For the first time in Haines’ history, the planning commission will be elected by the people instead of appointed by the Mayor. Residents voted on the ballot proposition for an elected planning commission during a special election in June, where it passed 445 to 248, a 64% margin. Despite concerns that not enough people will run for the seven open seats, there were thirteen certified candidates by the end of the filing period on August 20. Since then, three candidates have withdrawn their candidacy.
The CVN sent out questionnaires to the ten remaining candidates via email to get insights into what motivated them to run for office and their positions on issues pertinent to the role. Below are their profiles and their responses to the questionnaire with minor edits for formatting and clarity.
All photos provided by candidates except Rodney Hinson, by Nakeshia Diop.
Patty Brown is currently retired from full-time work and fills her days with the joys of living in the Chilkat Valley and doing volunteer work in the community and beyond. Her educational background is in natural resources management and science education. Brown has lived in Alaska full-time since 1988 and in Haines for the past 28 years, most of that time as a public school teacher. Prior to teaching, she was a park ranger for various agencies for two decades. There, she had the opportunity to attend public land use workshops. Her experience has familiarized her with government structures and allowed her to work with a diverse group of people. During her years as an environmental educator, the mantra “None of us is as smart as all of us” stuck with her. She values open mindedness and creative thinking.
Richard Clement retired from Alyeska Pipeline in 2017 when he moved to Haines with his wife Laura. After moving to town, he joined the Kluane Chilkat International Bike Relay board and the local chapter of the Alaska Miners Association. He also worked for the Port Chilkoot Company and still volunteers with the borough’s emergency operations center. Clement has a bachelor’s degree in geology and has lived and worked in Alaska for 30 years. Before retiring from Alyeska, where he was a manager and performed risk analysis, he worked as a contractor for the oil and gas company British Petroleum (BP) and as a GIS manager for the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.
Scott Hansen first showed up in Haines with his small family in 1995, working as an airplane mechanic for Haines Airways. Once settled here, he and his wife Valina raised ten children together. After working in the transportation industry and with tribal and local government administrations, he started his own business as a commercial food grower, specializing in cold weather crops like carrots and potatoes. Their goal as family farmers is to provide local food for people in Haines, so that everyone can better understand our world and its maker.
Dan Schultz was born and raised in Minnesota, but moved to Alaska 21 years ago. He worked all around Alaska as a biologist for six years before ending up in Haines 15 years ago. Here, he has worked as a biologist, carpenter, and reality TV crew member. Schultz is also an avid hunter and angler, subsistence gatherer, and outdoor enthusiast. The longer he has lived in this community the more involved he has become with borough politics to help shape the way into the future.
Rodney Hinson was born and raised in Arkansas. He owned a large poultry and cattle farm in northwest Arkansas until health problems caused him to sell his farm. He then went into law enforcement, first as deputy sheriff in Washington County, then working for the U.S. Marshals Service. He moved to Haines in 2004 and fulfilled a lifelong dream of living in Alaska. In Haines, he worked as a school resource officer and tribal youth program coordinator, and was in the tourism industry for a couple of years. In 2010, he and his wife Rhonda started Alaska Rod’s, which has since grown to have six employees. He considers himself blessed to live in Haines for 20 years and has never loved life as much as he does now.
Since moving to Haines over 25 years ago, Erika Merklin has raised two boys in the upper valley. She is currently a contractor for Ecotrust to create the Lynn Canal Local Food Network which includes Deishu, Klukwan and Skagway. Her passion project is bringing life to the old Mosquito Lake School- now known as the Four Winds Resource Center. Some of the programs she’s helped create are the Victory Garden, a tool library, weekly yoga, kids summer camp and, she said most importantly, an available and vibrant gathering space for all residents.
Brian O’Riley (photo not provided) was born in the Territory of Hawaii in 1947 in Honolulu, Hawaii at Queen Kapiolani Hospital to an Irish father and Okinawian mother. He moved to the San Francisco. Bay Area when he was seven. After graduating high school in 1966, he moved to Mendocino County, Calif., to work at the Philo Sawmill. In 1975, he drove the Alcan highway to Seward with friends to run a herring egg operation. In 1987, after supporting himself through salmon seining, he graduated with a degree in art from Washington University. He came to Haines in 1988 to gillnet salmon and has been here ever since. In the 25 years he’s been here, he has coached track and field and basketball, and practices drawing and oil painting during the off season.
Derek Poinsette has lived in the Chilkat Valley near Mosquito Lake for 15 years. He has been a carpenter and a general contractor for almost two decades, and has designed and built a handful of homes and a sailboat, amongst other projects. For the past six years, he has worked for the Takshanuk Watershed Council, and is currently the executive director. He has done a bit of commercial fishing and is an enthusiastic subsistence fisherman and hunter. He worked on a few fish and wildlife research projects over the past couple of decades, and has served on the Upper Lynn Canal Fish and Game Advisory Committee for almost eight years. He is currently a firefighter with the Klehini Valley Volunteer Fire Department and a fire service area three board member.
Eben Sargent spent a month in Haines on a work project in winter 2015 and found a community like the one he was raised near the Quebec border in Vermont; where, he said, everyone was handy and it was hard to tell the back-to-the-landers from the rednecks. But he found Haines to have more young energy and bigger mountains. He and his wife bought land here and started digging soon after and have been full time residents for the last couple years. He works as a mechanical engineer for companies in and out of state on projects ranging from water treatment to mariculture equipment to outdoor sports gear. He is a board member of Haines Huts and Trails and likes to hike, ski boat and hunt.
Rachel Saitzyk was unable to complete the interview questions in time due to her work schedule. Instead, she provided her reasoning as to why she is running for the planning commission: “Haines is going through a rare, once in a decade opportunity to define what we collectively want for our community in the next ten years and beyond. A new Comprehensive Plan offers us the chance to hear our core concerns and desires, and create a fresh framework for decision-making that respects everyone’s best interests, so this time feels pivotal to me. To succeed, I believe we must ensure as many voices are reflected and balanced in that plan as possible. We have all experienced the consequences of decisions which appeared to promote limited agendas above the interests of others. These decisions create tension in our community. I want to be part of facilitating our movement in a direction we choose together this year. I am also compelled to run by my passionate belief that community engagement is available and of utmost importance. If elected, I’ll spend my time on the planning commission seeking to follow our plan and inspiring community engagement on issues that matter to us all. I’ll promote fairness, balanced representation among our priorities, and harmonious compromise. I’ll strive to support opportunities for progress, while upholding individual rights. As someone who loves Haines deeply I want to provide a foundation for us all to thrive, moving together toward our common goals, in a place we all feel ardently to call home.”
Candidate Questionnaire
Why are you running for planning commission?
Patty Brown: I believe forward thinking is key to the environmental, economic, and social health of the Chilkat Valley. Having lived here for 28 years and interacted with hundreds of families, I have witnessed plenty of controversy, conflict, support, and harmony firsthand. I believe that we can find common ground in formulating a Comprehensive Plan that is fair, equitable, and sustainable, and apply it to solve problems and prevent discord.
Richard Clement: I am running for Haines Borough Planning and Zoning Commission because I believe in public service. I grew up in a small town about the size of Haines, and my dad was the head of the high school math department and served on our town council. I decided to get involved in local government based on his example. His family left Denmark before WWII and he served in the U. S. Navy in the Pacific Theatre during the war years. He taught me that the price of freedom is public service. I also have years of experience working with engineers throughout Alaska since moving here in 1984, and know how engineering documents are compiled and I can read and review their contents.
Scott Hansen: I want to support, through participation, good planning decisions that support and encourage families of this community. The Planning Commission is an orderly, law-based opportunity to serve. Self-government is humbling, but we reap the benefits of its freedoms when we participate.
Rodney Hinson: I believe that our founding fathers had the right idea when they meant for public office to be a short lived commitment and not a life long quest. I have seen the same people run for one office after another and they seem to need the power of office for one reason or another. I have no agenda other than to give some of my time to help our community in an honest and fair way.
Erika Merklin: I want to help guide the decision making process for our local government. I am actively engaged in regional food systems planning, networking and capacity building to benefit Chilkat Valley businesses and quality of life. I understand the impacts of policy on our local economy and the importance of successful collaboration.
Brian O’Riley: To add a little diversity and involve myself in the democratic process.
Derek Poinsette: Joining the planning commission is something that I have been considering for a while. I have lived in the Chilkat Valley for 15 years. I don’t plan on ever leaving, and I care deeply about this place, its people, and both its near and distant future. One of the benefits of living in a small community like ours is that we can all participate directly in local governance. And sort of like standing around watching someone else split firewood, eventually it just seemed like it was my turn, my responsibility, to swing that splitting maul for a little while.
Eben Sargent: I’d like to help the commission do more to address housing cost and access in Haines. People need stable homes if we’d like to keep the tapestry of folks that makes Haines special and ensure people who come here for work chose to stay year-round and build our community. Nationwide, communities have tackled this issue with planning and zoning strategies, and the comission needs to be more proactive in this area to avoid seeing our already tight housing situation follow the path of Sitka or Seward. I’m also passionate about making sure access to the outdoors for all ages, abilities and seasons is a focus of planning efforts in Haines starting with but not limited to the Comprehensive Plan. Finally, planning commission service was described to me as “a masters education in planning and zoning” by a couple former commissioners, and I like learning.
How do you think the previous planning commission handled heliport issues? Would you have voted to approve of the heliports at Mile 24 and 26? Why or why not?
Patty Brown: Though I have reviewed the media reports of the heliport approvals and reversals, and follow-up correspondence from stakeholders, I was not in attendance at the meetings, so I cannot fairly judge how thoroughly the issue was examined. I did, however, have the opportunity to hear presentations at two assembly meetings regarding the 26 mile operation. I believe every person who voices their concern should be heard. There also seem to be few guidelines that establish a threshold for acceptable noise disturbance, so establishing measurable standards for noise should be on the commission’s agenda. Likewise, there should be a clear standard set to reduce risk of slope instability in other types of development proposals. Consistency in consideration and decision-making goes a long way in rebuilding trust in leadership.
Richard Clement: As best they could. The criteria allows for subjective determination of the disruption caused by helicopters. Previous commissions followed code and comprehensive plans as best they could. The commission is tasked with following code, and if there are objections then the issue can be raised to the Haines assembly where politically based decisions can be made. The assembly can also change borough code if they think it is needed; that’s something the planning and zoning commissioners cannot do.
Scott Hansen: Having observed many hours of planning commission decisions as staff, I think the commission did handle these issues the best way they could via the Conditional Use Permit process, weighing the rights and intents of both developer and adjacent landowners. With the Campbell’s heliport permit, I was a commissioner and voted to approve, with certain limitations specific to that permit. The commission arrived at the decision using a rational method involving compromise and consensus. As I sat in the room there was a significant amount of emotion displayed, on both sides of the issue. Through all the pressures of the meeting, the decision came by compromises. I have not been present for any other heliport issue in the past ten years.
Rodney Hinson: I believe this is an inappropriate question. Unless a person sat through all the hearings and had access to all the written information, they cannot give an educated opinion.
Erika Merklin: The decision lacked historical perspective and lacked consideration of the voices of the neighborhood residents. I would not have voted to approve either heliport as they are both located in neighborhoods and overwhelmingly opposed by the majority of residents.
Brian O’Riley: I felt the Village of Klukwan and the people living close to the heliport had little impact on the planning commission’s decision making process, even though they were opposed. I would have followed the precedent set in the past denying previous attempts at establishing such a heliport.
Derek Poinsette: I would have voted against issuing a conditional use permit in both of these cases. I don’t believe that a heliport at either 24-Mile or 26-Mile can meet the eight criteria in borough code in order to qualify for a conditional use permit. Many members of the public, the affected neighbors and residents, came to meetings and wrote letters, and expressed pretty clearly all of the reasons why the required criteria could not be met. There was overwhelming public opposition to issuing these permits, and the arguments made as to why the criteria could not be met were sound.
Eben Sargent: I attended the planning commission meeting for the 24 mile conditional use permit and the following assembly meeting with the appeal hearing and did not think the application satisfied all eight code criteria for permit approval. The commissioners were put in a difficult situation following a manager’s recommendation to approve the permit that made a number of serious factual errors and omissions in supporting the applicant’s case. Those inaccuracies resulted in the denial of the conditional use permit in appeal so overall I think the system worked as it should. Unfortunately, I have not reviewed the 26 mile conditional use permit carefully enough to have formed an opinion yet.
Dan Schultz: The previous planning commission handled the heliport issue how they felt it should be handled. I disagreed with the decisions though. The local public input was overwhelmingly against the two heliports and would have held greater weight in my decision making process.
How would you weigh public input when granting conditional use permits?
Patty Brown: First, every person should be heard. Second, I would consider how personal or far-reaching the impact of the development or practice is. Third, how long an individual has lived in the area is far less relevant to me than most other considerations. Fourth, I would consider how narrow the benefit is. Does it enrich the community or just one person or household? Another consideration is whether or not a proposed change is permanent.
Richard Clement: I would and have weighed public input as part of the overall information regarding a conditional use permit application, whether granting (voting in favor, usually with many conditions) or voting against a given conditional use permi tapplication.
Scott Hansen: Public input is valuable and required by the process, so that everybody can weigh in – what a great thing. Face-to-face is best, and other methods vary in effectiveness to a lesser degree. Then a compromise happens – it is the nature of the process. Our community needs to express personal priorities, but louder doesn’t necessarily mean better. Louder testimony can easily and accidentally turn into intimidation, which is not recognized by our laws as a valid method of influence as we govern ourselves.
Rodney Hinson: I believe that everyone should be allowed to speak on any issue that involves our community. At the same time I realize that some people are what folks in Arkansas call “ginners”. They oppose most everything just to cause conflict. A person on this commission has to be able to know if a person will actually be affected by a decision.
Erika Merklin: I would greatly weigh public input, especially with conditional use permits; the residents should guide the decisions of the community.
Brian O’Riley: Following borough code as it stands is part of the planning commission’s mission. Public opinion isn’t always in accord with the code. The codes should be upheld, and if public opinion goes against the code it should be addressed, re-examined and possibly changed.
Derek Poinsette: Conditional use permits are required for things that could have significant impacts on neighbors and the community as a whole. The purpose of hearing them before the planning commission is so that the public can participate in the process. There are eight criteria in the code that the commission must consider when making the decision whether or not to approve a conditional use permit. Specifically, criteria number 8 says, “Comments received from property owners impacted by the proposed development have been considered and given their due weight.” It is clear to me that public input should be the primary influencing factor when the commissionis deliberating on a conditional use permit application.
Eben Sargent: Borough code states only that comments should be “considered and given their due weight”, that’s not much to steer by. When navigating our fjords and glaciers in fog you need to know where you want to end up and this is where the planning part of the planning commission shines. In my view, public support or opposition for an action either lowers or raises the bar for the applicant to demonstrate alignment with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and benefit to the community.
Dan Schultz: The Haines Borough Code makes it clear that residents located within the area of the conditional use permits should have a say about the activities that may affect their residences. Therefore, local input must be considered when assessing criteria for obtaining a conditional use permit. Criteria #8 under HBC 18.50.040 asks if “comments received from property owners impacted by the proposed development have been considered and given their due weight”. If neighboring landowners have legitimate concerns about undue noise, nuisance, development impairment, and harm to health and welfare (all criteria for evaluating a CUP), they should be acknowledged as per the requirements of Haines Borough Code.
Why do you think residents voted to have the planning commission be an elected body? Do you think it was the right decision?
Patty Brown: There is a perception that divisive politics and cronyism has too much influence in this Borough and erodes the rights and well-being of many other residents. Having the planning commission members be appointed has risked those traits being embedded into our governance. The elected leaders and employed Borough staff need to be committed to doing their work ethically and openly and for the benefit of all. Honestly, since it is what the people with the motivation to vote decided, then yes, it was right. To say voters were “wrong” can be considered a denial of democracy.
Richard Clement: I have no idea. 71% of the Haines voters did not cast a ballot, it was the lowest voter turnout in Haines history, from what I’ve read in the records maintained by the borough. Those numbers show that most Haines folks are too busy to vote on a single ballot issue. It really does not matter what I think, and it’s not singularly my decision. I’m not sure there is a “right” or “wrong” on this issue. The work of the Haines Planning and Zoning Commission is unchanged, so there is very little change to the overall process of business conducted by that body. Borough code regarding the decision making process of the commission was not affected by this ballot.
Scott Hansen: It was the lawful will of the voters – who am I to presume that I know others’ motivations? I’m glad voters used a lawful representative process to help us connect with the planning process. Regardless of the method used to bring commissioners to the table, the body is regulated by local laws to follow a certain process for conditional use permits, appeals, Comprehensive Plan reviews, and other planning tasks that will benefit the families of this community in the long run. The right decision follows a lawful process, through representative government. Electing commissioners through a vote does not guarantee better government – Commission decisions must conform to code, regardless of how members were brought in. Re-staffing also doesn’t guarantee a particular direction, but it mixes up the pot a little. At the end of the day, good commissioners will act with lawful integrity and excellence so that the community benefits.
Rodney Hinson: Voting for candidates allows the public to choose who they want to represent them on the commission instead of the Mayor picking them. This should help keep politics out of the commission. My opinion is that the people spoke so I go along with the vote.
Erika Merklin: As an advocate for community engagement, I do think it was the right decision. I speak from experience, it has been hard to get chosen for committees.
Brian O’Riley: The commission was tightly controlled by the Mayor, good or bad, there was no voice of the people. Democracy should be inclusive, not exclusive. So I agree with the petition and the results of the election.
Derek Poinsette: I believe that residents who voted for an elected commission were voting for more direct public control of local government. I’m not yet sure if it was the right decision. So far it appears to be working out, and this new process has attracted more interested candidates than there are available seats. But I don’t think we will really know if it is a better system until we have gone through a few election cycles. I do really hope that this high level of interest in serving our local government can be maintained for the long term, especially among the younger folks in the community. But in order to make that happen we have to build and actively maintain government processes that are civil, open, fair, and honor the common values of the community as a whole.
Eben Sargent: I ran for commission unsuccessfully last year under the system where the commission elected itself. I agree with those who said that the system was not enabling new voices to participate and resulted in a commission that didn’t reflect the wide range of perspectives that makes us a strong community. I also share the concerns of those voting against the elected commission that some qualified people might not want to run for office or that code and zoning experience won’t be prioritized. I was sorry more sitting commissioners didn’t re-apply. Like everything in life, I suspect it’s a mixed bag and will take a few years to sort out the impacts but it was clear some change was needed.
Dan Schultz: I don’t wish to assume what the residents of Haines were thinking, but I do know why I voted for the commission to be elected. The planning commission was not representative of the community at large. The Haines community encompasses very diverse interests, and I hope that the planning commission will better represent that as an elected body.
How involved have you been in the process of rewriting the Comprehensive Plan? What suggestions did you make?
Patty Brown: I participated in a public meeting recently in which the process of developing the plan was discussed. I have completed and submitted the survey as a year-round resident. I suggested that the community look closely at the assets that draw people here and promote sustainable economic pursuits, such as a community college, rather than relying on “boom and bust” resource extraction that harms subsistence lifestyles. There are also serious concerns regarding the well-being of people and bears sharing space. More attention needs to be paid to potential conflicts so that the tourism resource of bear-watching can be preserved, while we keep ourselves and the bears safe. I want us to continue to honor the indigenous heritage and unceded lands and waters. Finally, I mentioned the need to avoid the divisive climate that has paralyzed the country and insist that our leadership seek common ground without favoritism.
Richard Clement: Borough code and the Comprehensive Plan are critical to decisions made by the Haines Planning and Zoning Commission. I have promoted participation in the survey through discussions, reminders, and letters to the editor in the Chilkat Valley News. I also encouraged the contractor’s staff to visit sites outside the townsite, which they did, and I was glad to see that occur. I submitted a response to the survey just as hundreds of others have.
Scott Hansen: As a Borough employee I staffed the commission through one Comprehensive Plan update. It was a tedious, agonizing process. It was also revealing, useful, beneficial, and a fabulous way to communicate the representative consensus of our community. I was able to talk with and appreciate seeing many other of my neighbors’ perspectives. As a staff member I spoke as a member of the public, and my leanings support the various aspects of planning that benefit and retain strong families in the community.
Rodney Hinson: I have not been involved.
Erika Merklin: I helped Agnew Beck organize two comprehensive plan meetings in the upper valley and attended one planning meeting in town. Among my suggestions is a better thought out plan for strengthening our local food system which would include definitive support from the Haines Borough.
Brian O’Riley: Unfortunately I did not participate in the rewriting of the Comprehensive Plan. I should review the questionnaire for my own benefit to have a better grasp of the issues presented.
Derek Poinsette: I attended all of the meetings with Agnew Beck in Haines and Mosquito Lake. One of the main suggestions I have expressed is the need to identify common community values around which planning decisions can be made. I don’t believe the story you hear all the time about Haines being a contentious place. I think there are many things and values that we all can agree on. For example, we all want this to be a safe place to raise kids, and for people of all ages to live and work. We all want clean air and water, lots of fish in the streams and bays, healthy populations of wildlife, and the means to go out and enjoy those things. We all want a prosperous but stable cash economy. All we have to do is protect and maintain what we already have. I hope through the comprehensive planning process we can find a way to elevate our common values in a way that positively guides future decision making.
Eben Sargent: I attended one community input session in person and one planning commission Comp plan session by zoom and submitted a comment by email. My comments focused on strengthening our outdoor infrastructure including year-round trails, state park facilities, and public use cabins in order to make sure Haines closes the gap between our inspiring scenery and the ability of residents and visitors of all abilities to access hunting, fishing, trapping, hiking, subsistence and winter outdoor sports.
Dan Schultz: So far, I have been more of an observer than a participant, although I have of course taken the survey. Through this, as well as many years of observation at meetings, I have gained confidence in my understanding of comprehensive planning for a community. I look forward to participating more directly in the uplanning commissionoming meetings with Agnew Beck.
How would you navigate a situation where the comprehensive plan and Borough Code are seemingly at odds?
Patty Brown: I look forward to participating in the evolution of a healthy Comprehensive Plan. Once it is prepared, there should be a review of Borough Code by both the Assembly and the Borough staff to see that there is no direct conflict. Committees and the Planning Commission should provide some oversight as well. In some cases, wording and even content may need to be changed. If the Comprehensive Plan is not a guiding document, then what is the point?
Richard Clement: Borough code is law, so as a commissioner I am duty bound to ensure that code is followed. The Comprehensive Plan lists aspirational goals based on results of surveys and discussions conducted. If a situation arises where these two are in conflict, then borough code takes precedence. It is the role of the Haines Assembly to adopt changes to borough code to align the two, the Haines Planning and Zoning Commission does not have that responsibility and cannot affect code – the assembly does that work.
Scott Hansen: 1) Spend the time and effort necessary to understand what the code and Comp Plan intend 2) Honor code language – it is the written will of the people and supported by a representative public process 3) Prepare myself for the meeting with my own rationale and then work together with Commissioners to reach a consensus at the meeting 4) Make a legally-defensible and efficient decision, using rationale that benefits both development and non-development values stated in the Comp Plan 5) Suggest that the Borough propose a code change to conform with the Comp Plan. If the “at odds” situation persists, perhaps a Comprehensive Plan change will be in order at its next review period.
Rodney Hinson: Borough code should be followed.
Erika Merklin: I would ask the planning commission discussion to be brought to the assembly for consideration.
Brian O’Riley: First of all I would review the code and examine public opinion. Laws do change over time. Fairness, logic, and understanding should be used in navigating outdated codes such that adjustments can be made when necessary.
Derek Poinsette: The code is the law, and until it is changed it must be followed with good intention and to the best of our ability. However, the code is not meant to be a static and immovable monument. If the community wants something different than what is specified in code, and the community has expressed that through the Comprehensive Plan, then I think changes to the code should be considered, especially if the disagreement between the two documents is creating a conflict or negatively impacting the public in some way. All that said, I don’t think that making changes to borough code is something to be taken lightly.
Eben Sargent: Planning commissioners are legally responsible to not violate borough code. In the many cases where borough code does not provide a clear decision point, alignment with the goals of the comp plan needs to be considered. It’s also not realistic to think a single general plan that states many competing goals will answer all questions so commissioners need to use their best judgment to serve the people of Haines, who collectively know what is best for the community.
Dan Schultz: I would listen to the residence of Haines. They are ultimately the ones affected by these contradictions.