News from Patrick Flynn



One is the loneliest number

One of my neighbors recently e-mailed me with an update on efforts to establish a new dog park on this side of town.  I always appreciate folks keeping me in the loop on these sorts of things as it better enables me to spread the word and keep others informed.  Then, at the end of the e-mail, came this question:

P.S. Why does Downtown only have one assembly seat?

Excellent topic for a blog post, right?  First, let’s see what the Anchorage Charter has to say:

Section 4.01.  Power, composition and apportionment.

The legislative power of Anchorage is vested in an assembly of 11 members. Election districts, if established, shall be formed of compact and contiguous territory containing as nearly as practicable a relatively integrated socioeconomic area. The assembly shall be reapportioned whenever it becomes malapportioned. The assembly shall determine and declare by resolution whether or not it is malapportioned within two months from:
(1)   Adoption of a final state redistricting plan under art. VI, sec. 10, Constitution of the State of Alaska;
If the assembly determines that it is malapportioned, it shall, within six months of the determination, reapportion itself in the manner provided by law.

Section 4.02.  Term, membership and qualifications.
(a)   If all assemblymen are elected from single member districts, the term of an assemblyman is two years. If some or all assemblymen are elected from multi-member districts, the term of an assemblyman is three years.
(b)   A candidate for the office of assemblyman:
(1)   Shall be a qualified voter of Anchorage; and
(2)   Shall be a resident of the district from which he/she seeks election for at least one year immediately preceding the election.
(c)   An assemblyman shall remain a resident of Anchorage and of the district from which elected while in office.
(d)   The assembly shall be the judge of the election and qualification of its members. A qualified voter may appeal to superior court for review of a decision of the assembly under this section.
(e)   A person who has served on the assembly for three consecutive terms may not be reelected to the assembly until one full term has intervened.

The most important thing to glean from the above is that the charter is flexible as to whether Assembly members are elected by the community at-large (like School Board members), multi-member districts (like all of Anchorage except Downtown, Fairview, Government Hill, Mountain View & South Addition – Section 1) or single-member districts.  During the last apportionment debate early this decade I recall one friend suggesting 10 single-member districts and a city-wide elected chair, but that’d require a charter amendment as it currently provides that:

The assembly shall elect annually from its membership a presiding officer known as “chairman.” The chairman serves at the pleasure of the assembly.

But I digress, so back to history (based on my memory and reading, so I’ll apologize in advance for any errata).  When the Municipality of Anchorage was apportioned following the unification of the city and borough in the mid-1970’s Assembly seats were lettered A through K, then modified by the section (district) numbers 1 through 6.  Five two-member districts were drawn with a single-member district for the Chugiak-Eagle River so the seats were assigned as follows:

  • Section 1, seat A – Downtown
  • Section 1, seat B – Downtown
  • Section 2, seat C – Chugiak/Eagle River
  • Section 3, seat D – West Anchorage
  • Section 3, Seat E – West Anchorage
  • Section 4, Seat F – Midtown
  • Section 4, Seat G – Midtown
  • Section 5, Seat H – East Anchorage
  • Section 5, Seat I – East Anchorage
  • Section 6, Seat J – South Anchorage
  • Section 6, Seat K – South Anchorage

In the mid-80’s the apportionment that became effective for the 1985 election added the military bases and a portion of Northeast Anchorage to Section 2, thereby growing it into a two-member district and rendering Section 1 a single-member district.  That led to seat A, originally held by Tony Knowles and, at that time, held by Jane Angvik, migrating to Section 2 and being filled by Fred Dyson.  That’s why, today, Debbie Ossiander occupies seat A, I’m in seat B and Bill Starr is in seat C.  (See, even the most convoluted situations occur for a reason.)

Here’s where historical memory diverges: my understanding is that the single-member district was supposed to rotate throughout the municipality each 10 years thereby maintaining equal representation.  I once discussed this with Rick Mystrom, who was on the Assembly during that mid-80’s apportionment, and his recollection was that the greater Downtown area was considered so unique it was better served by a single-member district, thereby allowing its representative to better focus on district concerns.  Whatever the intent of the Assembly 25 years ago, the mid-1990’s apportionment tweaked but did not fundamentally change Assembly Sections and the next apportionment can proceed in whatever direction that Assembly chooses.

From my perspective, representing a single-member district has both pluses and minuses.  On the positive side, I rarely disagree with myself so I generally don’t have to argue with another Assembly member about the best approach to neighborhood issues.  On the negative side, I don’t get to divvy up the workload with another colleague.  And, as a neighbor has pointed out several times, if one of my constituents doesn’t agree with or like me there’s no other municipal representative to whom he or she can appeal (I presume this is an entirely hypothetical concern!).

As readers likely know, the 2010 census is getting underway and the population data it generates will inform first the apportionment of state legislative districts and then Anchorage municipal Assembly Sections.  At that time our community can look at how Sections need to morph in order to remain appropriately apportioned and discuss whether the single-member district should migrate to another part of the Municipality, though that change wouldn’t take effect until the 2013 election at the earliest.

Regards,

Patrick

This contribution was made on Saturday, 19. December 2009 at 09:18 and was published under the category Neighborhoods. You can follow comments on this entry through the RSS-Feed.

«  –  »

5 Comments

  1. Representation is important to the people of Anchorage and the effectiveness of the Assembly but the involvement of the Anchorage people is even more important. There is way too much non-involvement and non-concern. I remember the discussions on the equal-opportunity issues and the Assembly just was having a very hard time dealing with the people. There is either too much or too little involvement and there is the inability of the Assembly to be efficient on behalf of the people.

    Patrick Flynn is the one member of the Assembly that communicates with the people outside of the Assembly meeting.

    The city is involved in the IBEW labor contract and the contract seems to be bad for the employees of Anchorage. The contract does not discuss what is in it for the Union. A whole lot more than what is in it for the employees. The employees have five days to study the 56 page document. There are no explanations and there is no way to find out and question except at the union hall. The general thinking now is the contract is bad. There is a vote to be had and it is even made convenient to the employees, some what.

    Why do we need a Union? If the contract is not good for the employees why do we need it? To begin with, some employees will be forced to take a pay cut and pay the union dues on top of that. This contract has little to no value.

    The contract discusses nothing about what the union receives in the deal. The city just went into union contracts that have almost bankrupt the city and we are now discussing a new contract that really is hurting the employees!

    Are Nancy B. Usera and Lisa Arnold in touch with employees of this contract? No, they are in touch with the union. Is the Union in touch with the employees; no, they are in touch with the MOA.

    Section 2.1 is a lot of nice words but has no meaning in real life. The mutual benefit should also include the employees. The MOA and the UNION are not the only entities here. The contract does not mention the number of employees!

    The IBEW needs to hire Mark Begich or have they already and the IBEW members are paying for the better contractors of the other unions.

    Comment: Del Baldwin – 19. December 2009 @ 10:37 am

  2. Thanks Patrick. What I gather then is that even though I am totally honored and feel represented, it is a capricious designation that causes the downtown area to have one Representative.

    I have lived here 15 years and it has always been so.

    I am grateful to be informed.

    Comment: Christopher Constant – 19. December 2009 @ 12:13 pm

  3. Thanks for another informative post.

    Comment: Sam – 19. December 2009 @ 2:08 pm

  4. Thank you Patrick for the information. Interesting!

    Comment: Jillanne – 20. December 2009 @ 2:56 am

  5. I don’t have problem with our single member district. We have had very good Assemblymen! When we did have two members, we were lumped in with Eagle River/Chugiak with which we didn’t have anything in common. We were lucky to have Craig Campbell & Fred Dyson – two very caring & involved members. I do not feel we would have been well served by subsequent ER/C members! I don’t see how they could align us with other areas without making the other Anch areas equally gerryrigged as we were before. I could be wrong & am open to convincing. I can also understand Patrick’s wishes for help, but I feel we are no bigger than half a district represented by two members. Patrick, thank you for all you do!

    Comment: Niki Burrows – 09. August 2011 @ 11:37 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Categories

Pages

Community councils

Links

Local government

Media

State government

Archives

RSS Feeds – Admin

 

Copyright - Patrick Flynn, All Rights Reserved