fully paid the obligation owed them will additional taxes of the people be levied?

Just some food for thought....

Update 10/23/10 Just spoke with Rep. Tammy Wilson. Who I have always found to be quick to return my calls and willing to answer my questions. Some clarification and understanding on the bonding issues.

• The State of Alaska is guaranteeing the funds (which particular State funds used for the guarantee she was not certain on).



• She believes the bonds (essentially loans) are on a 30 year pay back plan.



• The terms of interest, etc. on the bonds is not delineated now; it is determined at the time when the bonds go out. Just like with a mortgage or car loan.

Proposition 2: A letter from Tammy Wilson

Dear Neighbor,

On the October 4 ballot there is a measure worthy of your attention. Proposition #2 is an attempt to regulate heating appliances in the Borough.

If Prop #2 passes:

1. The Borough is MANDATED to shut-down boilers and fine for woodstove use.

2. The Borough can hire wood “police” to check your cordwood moisture and

your furnace.

3. Your EPA-certified furnace may NOT be permitted inside the Borough because

the Borough will enforce a stricter emission standard than the federal

government.

4. A new layer of government will be created for enforcement.



The supporters of Proposition 2 will be holding a public meeting this Monday, September 19, at the Noel Wien Library on Cowles from 7 to 8:30 pm.

Proposition 2 is one of the most important votes our community will make this year. Sharing our knowledge openly with one another about the importance of these heating devices will assure we make the best decision in October. I want to make sure you are aware that a plan has already been implemented that addresses our air through a $3 million state grant for a wood/coal change out program, forestry has opened more wood cutting areas, borough has launched an educational program and the state has begun legal action against our true polluters. Many residents have already taken advantage of these programs and another 700 have their applications in the hopper.

Whether you agree or disagree with Prop 2, please consider attending this meeting to learn and make your position known.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 590-7602.


Sincerely,

Tammie

Assembly Seat E: John Kohler, Jr. Round 2 Q & A

Please explain your thoughts on Jury Nullification.

Its a great way to end up in US supreme court. The mear mention of 800-tel-jury during jury questioning will free your calendar quickly from jury duty. They have not called me back for jury duty in YEARS.

Can a tax rate be so high that it’s not acceptable?
yes of course. We have a nice group of folks at the ITA that works hard to make sure our local mil rate remains stable and attractive. It would be nice to see a flat tax federally.

Please explain your thoughts on affirmative action.

I have been a victim of affirmative action. Reverse descrimination sucks just as bad as non-codified descrimination. I rose above, and made my own work happen. Most folks can, it's just fun to whine.

What is school for? What is education for? Are they the same?
Schools should teach you how to learn and give you a baseline level of knowledge. Education is lifelong, and is driven by the learning skills and love of learning you get in schools or at home. If you were to draw a venn diagram , the two terms would largely overlap, but not completely.

Thank you for running for a seat in this election. Also, thank you to those candidates who responded to my first round of questions. I look forward to reading everyone’s thoughts and posting the results on my blog.
You are welcome. October 4th can't come soon enough for me. I hope you do your best to get out the vote.

Regards,
John kohler jr

Follow Up Questions to Round 1 Q & A

I sent out follow up questions to 3 of the 4 respondants. So far there are only 2 return answers(I still plan to send more questions). I will include answers by both in this post. Please note that I am simply copy and pasting from my email messages. If there are any typo's or mis-spellings I left them as is so as not to misquote anyone.

Follow Up to Joshua Bennett
Based on your answer to the political career question, and knowing you ran for Borough Assembly last year I’m curious what your goal is in this bid, especially considering your statement, “If I did anything different, it would be to not run for a political office at all.”

"I do not believe the "political system" is a very valuable way to effect change. It usually comes down to the two "sides" dividing the people and getting the people to be against their neighbor, which is anti-Liberty at its core. The problem is because of the "other guy", and takes the focus off of the actual problem, the political system itself. All we do when we see one of the partys come to power, is they use political force to push their way on others.
Where does that system and freedom coexist? It can't. So when I said if I did anything different, I would not run, its because I am not seeking to force my ideals on anyone. I hope to use the forum that candidates get when they run for office to get the message of Liberty out (as I see it, based on history) to as many people as possible who might have otherwise never heard the concept.
If I won the seat, I would simply continue to use that "bully pulpit" to try and show the fallacy of the system that steals and forces submission ,and contrast it with Liberty, with the hope some people would get it. If we can change people way of thinking, then we have real change, and an honest change that isn't forced on anyone. Freedom.
But, there are other ways to spread the message, which is what I meant by "not running at all"."

Follow Up to Edward King

You said, “I believe in letting the free market work so long as it is working, but I also believe in correcting its failures.” Can you provide any examples where a free market failure would need correcting and how that would be done?

"On classic example in a market failure is pollution. When the costs (such as deteriorated air quality) are not being paid in monetary terms, there tends to be an excess produced than the community would prefer. In these cases, some sort of non-market inference is needed to correct the failure. Other cases include situations in which the society would benefit in a situation was in place, but there is not an individual incentive to provide the service and an opportunity to free ride if they try. Police, fire protection, road services, etc, are examples of this. Finally, the market fails when the citizenry does not have the dollars to drive the market toward the desired outcome. Think public education where the parents may not have the education to teach or the money to pay for an education for their children. In these cases, the general population is improved by providing a service that is needed where the direct beneficiaries cannot pay for it themselves."

Assembly Seat E: Leslie McFarlane Round 1 Q & A

It took 1 week for Mr. McFarlane to get answers back to me. Still he was 1 of the only 4 to respond to the original questionnaire sent out 8/20/11.

Thanks so much for sending me these questions. I deeply appreciate your interest in public affairs.

1. What would you say are the top 3 attributes in a candidate?

1. Honesty
This involves not only not lying, but by not saying things that are technically true but are misleading. I'll give an analogy: If I know that we spend $150 a week on groceries, but I want to increase our spending to $175 a week, I could say that our projected grocery budget is 200 dollars a week and that we are cutting our spending $25 a week when we are actually raising our spending from $150 to $175. In government we can be that misleading and tricky with voters. We can actually want to raise the Borough budget by $5 million, but so as to cover it up, we can state that we cut the spending by setting the projected spending up $10 million, cut that by $5 million, and then hope that the voters won't catch on that all the way along we wanted to raise the budget by $5 million. The principle I will live by is to never do or say anything that I have to hope nobody finds out about.

2. Vote for what is best.
An officeholder's only consideration is to vote for what's best. For instance, a Borough Assembly member's only concern on his voting should be what's best for the Borough. Voting for what he knows is wrong in order to advance his political career, to please high ranking people in his party, and to please those who helped him in his campaign has no place!

3. Having a thick skin
A person should have the quality of learning from criticism. Issues need to be discussed from all angles. It is a shame for a person to act like he is a mistreated victim because people disagree with him. A candidate should never feel that those who disagree with him are his enemies.

2. What top five principles do you try to live by ? Why?

1. Persistence
A person shouldn't give up when the going gets rough.

2. Courage
A person needs to stand for what is right regardless of what the latest poll says. His consideration should not be on what the majority of the voters want, but on what is right. An adviser to President Reagan spoke to him about what the polls said. President Reagan told the adviser to not tell him any more about what the polls said , but to tell him about what was best for the American people.

3. Kindness
A person needs to be kind to everyone. That kindness needs to be shown to everyone, including his toughest opponent. He needs to run a positive campaign.

4. Humility
When a person is criticized he should try to learn by the criticism. It is always wrong for a political candidate to take the attitude that he know it all. He should never have a defensive attitude. Wanting to prove you're right and the critic wrong is our of order. Any person should always be ready to apologize when that is needed. President Abraham Lincoln mailed a letter of apology to the Union General in the Civil War, U. S. Grant, for what he had instructed him to do as General.

5. Thankfulness
There is always things to complain about, but there is always a lot to be thankful for. Having a cheerful, upbeat attitude is a necessity.

I will try to live by these principles because to me these are essential. I want to be held accountable for what I say I believe.

3.What makes a community a great place to live?

What makes a community a great place to live is the quality of the people living in it. You can have the greatest employment opportunities, educational opportunities, booming businesses, wonderful tourist attractions, but what counts first and foremost is the quality of the people in the community.

4.Have you ever made missteps in your political career? Care to elaborate or say what you would do differently today?

I haven't had a political career. I applied to be State Representative from District 11 when there was a vacancy in 2009, and now I'm running for the Borough Assembly.

5.Many politicians (whether they run for Senate or School Board) always claim their best for the job due to experience, is experience all its cut out to be or are there more attributes we should be looking for?

Experience is good, but I believe that is is greatly overrated. There are more attributes that we should be looking for. One thing that I believe is important is that especially next year when candidates are running in a primary that they be asked a simple question. They need to be asked that in the event they lose the primary,that they will accept the primary result and not run a write in campaign. The majority vote of the people in primaries should be final.

When people stress only experience in a political candidate, I wish that they would think of the four great Presidents who are honored at Mt. Rushmore, South Dakota: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt. If at the time of them assuming the Presidency, how inspiring would their resumes have been if they had resumes back then?

George Washington was greatly embarrassed when as a British leader in the French and Indian War, it spread far and wide that he was forced to surrender to the French forces. In 1755 he ran for the Virginia House Of Burgesses in a three way race and came out a poor third, receiving less that 10% of the vote!

Thomas Jefferson in the Revolutionary war as Governor of Virginia fled from the State Capital because of British opposition. I don't say that with any hint of criticism about him, but I believe that his background coming to the Presidency was not altogether glamorous.

Abraham Lincoln lost seven political races before becoming President. His office holding experience consisted of 8 years(1834-1842) as a member of the Illinois State Legislature, and of 2 years(1847-1849) as a Congressman from Illinois.

Theodore Roosevelt became Vice President Of The United States after only 2 years as Governor of New York, and President after having been Vice President for 6 months and 10 days.

This hows me that there is more to be considered than experience.

I don't have a website yet, but I am working to get one. I'll let you know when it is up. I don't have a blog.

I thank you again for your questions, Ms. Robinson, and I will welcome your further input about government and politics. My home phone is 490-6966 and I reside at 1130 Glenn St. North Pole, Ak 99705.

Assembly Seat E: John Kohler Jr. Round 1 Q & A

Mr. Kohler responded in a respectable amount of time. Here are his answers.

I'll be rolling out my web site about September 1st, which should answer many of these questions @ www.kohler4assembly.com but until then, please let me try to answer your questions about my candidacy for seat E in order:


What would you say are the top 3 attributes in a candidate?
1. Heart for service
2. Ability to learn from others
3. Experience in working through problems with private sector (business) ,public , and non-profit enterprises. Some of the best solutions for problems come from Synergies between the different kinds of organizations. I hate those kinds of buzz words, but sometimes they are aptly used.


What top five principles do you try to live by? Why? 1. Love your neighbor (why else would a guy put himself through a campaign- YUK) . 2. Work Hard (nobody like a slacker). 3. Enjoy Helping( I do a lot of non-public helping with non-profits I care about) 4. Don't be afraid to try (and try hard) 5. KNow when to get help- (only about always- many hands make light work- and a person will rarely think of or be an expert on everything).


What makes a community a great place to live? Good people, and great opportunities to succeed. I am a fan of our borough in this regard.

Have you ever made missteps in your political career? My "political career" mostly consists of an appoint to the State Council on the Arts. My misstep was thinking that a statewide appoint/responsability would trump what I can accomplish working locally. I prefer local helping. it's easioer to wrap your mind and arms around problems that are within easy reach. When offered a shot at re-upping my State appointment I declined, and rejoined my local non-profit's board.


Many politicians (whether they run for Senate or School Board) always claim their best for the job due to “experience”, is experience all its cut out to be or are there more attributes we should be looking for? I think experience can count for alot. That being said, fresh energy and ideas and perspective is what refreshes the republic. I think everyone should have their turn in the barrel. I think experience is gained in local offices, and generally builds upon itself to the benefit of the folks represented. This is my first real stab at public office. I think my experience in business, Non-profits and light government service puts me in a good place to be a start up public servant.

Assembly Seat E: Ed King Round 1 Q & A

Mr. King was quick to respond to my email too. He did his answers essay style so first here are the initial questions I asked:

What would you say are the top 3 attributes in a candidate?
What top five principles do you try to live by? Why?
What makes a community a great place to live?
Have you ever made missteps in your political career? Care to elaborate or say what you would do differently today?
Many politicians (whether they run for Senate or School Board) always claim their best for the job due to “experience”, is experience all its cut out to be or are there more attributes we should be looking for?

Now for his answers:

I would like to start by thanking you for taking the time to be informed and asking important and intelligent questions. If you don't mind, I will answer your questions in a narrative rather than short answers to the independent questions.

I believe that elected officials are intended to provide 2 main functions. First, they should represent the interests of the people by examining issues and making decisions on their behalf. In this way, the individual citizens don't have to be bogged down by every issue and can instead focus on other aspects of their lives while knowing that someone else is representing them. Second, they should set the rules which balance protecting freedom with protecting health and well-being for the citizens they are serving. In order to achieve these aims, a political leader must be intelligent enough to deeply understand the issues at hand, honest about what they hope to achieve and have the integrity to be consistent in their decision making in the face of adversity. That is why I know I am a good leader and public servant. I live my life based on the those very principles: open-mindedness, humility, compassion, integrity, and honesty.

I believe that it is a society that understands and respects it's fellow members that makes a community great. This community is among the greatest in the world because of the mentality it maintains in respecting each other's freedom and individuality while being willing to provide a helping hand when it is needed. I want to ensure that this community remains a great place to raise a family. That includes maintaining an economy which provides income opportunity, affordable housing and energy, great educational opportunity and a healthy and safe environment. As an economist, I believe in letting the free market work so long as it is working, but I also believe in correcting its failures.

This is my first venture into politics directly, but I have been a public servant for my entire adult life. I spent 6 years in the Army, right out of high school, including a year in Iraq protecting our troops and Iraqi civilians from roadside bombs. I continue to serve and protect people in need through volunteer efforts and I continue to advance my understanding of the complex system in which we live through graduate level classes to add to my economics degree from the University of Washington. I do believe that experience is important if the person uses it as an intellectual foundation to examine what has worked as well as learning from mistakes. However, many times that experience can also lead to a reliance on tradition and an excuse not to examine a situation from the current context. Although I have not yet held a public office, I am very familiar with weighing costs and benefits as well as making tough decisions. Leading a group of soldiers in combat requires that they trust you are looking out for them, I carry that same mentality into office as I lead the good people of the North Star Borough.

Assembly Seat H: Joshua Bennett Round 1 Q & A

Each time I have asked Mr. Joshua Bennett questions I have recieved very prompt answers. Here are the Q & A for round 1.

What would you say are the top 3 attributes in a candidate?

1. Understanding the Constitution of the United States of America, and the State of Alaska, being willing to follow it even if it's not popular, and knowing that the Constitution limits the candidate if he is elected and not the citizen.

2. Understanding that private "property is surely a Right of mankind as Real as Liberty" and that government is instituted by the people to protect property and who knows it is unjust for a government to deny a citizen the free use of his own property.

3. Understanding that Liberty is for all people, and the elected official is required to see to it that all Citizens Rights are protected, knowing that compromising even one Citizens Rights is wrong, and that using force to tax one Individual to give to another is wrong.

What top five principles do you try to live by? Why?

I can narrow it down to two principles:

1. Love the Lord with all your heart.

2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

If you love your neighbor as yourself in all aspects of your personal, business, and public life, which means practicing self control and respecting the Rights of our neighbors, you can sleep at night knowing you always try to do Right by your fellow man, and you can live without the worry of accusations of wrong doing being brought against you.
And it's how I want my children to live, so I need to show them by example.

What makes a community a great place to live?

A community that practices the "Golden Rule", if we all would, it would be evident that we do not need the government to regulate every aspect of our lives, the freedom that would come with that would encourage the free market and industry to thrive in our local community, and our local society would take care of those less advantaged through neighborly means, and not through the force of government. That would make a great and prosperous community to live in.

Have you ever made missteps in your political career? Care to elaborate or say what you would do differently today?

I have never had a career in politics, and don't intend to make it a career. I believe career politicians are a detriment to our society. Most have never known life outside of the public life, and have never created any real wealth, growth, or contributed to society from the private sector whatsoever. Instead, they take the wealth of the People to empower and entrench themselves, they stifle growth in the private sector by regulating it, and the contributions they make are of other people's wealth, and never their own. No I don't think I want this to be a career.
If I did anything different, it would be to not run for a political office at all.

Many politicians (whether they run for Senate or School Board) always claim their best for the job due to “experience”, is experience all its cut out to be or are there more attributes we should be looking for?

As I said above, being an "experienced" politician is no attribute at all. Experience in the private working sector would be good, but knowledge of the fundamentals of Liberty and the relationship between the Citizen and the state are attributes I look for.

Website: Bennetts for borough on Facebook. Blog: Patriotslament.blogspot.com. I also have a radio show on Saturdays on KFAR at 10 a.m.

2010 Borough Election Assesments

This post originaly posted by me on a different blog in Oct. 2010. It has since been removed from that blog and put here.

For the 2Nov2010 Unoffical voter guide go to: http://interioralaskavoterguides.blogspot.com/

This Tuesday Oct. 5th is a city/borough vote. As I am not in either city areas I am only sending out information I’ve gathered about the borough vote. I hope my hours of research thru original documents and interviews with candidates will benefit you and help you be a informed voter. Thomas Jefferson said, “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.” We must be informed voters. I know many say, “I vote for the important vote (usually meaning the President of the USA, Senators, and Representatives)”. In truth, this vote is more important as it more immediately impacts you.

ASSEMBLY (SEAT B)

Diane Hutchison: My impression is that she is more liberal in her political views although not as arrogant as some other candidates. Spoke with her briefly, she is supported by the NEA and some other unions. She answered 3 questions I asked her about federal funding, PM 2.5, and energy on her facebook page Diane borough assembly Facebook page

*Eric Donald Grabber: Spoke with him 40 minutes. He is conservative, thinks the PM 2.5 science is wrong and will vote Yes on Proposition A, pro-2nd Amendment and property rights. He is an entrepreneur and is against trucking in gas (thinks there are better solutions). He does not have a web site, blog, or facebook page. His number is 488-3850.

Joshua Bennett: Constitutional conservative. For smaller government and people’s rights over bureaucracy. We spoke briefly and he addressed several of my questions on his facebook page in the discussion area Bennets For Borough Facebook page


ASSEMBLY (SEAT C)

**Natalie Howard: I saw her at a recent Road Service meeting and she had good input to share there. She was open and listened and did not have an attitude of she knows best. She has a website: nataliehoward.us She is for:
• Transparent and Accountable Borough Government
• Responsible Fiscal Policies
• Limited Government that Respects Individuals
• Respect for Individual Property Rights
• Air Quality

Kelly E. Brown: was also at the Road Service meeting I attended and had an attitude toward us as being ignorant people who didn’t understand the government. I was unable to get a hold of her or even leave a message. In regards to the PM 2.5/Proposition A issue she said, “It needs to fail. Part of our [Borough] control plan needs to have some restriction, or we’ll lose local control.” Home: 452-5870 Cell: 590-9106

ASSEMBLY (SEAT D)
I didn’t do as much research here as I have listened to Michael Dukes on the radio many times and know his views on issues are in line with mine. Both Michaels are conservative and more for limited government.

Richard E. Tallant: I heard Richard Tallant at a forum last night. He appears to be conservative also. Home: 490-4811 Cell: 347-9898

*Michael Dukes: It appears three conservatives are running against one more liberal (Bartos) candidate. In all honesty I think Dukes has the best chance to win of the conservative candidates due to better name recognition. Home: 490-2434 Cell: 378-8499

Michael Palembas: I will say that I listened to some forums and Michael Palembas also sounded in line with conservative views. Cell: 347-4807

Hank Bartos: You can glean some information from an old website of his http://www.hankformayor.com/ This was all I found. Home: 488-3366 Cell: 347-4498


ASSEMBLY (SEAT I)

*Guy Sattley: Don’t know much about him and did not yet try to contact him. Eric Grabber (Seat B candidate) indicated he is more conservative then Kassel but less so then the Bennet brothers. 457-4149 Cell: 347-0384

Frank W. Turney: I don’t think he is serious about geting a seat. During one forum he kept answering with a bit about how Alaska needs to become the Hemp Hub and it can be used for fuel, fiber, etc. Home: 457-2333 Cell: 799-2156

Karl Kassel: I found these two websites for info on him, I noticed he is supported by several unions: http://kasselforassembly.com/ and http://politics.kosmix.com/topic/Karl_Kassel


*Aaron Bennett: Joshua’s brother. Constitutional conservative. For smaller government and people’s rights over bureaucracy. His views are in line with his brothers. Bennets For Borough Facebook page


SCHOOL BOARD (SEAT C)

Sue Hull: Knew her from church, you can glean information from this site: http://vote-ak.org/Intro.aspx?State=AK&Id=AKHullSue Home: 479-5729 Cell: 378-7139

Dean Ash: All I know about him I learned from Eric Grabber. He is a homeschooling dad and is conservative. He did not return my call Cell: 750-9902

SCHOOL BOARD (SEAT D)

Kristina Brophy: Spoke briefly; she does not have any website, blog, or facebook page. As far as I can tell from forum answers she has an “experts and experienced people know best” mentality. Home: 457-1178 Cell: 314-800-8477

**Michael D. Ames: Know him personally and fully endorse him. He has a blog: http://michaelamesforschoolboard.blogspot.com/ Cell: 388-1588


Proposition A:

Basically this is to say, “The borough shall not ban, prohibit, or fine residents for the use of home heating devices.” As it stands now with PM 2.5 or Ordinance No. 2010-28 the borough can fine $30-$50 per infraction. They will employ Air Quality Control Officers who will visually determine if a household is in compliance or not by watching the “smoke” plume emanating from a home. If the opacity level is greater than 50% for more than 15 minutes per hour (except a 20 minute startup from cold unit) the household is in violation. Only first time violations will be warned, subsequent violations will have no requirement of warning. Also the ordinance states, “C. PM2.5 Emissions Crossing Property Lines. No person shall cause or permit emissions from a solid fuel combustion appliance to impact the resident(s) of an adjacent property through the creation of an emissions plume that:
crosses the adjacent property line” . Get that?! Your smoke plume cannot cross property lines or you will be in violation. Also, “It shall be unlawful to install or fail to remove a solid fuel burning appliance installed in violation of this section.” Finally, the last section sounds contradictory to me. It states, “… shall have only prospective application” Prospective means, “relating to or effective in the future” which implies to me the concept of grandfather rights. But then the section immediately states, “meaning no provision shall apply to any act, including installation or purchase of a solid fuel appliance completed prior to the effective date.” This statement seems to negate the grandfathering rights concept.

**Vote Yes: http://www.northstarlandowners.com/ Borough Assemble members running now who voted noes on the Ordinance No. 2010-28 and subsequently support this Proposition are: Natalie Howard and Guy Sattley

Vote No: http://cleanairfairbanks.wordpress.com/ Borough Assemble members running now who voted Ayes on the Ordinance No. 2010-28 and subsequently do not support this Proposition are: Kelly Brown and Hank Bartos. Though they have no power in the Assembly, School Board candidates who are in line with this position are: Sue Hull and Kristina Brophy.

Proposition B:

This is to reenact a tax cap. The people have to get signatures to put the Proposition up for a vote to maintain the tax cap requirement on the Borough every two years. It’s been going on a long time. No other information.

*Yes
No