Part I.  Factual and Legal Background

What is this initiative proposing?

Proposition 18 on the April 1, 2003 municipal ballot is an initiative that pro­pos­es to amend the Municipal Charter (the “Charter”) of the Munici­pality of Anchor­age (the “Municipality”) with respect to two different matters.

The first matter relates to the number of Assemblymembers to be elected from a single Assembly election district.  Since the unification of the City of Anchor­age and Greater Anchorage Area Borough to form the Municipality in 1976, the Char­ter has provided for an Assembly with 11 members, and ten members have been elected from five election districts electing two Assemblymembers each, with the eleventh Assem­blymember being elected from a single-member district.  The initia­tive would amend the Charter to make all Assembly election districts single-member districts, which would require the reapportionment of the five two-member Assembly districts of not the reapportionment of all six districts.

To perform this reapportion­ment and draw the boundaries of the new single-member Assembly election districts, the initia­tive would create a five-member Reappor­tion­ment Board, of which two mem­bers would be named by the Mayor and two by the Assembly, with the fifth member to be selected by the other four.  No elected or appointed official or employ­ee of the Municipality or of the State of Alaska may be named to the Reapportion­ment Board.   If the four members fail to agree on a fifth mem­ber within seven days of their appointment, all four of them are tossed off the Board and the Mayor and Assembly have to name new appointees to try again to agree on a fifth member.  This process is repeated until the fifth member is chosen.  Once that fifth member has been chosen, the members remain on the Board until they proclaim their final reapportion­ment plan or decision.

The first such Reapportionment Board would be named to reapportion the Assembly election districts for the election of Assemblymembers in April 2004.  Each subse­quent reapport­ion­ment would be made by a new Board appointed whenever reappor­tionment is required (e.g., after the national census).

The second matter that the initiative addresses is term limits for Assemblymembers.  Currently the Charter allows Assemblymembers to serve three consecutive terms of three years each for Assemblymembers for two-member districts (two years each for the one Assemblymember from the existing single-member district) before hav­ing to sit out one term off the Assembly.  The initiative would reduce this limitation to two consecutive terms and would make set the terms for all Assembly seats a three years each.  In addition, the initiative would provide that no Assemblymember may serve more than seven consecutive years.

The initiative also has transitional provisions for the Municipal­ity’s regular election of Assemblymembers from 11 single-member districts in 2004 (for more about the trans­itional measures, see the third Q&A below, “Will any incumbent be affected?”).

 Who was behind this initiative and getting it on the ballot?  Why did they undertake to get this initiative on the ballot?  What do they hope to accomp­lish by it?

We don’t know.  The Chamber has not attempted to contact the sponsors and organizers of the initiative in order to find out why they want it on the ballot.  It is what the initiative would do to the structure of the municipal government, not the motives of the individuals behind it, that is the proper basis for deciding whether to support it or oppose it.

If this initiative passes, when would it take effect?

Thirty days after the Municipal Clerk certifies the results of the election — so probably sometime around mid-May.

Will any incumbent Assemblymembers be affected if this initiative passes?

Yes, all 11 incumbent Assemblymembers would be affected, although not all of them in the same ways.  The initiative contains spe­cific trans­­i­tion provisions applicable to the reg­ular municipal election in April 2004.  Re­gardless of when their terms would other­wise end under the existing Charter, the terms for all Assemblymembers in office when the initiative takes effect will terminate on the date of the April 2004 municipal election, although they will continue to serve on the Assembly after that election date until they or their successors are elected and qual­i­fied.  The new single-member Assembly election districts to be drawn up by the Reap­por­tion­ment Board (plus the existing one if it is not redrawn) are to be numbered from 1 to 11, and in the regular municipal election in April 2004 the five even-numbered districts will elect Assemblymembers for terms of one year only, while the six odd-numbered districts will elect Assem­bly­mem­bers for three-year terms.

In addition to these changes from reapportionment, the new term limits will affect seven of the 11 current As­semblymembers.  The initiative would limit service on the Assembly to two consecutive terms instead of the existing limit of three.  This two-term limit would pre­vent Assembly­members Dan Kendall and Melinda Taylor from seeking re-election in April 2004 when their current second terms expire.  Assemblymember Fay Von Gem­mingen is cur­rent­ly serving her third consecutive term, so under the existing term limits she would not be able to seek re-election in 2004 when her present term expires, regard­less of whether the initia­tive passes or not.

It is not entirely clear how the new two-term limit under the initiative will apply to sec­ond-term Assembly­members Anna Fairclough, Dan Sullivan, Allan Tesche, Dick Traini and Dick Tremaine, whose terms are all due to expire in April 2005.  Under the transition provisions of the initiative, their present three-year terms will expire a year early — on the date of the reg­u­lar muni­cipal election in April 2004.  Do these abbreviated terms of only two years count for purposes of the two-term limitation?  The initiative does not explicitly answer this particular question.  While it does refer in Section 4.02(a) of the Charter (as it would be amended) to “a term of three years[,]” the two-term limitation in Section 4.02(b) (as amended) refers generically to “two consecutive terms” without any distinction as to how long those terms might be.  Moreover, the initiative would delete language in the current version of Section 4.02(a) referring to two-year terms for Assem­blymembers elected from a single-member election district, which further suggests that the two-term limitation counts by the number of terms served consecutively, regard­less of how long any of them might be.[1]  If the abbreviated terms of these five Assembly­mem­bers count for purposes of the two-term limit as they appear to do, then none of them would be able to seek re-election in 2004.

There is a parallel question about counting the terms of first-term Assemblymembers Doug Van Etten and Brian Whittle, which would be similarly shortened from 2005 to 2004 under the initia­tive’s transition rules.  It appears, under the same reasoning as above, that these shortened first terms would still count for purposes of the two-term limit.

For the incumbent Assemblymembers who would be eligible under the initiative to run for re-election in 2004, there is yet another but still similar question of whether — if they end up being reap­portioned into one of the even-numbered Assembly districts that will be electing Assem­blymembers to one-year terms under the transition rules — the one-year terms to which they are then elected would count as full terms for purposes of the two-term limit.  Again, if other Assemblymembers’ terms being shortened by the initia­tive are counted for purposes of the two-term limit, then by the same reasoning these transitional one-year terms should also count against that limit.[2]

Would any Assemblymember be forced out of office this year because of the new seven-year term limit under the initiative?

Probably not.  Assemblymember Fay Von Gemmingen will have served more than seven consec­u­tive years on the Assembly when the initiative would take legal effect, but it ap­pears that the new seven-year limitation would not immediately apply to her because of a specific provision in the transition rules set out in the initiative.  The third sentence of the transi­tion provi­sions states:

The tenure and term of all Assembly members in office on the effective date of these Charter amendments shall end on the date of the regular Municipal election in 2004, but they shall continue to serve until their successors are elected and qualified. [em­phasis added]

Ms. Von Gemmingen will be “in office on the effective date” of the initiative, and so this specific transition rule should apply to her by its explicit terms.  If so, then this trans­i­tion rule states unambiguously that her “tenure and term [on the Assembly] shall end on the date of the regular Municipal election in 2004, but [she] shall continue to serve until [her] successor[ is] elected and qualified.”  In other words, she should be able to serve until the winners in the 2004 muni­­cipal election are sworn in as Assemblymembers, which is when her current term is already going to expire under the existing Charter.[3]

What interest or concern do the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce and its members have in this initiative?

The interest of the Chamber and its members in this initiative lies in the need for the busi­ness community to be represented and heard clearly and effectively in our legislative bodies.  The size of an election district can and often does affect the representation that the busi­ness commun­i­ty enjoys in a legislative body like the Assembly or the state legis­la­ture.  Since unifica­tion in 1976, the Municipality has more than doubled in population.  As a result, there are more people in a two-member Assembly election district than there are even in an elec­tion district for the state Senate, which is comprised in turn of two elec­tion dis­tricts for the state House of Representatives.

It is not at all uncommon among the election districts for the state legislature to see one of the House districts in a given Senate district elect representatives of one major political party con­sistently and to see the other House district consistently elect repre­sentatives of another major party, with the overall Senate district consistently elect­ing a member from one party instead of sometimes voting in the candidate of one party and other times the candidate of another party.  Thus, even though one of the two House districts might rea­son­­ably be said to be consistently Republican, for instance, and the other consistently Democratic, the Senate district comprised of the two might be con­sistent­ly Republican despite the obviously substantial number of Democrats within that Senate district.

A similar thing can happen, and seems to happen, with respect to representation of the business community within the present, enormous two-member Assembly districts.  It is not pos­sible to draw the large two-member Assembly election districts so as to include any of the major business or commercially developed areas in Anchorage, without also includ­ing an even larger area of nonbusiness (i.e., residential) interests.  This is because each two-member Assembly election district has to contain such a huge number of people.  Like the Democrats in our hypothetical state Senate district, the business inter­ests in a two-member Assembly election district can be outvoted by the nonbusiness interests in such a large district, even though those business interests might make them­selves heard in an Assembly election district half that size.

As a result of the very size of the two-member Assembly election districts, the business community and its needs can end up not being heard as well or as clearly as might be the case with election districts less huge.

In making this observation and offering it as a reason for the Chamber and its members to be interested in the outcome of this initiative, it must be stressed most emphatically that this observation is not a comment about any particular Assemblymember or group of Assemblymembers, past or present.  While individual Chamber members are free to have per­son­al interests in the personalities of who is on the Assembly, the one and only interest here for the Chamber as a whole is in securing on an institutional basis a better, more effective opportun­i­ty for business interests in Anchorage to be heard and heeded.

Part II.  Pros and Cons

Pros

By changing the Assembly election districts from five huge districts (and one half their size) to 11 half-sized districts, the initiative should materially increase the op­por­­tunity for the voices of business and industry in our community to be heard and heeded.

Cons

This initiative has become an extremely charged matter politically.  The Chamber is likely to come across to the community as a whole, and probably to Assemblymem­bers in particular, as becoming embroiled in a purely political matter in which it and its members have no compelling interest.  It would be better for the Chamber’s stand­ing and reputation to refrain from taking a position on such a politi­cally charged issue as this initiative.

Changing the present two-member Assembly election districts to single-member ones may well be fine in order to make business’s voice heard more clearly, this meritori­ous aspect of the initiative is wedded to an ill-advised proposal to shorten term limits for the Assembly.  Two consecutive terms of three years each, or seven consecutive years in total, is simply too short because of the steep learning curve each first-term Assem­bly­mem­­­ber faces when he/she enters office.  The present Charter limit of three con­secutive three-year terms strikes a better balance between having experi­enced and savvy Assemblymembers on the one hand, and keeping the Assembly from turning into a “cronies club” on the other.  The interests of better governance outweigh the oppor­tun­ity to louden the voice of business.

The transition measures in the initiative are unclear and/or hopelessly flawed.  Ap­proving the initiative in its present flawed form may well generate needless and costly litigation for the Municipality.

Part III.  SALGA Committee’s Recommendations to the Board.

The SALGA Committee has taken two inconsistent positions regarding Proposition 18.  At its meeting on February 12, 2003 , the Committee recommended that the Board of Directors of the Anchorage Cham­ber of Commerce adopt a resolution in support of Proposition 18, the initiative for single-member Assembly districts and new Assembly term limits.  However, at its meeting on February 27 the Committee recom­mend­ed, by a narrow majority, that the Board adopt a resolution opposing it.

The Committee’s rationale for recommending support of Proposition 18 at its February 12^th meeting was basically as follows:

The  Committee acknowledges that the passage or failure of this initiative will not have a direct, immediate connection with any particular business.  Nor would passage of the ini­tiative guarantee that business will have a greater voice in our community, but passing it would at least improve the chances of that voice being heard and heeded.  The Committee further acknowledges that taking a position on the initiative is not without certain risks to how the Chamber may be seen in some portions the community.

However, the mission and objectives of the Chamber are:

·        “to be effective as a business leader”

·        to “strengthen its role as Alaska ’s leading pro-business organization”

·        to “pro­pound, promote and defend a positive business environment for Anchorage and the state as a whole”, and

·        to “be a positive catalyst for econ­omic and business growth in our com­munity.”

If, with such a mission and objectives, the Chamber doesn’t support the ini­tiative on be­half of the business interests in our community, who will?

The rationale of the majority of the Committee at its February 27^th meeting for recom­mend­ing that the Board oppose Proposition 18 was basically as follows:

As a business organization the Chamber’s only true interest in Proposition 18 lies in the proposal to establish single-member districts for all seats on the Assembly, which could give business interests a greater or more effective voice with Assemblymem­bers.  The rest of Proposition 18 is unrelated to the Chamber’s interests.

There are serious policy issues about the proposed term limits under Proposition 18, and there are also potentially serious legal issues about how its transitional provisions can and should be implemented.  Chamber support of Proposition 18 will connote that it supports the Proposition’s positions on these other issues, even though the Chamber has no stake in them.

Proposition 18 has become a highly politicized matter.  Despite all its protests and explanations to the contrary, the political interests who are contending over this Prop­osition will inevitably perceive the Chamber as siding with the political interests sup­porting the Proposition.  The Chamber’s limited stake in Proposition — namely, the single-member districts — is simply too small to justify the perception of the Cham­ber’s position as being a political stand, and the reactions flowing from that percep­tion.

In light of its own reversal of position on Proposition 18, the SALGA Committee offers the following two alternative resolutions for consideration by the Chamber’s Board of Directors, one supporting Proposition 18 and the other opposing it.

Although it scarcely needs to be pointed out, the Committee notes that the Board also has the option of adopting no resolution on Proposition 18.

ALTERNATIVE A — In support of Proposition 18

Board of Directors, Anchorage Chamber of Commerce

Resolution 2002/03-1818

In Favor of Proposition 18 on the April 1, 2003 Municipal Ballot

(an initiative to create single-member Assembly election districts,

to create a Reapportionment Board, to change the term limits

for Assemblymembers, and providing for certain transition rules)

WHEREAS, since the unification of the former City of Anchorage and the former Greater Anchorage Area Borough in 1976 to form the Municipality of Anchorage (the “Municipal­ity”), ten of the 11 members on the municipal Assembly have been elected from two-mem­ber election districts and one from a single-member district, with each two-member district hav­ing approximately twice the population as the single-member one; and

WHEREAS, since 1976 Anchorage has doubled in population, and as a result the two-mem­ber Assembly districts have become larger, in terms of population, than even the election dis­tricts for the Senate in the Alaska State Legislature; and

WHEREAS, the sheer size of the huge two-member Assembly election district dilutes the voice of business and makes it difficult for businesses in our community to be heard and heeded, even on matter of vital importance to the business community; and

WHEREAS, Proposition 18 on the April 1, 2004 municipal ballot is an initiative that would abolish the present system of two-member Assembly election districts and make all Assembly districts single-member districts, which will be approximately half the size of the present two-member districts and thus increase the opportunity and likelihood that business will be heard and heeded in matters of importance to it;

WHEREAS, the initiative would also —

·         establish a new municipal Reapportionment Board, which would reapportion existing Assembly districts and have 11 single-member district for the regular muni­cipal elec­tion in April 2004, and for each subsequent reapportionment that may be required by law (e.g., after each national census),

·         limit service on the Assembly to two consecutive terms instead of three and, in addi­tion, limit that service to not more than seven consecutive years, and

·         provide certain specific transition rules with respect to the election of Assembly­members from the reapportioned districts in the regular municipal election in April 2004,

all of which are matters in which the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce does not believe it or its members have any particular stake except perhaps as individuals;

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Chamber believe that overall the enhanced oppor­tunity for business to be heard and heeded, while not guaranteed by the initiative, is never­the­less sufficiently likely under it as to justify approval of the initiative regardless of any flaws, techni­cal or otherwise, that it may be perceived to have;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Anchorage Cham­­ber of Commerce that the Board supports the initiative to amend the Anchorage Muni­ci­pal Charter so as to make all Assembly seats elected from single-member election districts, to establish a muni­ci­pal Reappor­tionment Board, and to change the term limits for Assembly­members, and re­com­mends that Chamber members vote “yes” on Proposition 18 appearing on the ballot for the municipal election on April 1, 2003, and will inform the Chamber’s membership of this Resolution and the Board’s rea­sons for adopt­ing it, and will post the information on the Chamber’s website;

AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chamber will issue a press release and public an­nounce­­ment of this Resolution, and send copies of it to the Mayor and each of the Assem­bly­mem­­bers of the Municipality of Anchorage , and to the press.

DATED  _________________, 2003.

ALTERNATIVE B — In opposition to Proposition 18

Board of Directors, Anchorage Chamber of Commerce

Resolution 2002/03-1818

In Opposition to Proposition 18 on the April 1, 2003 Municipal Ballot

(an initiative to create single-member Assembly election districts,

to create a Reapportionment Board, to change the term limits

for Assemblymembers, and providing for certain transition rules)

WHEREAS, Proposition 18 on the April 1, 2004 municipal ballot is an initiative that would abolish the present system of two-member Assembly election districts and make all Assembly districts single-member districts, which will be approximately half the size of the present two-member districts and thus increase the opportunity and likelihood that business would be better heard and heeded in matters of importance to it;

WHEREAS, the initiative would also —

·         establish a new municipal Reapportionment Board, which would reapportion existing Assembly districts and have 11 single-member district for the regular muni­cipal elec­tion in April 2004, and for each subsequent reapportionment that may be required by law (e.g., after each national census),

·         limit service on the Assembly to two consecutive terms instead of three and, in addi­tion, limit that service to not more than seven consecutive years, and

·         provide certain specific transition rules with respect to the election of Assembly­members from the reapportioned districts in the regular municipal election in April 2004,

all of which are matters in which the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce does not believe it or its members have any particular stake except perhaps as individuals;

WHEREAS, there are serious policy issues regarding the change from the current term limits for Assemblymembers to the limits proposed in Proposition 18, and there are potentially seri­ous legal un­certainties regarding the implementation and effect of the Proposition’s transi­tion­al meas­ures;

WHEREAS, it is impossible to support the proposal for single-member Assembly districts in Proposition 18 without also supporting, or appearing to support, the term-limit changes and other provisions in that Proposition as well;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Anchorage Cham­­­ber of Commerce that the Board:  A) opposes Proposition 18 overall because of the matters it contains besides the otherwise sound proposal to establish single-member Assem­bly districts, B) re­com­mends that Chamber members vote “no” on Proposition 18 appearing on the ballot for the municipal election on April 1, 2003, and C) will inform the Chamber’s membership of this Resolution and the Board’s rea­sons for adopt­ing it, and will post the information on the Chamber’s website;

AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chamber will issue a press release and public an­nounce­­ment of this Resolution, and send copies of it to the Mayor and each of the Assem­bly­mem­­bers of the Municipality of Anchorage , and to the press.

DATED  _________________, 2003.