Say what?--The Boston Globe reported a few days ago, and the FBI counterterrorism unit leaders have confirmed, that the FBI has launched an investigation of U.S. auto theft rings after discovering some of the vehicles used in Iraqi car bombings were probably stolen in the U.S. The investigation began when coalition troops raided a bomb factory in Fallujah last November and found an SUV being readied for a bomb. That SUV was stolen in Texas. It's stories like this that make me wonder how the "war" on terrorism is going. It's stories like this that make me wonder if we ought not prioritize our efforts--perhaps de-emphasize the likely future requirement that Alaskans needing a passport to drive to Whitehorse or secretly searching our library records. Then they could perhaps concentrate a bit more on how stolen vehicles can make it from Texas to Iraq where they are blown up in Iraqi marketplaces or in front of Iraqi police stations.

We are what we were?--A bill that changes our legislative ethics law to penalize a person with a fine up to $5,000 if they disclose they've filed an ethics complaint against a legislator passed the Senate 12-8 on a straight party line vote. The Rs were aye, the Ds were nay. Bill sponsor Ralph Seekins also wanted jail time in addition to the fine but that was deleted before the Senate sent the bill to the House. He told the Alaska press last week about letting go of his desire for jail time: "You've got to get used to me. I'm a used car salesman. I start high and work my way down." Just before I came to the legislature, I was a fishmonger--the director of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute. We hold a fish up against our nose to see if it's good or not. That's what I did with his bill that punishes someone who files a complaint about one of us and then gets fined if he or she tells his or her spouse. It stinks. Guess we're both products of professions.

A hint of romance--Wedding bells are on the horizon for Sen. Donny Olson. Rumors began to vibrate through the Capitol a couple weeks ago of the impending nuptials for the Nome Democrat and a staffer who currently works for one of the House's Republican leaders. They were confirmed last week.

Phone: (907) 465-4947
Fax: (907) 465-2108
Mail: Sen. Elton, State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Email:
Senator.Kim.Elton
Jesse.Kiehl
Paula.Cadiente
Web: http://elton.akdemocrats.org

      Do any of us really believe that creating a community as magnificent as our scenery is enabled by having a judge pick a winner (and a loser) in the Kensington mine project?
     Nah. Making the Kensington project a playground for lawyers only means that sometime, out in the future, we'll probably either have a mine or not--we'll have a winner and a loser.
     Our growing dependence upon the third party court system to pick a 'winner' when it comes to creating an economically strong and aesthetically/spiritually pleasing community has at least three real pathologies: 
     First, training ourselves to send community conflicts to a judge inevitably lessens engagement at the community level as, over time, opponents know they can skip the difficult part of community building and go straight to lawyers;
     Second, letting a judge pick a winner usually means that, eventually, some side has no ownership in the solution;
     Third, going to court only changes the venue of the conflict, it doesn't ease conflict but instead raises the level of conflict and angst while also raising the cost of making decisions.
     I was asked several days ago to add my support and voice for Governor Murkowski's decision to add state lawyers to the Kensington legal scrum. I respectfully declined even though I believe we can gain a mine that protects values that I hold as dear as many in the environmental community. His decision to pile on in court to find a legal solution is just as flawed as the decision by some in the environmental community to go to court to find a legal solution.
     Unfortunately, WWMD (what would Murkowski do) is as predictable as WWSEACCD (what would SEACC do). Both sides seek a decision from the court that makes the other side lose. Neither side guarantees the community wins.
     I believe that our economic development and our environmental stewardship are inextricably linked. I also believe that linkage is easily severed when black-robed judges are forced to make a decision based on a law or laws crafted in distant Washington D.C. and implemented through regulations forged in the crucible of a distant bureaucracy.
     That's why I'm impressed by the WWCBJD approach. When the City and Borough of Juneau was asked by the governor to endorse his legal tactic (adding to the court scrum) they did me one better. Instead of simply declining respectfully, their answer was to suggest mediation. 
     Mediation pulls us back from the 'what's legal brink' and puts us back into the what works best for the community mode. It can help us get beyond the either/or recipe and into a decision that everyone has ownership interest of (sorry, mom--I know you hate it when I end a sentence in a preposition).
     Successful mediation means we get to create our own, new community-level operating model. We need not be stuck with a judge's interpretation of the federal operating model. (A model, in this case, written in the early 1970s. How many of us think Microsoft succeeds by clinging to decades old business models?)
     But to be successful, mediation requires a certain open-mindedness by all parties. It's giving up to gain. It's admitting that the future is not a battlefield but instead a collaboration.
     And there are collaborative possibilities. Coeur and SEACC worked together for weeks seeking common ground on the Kensington. I've talked with both sides and know they got close but not close enough to satisfy either end of the economic and environmental spectrums. Dialogue stopped too soon--but that's what often happens when we allow the ends of the spectrum a veto. And too often, when the ends of the spectrum do force it into the legal system, the thoughtful concessions made by both sides in the middle are lost.
     My biggest fear is the Kensington dispute becomes less a question about how mine tailings are defined and whether they end up in Slate Lake and more a question about our willingness to compromise instead of prevail. Coeur and SEACC and Juneau and the region and the state have much at risk here and rolling the dice in court should never be the preferred option.
     Right now the preferred option isn't for us to pick sides with the governor or SEACC but to encourage talk through mediation as suggested by the mayor and the majority of the assembly.
     Good on 'em. And good on Coeur and their allies and SEACC and their allies for heeding the city's advice.