It’s been a few years since I last visited Juneau, Alaska’s capital city, and a variety of factors, not least of which that I’ve co-chaired the Assembly’s legislative committee for six years, inspired a return last week.
In case you missed our local paper letting the cat out of the bag, I recently decided to run for re-election to the Anchorage Assembly, though it wasn’t an easy decision.
After months of painfully long discussions about the allocation of state capital funds the Assembly failed to decide on December 3 how to handle the artificial “tennis versus hockey” argument. It’s not clear how this ersatz “choice” found its way into the dialogue, since facilities for both activities could be well-funded, but it set the stage for injecting excess emotion into an already complicated decision. (It’s worth noting we’ve already allocated $20.6 million in state grant monies to upgrade area hockey facilities.)
It’s been an interesting couple of months watching the controversy over funding for tennis facilities come to a head. The aspect most curious to me stems from the root causes, and what appears to be an unfortunate decision to ask government to be the arbiter of a conflict between two private entities. Please allow me to explain.
In preparation for the impending budget season the Assembly is planning a two or three hour retreat sometime in the next couple weeks to get ourselves in gear. Date, time and place are still undecided. The relatively brief length is indicative of the fact that most of us have a pretty clear understanding of the budgetary process. We do have two new members, however, and a few others who don’t spend as much time on matters fiscal, so it’s likely a good idea.
I received word this week that backers of a referendum to repeal Anchorage’s new labor law, the infamous AO 2013-37, have gathered a sufficient number of signatures to place the issue on the ballot. Ignoring whether one thinks well or poorly of this particular piece of legislation, that fact triggers an intriguing series of decisions.
Longer term residents of our fair community know I come by my interest in local affairs honestly – I grew up immersed in them. I have no idea how many dozens of gallons of ice cream I served at birthday parties for my mother, whose path into public service I dutifully, but futilely, tried to resist.
Greetings,
I’ve had a few folks contact me about my comments at our Tuesday, March 26, Assembly meeting. Some supportive, some not, and some whom I know well and am respectful of their intelligence & judgement (even when we disagree). To help answer their questions I’ve posted my notes below. They’re not verbatim (I’m not much for reading speeches), but they generally reflect my concerns regarding the process surrounding the labor ordinance.
Regards,
Patrick
Last week I picked up my massive binders containing the almost-final version of the Title 21 re-write. Assembly approval is one of the few major tasks facing us this spring so I’m slogging through it and will wrestle over inevitable final amendments but, in the end, I doubt I’ll vote for the darn thing. My problem with this work product which, depending on your point of view, may or may not be a worthy one, is the process by which it was arrived at.
I know, the holidays are here, you’re either receiving or visiting family and the last thing in the world you could possibly need is something else to do, right? But this one’s kind of fun – here’s how my neighbor put it (as slightly abridged by yours truly):
Copyright - Patrick Flynn, All Rights Reserved