Perverted public opinion...
NEW! Subscribe to RSS Feed
(2/24/09) Yesterday, a local radio talk show host, known for his ability to give out women's phone numbers on the air, reportedly took an Anchorage lawmaker to task for her co-sponsorship of a bill to modify the initiative process and then gave out her number over the air.
The host gave out the phone number of Rep. Cherisse Millette over and over again during his rant and encouraged people to call her and complain about HB36. What's odd is that the host didn't bother to include the phone numbers of the main sponsor (the one who actually controls the bill) or the other co-sponsor of the bill, only Millett's.
This same host was suspended from his job last September by station management after he released the names of women who organized an anti-Palin rally over the air and then gave listeners their phone numbers with encouragement to call them. The call for calls generated threats and insults from his listeners to the women.
This all began bright and early Monday morning when the radio host sent Millett an email, (email attached) promising that he was going to make sure her time in Juneau was limited.
"Glad to hear you want to limit my ability to change my government through the initiative process. I hope you don't mind I use my power to limit the time you are in office."
Rep. Millett immediately sent the host a complete analysis of the bill.
Thanks for your email.
I believe you may have misunderstood the purpose of the initiative legislation that I am a prime co-sponsor on. I too believe in the initiative process fully, I want this process to be fair and truthful and continue as a voice of the people.
This legislation would require the initiative process to be more open and transparent, so voters could have accurate, concise and factual information on what they are signing and possibly voting on. It also allows the public to know fully who is funding the initiative, exactly like we as candidates are required to do. Alaskans should know who, and why the initiative sponsors are involved in creating laws that we as citizens of Alaska will have to abide by. Laws should be written in full view of the Alaska people!
(Remaining text of letter continued at bottom of blog)
When the host took to the air on Monday, he went after Rep. Millett.
On the surface to listeners it might have seemed like just a policy disagreement, but for those of us who have known about the infamous text message, this was simply payback.
Last fall, before his suspension, the host had already been in trouble at the station. Late one August night, the host sent a perverted graphic x-rated text message to none other than Rep. Millett. The next day when confronted by an angry Millett, he tried to laugh it off, saying he had accidentily sent it to the wrong number.
Subsequently the management at the station found out about the text message and reportedly prohibited the host from mentioning Rep. Millett's name on the air.
Apparently the prohibition must have ran out yesterday and the host has a little payback on his mind.
Lets just hope the prohibition on graphic x-rated text messages is still in force.
To see the hosts email to Rep. Millette, click attached pdf.
Continued text from Rep. Millette:
Other requirements, such as the public hearings, are an important part of creating any law; much like the committee process, I believe the public should be allowed to ask questions of the sponsors to determine the pros and cons of the initiative. Every bill that passes is fully vetted by representatives from all 40 districts, also, we as legislators afforded an opportunity to ask questions and have on record the factual information on the genesis of a bill, the consequences and cost of any legislation; adding the public hearings requirements ensures this standard is not diminished in the initiative process, as it now stands Alaskans are bombarded by initiative signature gathers with a plethora of initiatives and there may be misunderstandings on which initiative your signing.
This leads to the next requirement of the initiative bill, allowing signature gatherers to collect signatures for only one initiative at a time. When faced by the signature gather it may become confusing on which initiative the discussion pertains to, a signature gatherer may be hired to gather on more than one initiative, sometimes as many as 6 as in the last election. While each initiative is different and changes a specific law, a signature gatherer’s job is quantity over quality – this makes me uncomfortable; in the legislature there is the ability to further contemplate legislation through additional committee assignments or face-to-face meetings with the sponsor or the sponsor’s staff. There is always an opportunity to ask questions, clarify points, and weigh in on the issue. This is not an option in the initiative process.
In the initiative process, there is more of a rush to gather signatures than explain each nuance of the initiative, and never a second chance to remove your support once signed. Initiatives, like legislation, are subject specific. However, within the subject there are various things addressed and some are overlooked or simply not understood by the public due to be overwhelmed by a signatures gathers requests. It is difficult to fully comprehend the issue at hand, and fairly impossible to come up with all of the possible unintended consequences of an initiative. Simply put - one initiative at time, much like we only hear one bill at a time. This provision, along with the payment restrictions of signature gatherers in HB 36, would enable signature gatherers to take more time on a specific issue rather than focus on their per-signature commission.
The next requirement is on how initiative gatherers are paid. I will refer back to my comment quantity over quality. I believe that when faced with one issue at a time the public has a better chance of understanding the issue, the conversation is more concise and deliberate. This also increases the openness and transparency of the initiative, reduces confusion and we have overall a better initiative process, after all these are citizen initiatives’ and citizens’ need to see the pros and cons clearly before adding there name for support.
Keep in mind that the public hearing requirements and the legislative hearing requirements of HB 36 does not give anyone the right to change the language of the initiative. Once the language of an initiative is certified by the Lt. Gov. it cannot be changed by anyone. These hearing requirements merely allow some insight into the possible results, unintended consequences and allow an avenue for questions and clarifications.
These are a few of the issues the bill deals with. There are more issues in the bill, and I would be happy to speak to you about them at your convenience. As you can see, if this was an initiative I would need more than 30 seconds to explain these details to you. The initiative process is important and valuable – the drafters of our constitution made that clear, and I fully support the initiative process. I also support an open and transparent process for initiatives. I believe this legislation creates that environment. I will protect the initiative process, but I will also protect Alaskans rights to have all information available to them when it comes to creating a law that we will have to abide by.
| See this Article in Print! | |
|---|---|
| Download Article (PDF) | 13.35 KB |
NEW! Subscribe to RSS Feed