Enviros Want Feds To Manipulate Future Hearings Against Alaskan Opinion - The Governor's Speech

Enviros Want Feds To Manipulate Future Hearings Against Alaskan Opinion – The Governor’s Speech

Commentary: The Governor’s Speech. Last Friday we urged readers to attend and support Governor Sean Parnell’s appearance before the National Press Club. The speech perfectly illustrated Alaska’s importance to the country and the challenges the state faces with a hostile and aggressive federal government. We provide a video of the event (Scroll down) which includes questions from the press corps following the speech. -dh

BOEMRE Event Commentary

Dave Harbour

(Harbour BOEMRE Testimony)

Commentary: The BOEMRE Hearing. Friday night we witnessed an exceptional turnout of Alaskan citizens from all over the state and a small but vocal turnout recruited from among the Sierra Club’s 500,000 national members. See Monday’s story for more details and check back later today as we add more event photos. Anyway, we revealed a Sierra Club email from community organizer Lindsey Hajduk (NGP Photo) asking Sierra Club members to show up early to the Anchorage event and to recruit attendees from classrooms and church groups. What happened was that very few of organizer Lindsey’s friends turned out and many rational, long-time Alaskans did come early and showed up in force — led by Alaska Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Dan Sullivan (NGP Photo). Half way during the meeting, Lindsey’s allies began to interrupt the meeting (Note AP Story), including one particularly discourteous teacher from Alaska Pacific University, Dr. Leslie Cornick, who demanded to be heard out of turn. So in today’s Anchorage Daily News, the Wilderness Society’s Regional Director, Nicole Whittington-Evans, wrote a letter to the editor complaining that the BOEMRE should have not called on witnesses from the sign-in sheets in proper order but, rather, should have selected witnesses by their points of view. She said witnesses were, "…disproportionally pro-drilling." What she didn’t say in her letter is that Alaskans across the board are ‘…are disproportionally pro drilling’. Selecting witnesses by evaluating different points of view would taint the process in favor of out of state activist groups to the disadvantage of the overwhelming majority of Alaskans. This sequence of events demonstrates a number of things:

how dedicated the ‘Shut Down Alaska Enviros" are in planning for an event (Did their email go to Alaskans or to their ‘500,000 national members?). We don’t know how many emails were forwarded and circulated by the Sierra Club’s network of 4 dozen other environmental groups with Alaska offices and outposts.
how willing the Enviros are to use disruptive techniques in meetings in violation of procedure and common courtesy.
how crafty Enviros are to write a misleading letter to the editor after the fact which they know will be read in Washington, theme of which could help them jury rig the procedure in future meetings.
how ordinary Alaskans — once they are convinced an emergency exists — will rally together to defend their way of life and the future of their children! -dh

We hope Alaskans will continue being alert to the two major threats to maintaining flow of Alaska’s economic lifeline, the Trans Alaska oil pipeline:

Threats to Federal land access. Hostile federal agency actions designed to delay or destroy Alaska natural resource development projects, supported by huge national and international environmental bureaucracies with dozens of outposts in Alaska and transplanted community organizers who professionally, day after day, go to work developing strategies for bringing Alaska’s economy to its knees.
Threat to state natural resource development: Alaska’s uncompetitive investment climate: characterized by a high tax burden in a high cost labor state, in a high cost procurement-transportation area, in a low productivity Arctic environment, in one of the most inaccessible natural resource areas, in an area with diminishing exploration and production, in a production area remote from market areas.

Governor Parnell speaks to National Press Club from Office of Governor Sean Parnell on Vimeo.

3 Comments

Leslie A. Cornick, PhD March 4, 2011 at 5:15 pm - Reply

While I have no problem being named in this article, I do have a problem with being characterized as “discourteous” and with the complete misrepresentation of the facts. When at 9:20 not ONE person who opposed drilling had been heard, I raised my hand and asked Mr. Loman if, given the lateness of the hour, he would consider giving the other perspectives an opportunity to speak. The majority of the crowd responded very loudly in the negative and I was told by one person to sit down and shut up. Mr. Loman offered to let me speak at that point, but given the reaction of the crowd I chose to defer and wait for my name to be called. I was polite and professional. I NEVER demanded anything. It was the pro drilling contingent that created this untenable situation by offering the early sign ups and tempting folks to arrive VERY with pizza and soft drinks. So yes, when we heard about that we arrived early too so that we could have the opportunity to be heard. The process of first come first speak is flawed because it sets up the opportunity for this kind of stacking the list. If BOEMRE would simply hear from each perspective in turn and rotate through for the duration of the meeting then all voices could be heard and everyone should be satisfied with the process.
- Dave Harbour March 7, 2011 at 3:26 am - Reply
  Doctor Cornick:
  
  Thank you for writing.
  
  Please note that the piece is not an “article” but is labeled as “commentary”. My characterization of your behavior as “discourteous” was commentary based on your interruption of a public, advertised process. That night, you resembled someone demanding to cut in front of a movie line, expecting others who had waited longer to accommodate you. I don’t believe you can argue that my opinion of your behavior is not factual though I respect that you may disagree with it.
  
  You stated that my piece was a “complete misrepresentation of the facts”. You didn’t offer evidence to support that allegation, only complaints that folks objected when you wanted the facilitator to unilaterally change a pre-arranged process.
  
  While Friday night may have frustrated you, please know that others are frustrated, too.
  
  Some of us don’t understand why a litigious minority of mostly outside organizations and their members are working so diligently to kill projects that would sustain the Trans Alaska Pipeline and our way of life.
  
  We marvel that those in academia – where many of us have dedicated years of learning and teaching – are not more sensitive to the ‘real’ world.
  
  We are astounded that many of the more elite thinkers among us do not get – or care, if they do get — that an empty pipeline eviscerates the state operating budget and impoverishes over a third of Alaska’s economy, including private university benefactors, parents of students and rural communities.
  
  We realistically note that failure of our economic lifeline will imperil scholarships and loan programs; public transportation and utilities; funding for K-12 and U of A; and, dry up the hopes and dreams of many preparing to matriculate from academia into this world of reality over the next few years.
  
  I and others have observed that the general public was invited to come early and enjoy pizza and soft drinks. Everyone was welcomed. No one was turned away.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Dave Harbour
Dave Harbour March 6, 2011 at 9:14 pm - Reply

The copy has been edited to reflect your correction. Though this piece was labled as ‘commentary’ and not ‘reporting’, the presentation of facts in either case requires accuracy. While we are never intentionally shoddy in our presentation of facts, we are human. That is why, when we do make a mistake in fact, we rush to convert our articles into a more accurate record. Thank you for your thoughtfulness and for taking the time.