Angela Rodell’s personnel file shows festering troubles with Permanent Fund’s Board of Trustees

71
289

In the nearly 300 pages of the personnel files of former Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation CEO Angela Rodell, there’s everything from jury duty reports to usual financial disclosures. But in the most recent performance evaluation in December, there are numerous remarks about how she managed her staff and how she managed her relationship with the trustees.

In short, it wasn’t all roses. The board stated it felt Rodell pushed her own agenda and controlled what information she gave to the trustees.

She was fired by the trustees on a vote of 5-1 in December, and has stated that the firing was politically motivated. Board chairman Craig Richards has said it was due to performance, but did not elaborate. But upon request, the Permanent Fund Corporation has released Rodell’s personnel file to news agencies who have asked for it.

The matter of Rodell’s firing has become a fascination of the liberal-dominated media in Alaska and is the subject of a Legislative Budget and Audit Committee meeting on Monday, for which Chairwoman Sen. Natasha von Imhof has requested answers from the Board of Trustees. APFC Chairman Richards submitted his answers in writing late last week in advance of the Monday hearing, most of which is likely to be behind closed doors in executive session.

Rodell has sought to clear her name and has told the mainstream media that she may sue over her dismissal in order to restore her professional reputation.

She said the board “…got rid of me so they can have someone they can control and manipulate in the executive director’s seat.”

71 COMMENTS

  1. This seems eerily similar to another staffer in Anchorage who believes she is there to direct and control the elections commission instead of the other way around.

  2. Just a member of the public here but I believe whatever has been the sytematic management of those funds have resulted in more than satisfactory gains in this troubled year. It’s possible a less risk averse strategy of investment timing “might” have inched up the gains and greatly increased management fees. Increased management fees are an attractive feature to some earnest gentlemen. In reality Alaska’s nest egg has a “come hither” element to it to which is not lost on globalists who may have a trail not unknown to those who keenly watch the flow of wealth. Since her investment work has resulted in well managed gains I would be inclined to set aside the action of the board if she is willing to continue to direct one of the best places to work.

  3. I hope she does sue. The goings on of the Permanent Fund Corp could use some fresh air and sunshine.
    I’ve seen how institutions like that will chose a victim and destroy them for not “playing ball”.

  4. Also what bar association lawyer signed jury duty reports requeststo use in a clandestine employee investigation/re-investigation ad naiseum of an employee? Is that the purpose of jury duty to gain reports to use against Alaskan employees because the trust of the people in the candidness of participants in any jury process is tied directly to constitutional rights of Alaskan freemen. Whoever requisitioned and signed for the jury report to be used in this unexpected manner deserves to be censured fully. If this powerful sect of English oath lawyers are doing this to her with no fear of being revealed they are most certainly doing so to any and all Alaskans participating in jury duty. How is this heretofore not published practice of law of “pulling” jury reports not expositive of more of a repugnant underbelly practice in this privileged industry. Does this just happen in Juneau on a handshake basis? Or is this a practice China proposed and to whom and when exactly? THIS is another fine subject to debut a new US Constitutional defense as standard practice within the netherland of Alaska. Please, continue inquiring. Good job Senator Von Imhof.

  5. She said the board “…got rid of me so they can have someone they can control and manipulate in the executive director’s seat.”

    Well, she does work FOR the board. So even if that were true it is not very damning.
    It depends what she means by “manipulate”. To do something illicit? Doubtful.

    • “She said the board “…got rid of me so they can have someone they can control and manipulate in the executive director’s seat.”
      Well, she does work FOR the board. So even if that were true it is not very damning……….”
      I’m curious about the “Strategic Plan” that she wanted to adhere to and that the board wanted to stray from. Did new board members develop a new strategic plan through a voting process? If not, why not? What were the things that the board wanted to do that didn’t fit the plan? Is this Strategic Plan reviewed and amended periodically on a schedule? Does this Strategic Plan cover both investment and operational strategies? The term “political reasons” can be seen to include just about anything under the sun, and an accomplished attorney like Mr. Richards knows this. His letter to the Senate committee is very well drafted, but if tested, my bet is that even if Ms. Rodell’s at-will position might be lost, a few political black eyes might still be suffered.

    • Her statement by itself is reason for her being let go. The boards job is to set policy and it’s the CEO job to implement that policy

    • That’s my take away too. If I was in her shoes and the board was trying to manipulate me to do things illicit, I would say that the board wanted me to do things I didn’t feel were ethical or they hid information from me so they would get the outcomes they wanted. That, in my mind, is “manipulation”. Otherwise, the CEO is supposed to answer to the board, and the board is supposed to be able to control the CEO’s actions and priorities, so her response is just giving me more reason to believe SHE had her own agenda and didn’t want to answer to the board, just as the board has stated. CEO’s get fired and hired all of the time. She shouldn’t worry about her reputation and I honestly believe she is just saying she might sue in order to restore her reputation. If the PFD grew under he watch and more than the market, she’ll land on her feet just fine. Now, if she has reasons for us to question the boards’ intentions, I’m all ears.

  6. Rodell got what she wanted: the public’s full review of her performance. It shows me that the Board was justified in her firing. Someone at her level shouldn’t be this bad in her leadership. I think this is worse for her and in my opinion doesn’t clear her name but justifies her firing. We want a person in the leadership seat at the PF that can grow the investments, not play politics with it.

    • Dunleavy, is that you? The excuses for firing her are weak. Are you saying her performance was less than stellar? Because the Permenant Fund would disagree.

      The only reason she was fired is because Dunleavy didn’t like that she prioritized the Permanent Fund over his promise to give his voters free money, which would result in a reduced fund.

      Rodell is a professional. Dunleavy is anything but a professional. And the excuses show.

  7. Alaska used to have a thing called a policy and procedure manual for every public process in use in every department. It was a three ring binder. And it was available to the public. The preparation of procedure manuals as a reference by public employees was a dynamic process subject to continuous review. My bias and belief is you must have a manual system that works before and always before any automated system will work (PeopleSoft – hi California). The best practice is to continue to maintain a physical manual to ensure uniform, fair treatment across departments if desired for some unknown reason. Is that still a goal? Or, has this been dropped like the US Constitution? What is the process for an employer to gain access to a trancribed, written “Jury Report”. Are the advertant though otherwise clandestine meanderings of “Jury Reports” used or misused inadvertantly memorialized in an Alaska procedure manual in our modern, common era?

  8. “……But in the most recent performance evaluation in December, there are numerous remarks about how she managed her staff and how she managed her relationship with the trustees……..”
    Was this markedly different from her next previous performance evaluation? I notice that she was stressing the Strategic Plan, but the board wanted something more or different. Frankly, if true, I appreciate her loyalty to plans that had been approved. I also note that five board members are Dunleavy appointees and one is a Walker appointee. I wonder who was the lone vote to retain her?

      • Interesting. So was Moran voting, not only against firing Rodell, but to protect the Strategic Plan drafted by an earlier board made up of Walker appointees? When was this Strategic Plan due for review? Were Ms. Rodell’s earlier performance reviews positive and only the last one indicating problems?

  9. Was she just not being deferential enough to these folks because they NEED deferentialness or they become puzzled and increase their inquisitiveness to the point of ordering jury reports. Really! I realize it’s a small task to ask a person riding a bucking bronco in this heck of a volitile market to increase texting or whatever. It was a small task to demand that she take her eye off the ball and assuage them and work to “improve” her relationship with these earnest board members. Do you have any idea of how a lack of affirming communication can cause such paralysis in a professional board? A firing offense for sure.

  10. Boo hoo! Big deal. She was fired. She’s replaceable by hundreds of different qualified Alaskans who could bring fruit to the table in a bull market.

      • She’s a Bill Walker stoogie who hates Dunleavy. She was elected to NOTHING. Her employees hated her. Hooray for the Board, getting rid of this arrogant Democrat b*tch.

        • Dear Kemo: Among an array of things she may be is apolitical and commited to the joy of growing the pile of funds FOR the Alaskan people’s fiduciary interests which: China commies don’t like the concept of, nor do “American” international ollies like either. What they demand immediately is “stoogieness”. Being anybodies stooge may not be one of her graces. Some people just like what they do well like selecting performing strategies for growing trust funds, husbanding them, and protecting them from full-on naked aggressions…stealing as it were. I’m thinking she did, is doing a fantastic job regardless of a political millieu around her like her predecessor Mr Rose did equally gracefully. Expect men to reach in and try to grab. That’s what they do; they aren’t getting our coin. Go somewhere else.

        • What about Craig Richards? He was Walker’s AG. Rodell was selected by the board.

          Why did you change your tune on Richards, who is apparently Dunleavy’s guy now? Rodell works for the people of Alaska, and has done a stellar job.

          It appears you can’t dig your way out of the schoolyard mud pit, and clearly the ciritical thinking ladder is way above your head.

          • Critical thinking isn’t your trump card, Mr. Saynomore. You are a big bag of wind with a que card. Rodell hates Dunleavy. Democrats pulled a false flag operation. Bill Walker, once again, tried to be a benefactor, praying no one digs deep into his background. All calculable. Except by you because you are a just a mouthpiece with a very little bullhorn.

          • Julia speaking of hot air, you make a lot of claims without any supporting evidence. So here is your opportunity to back things up.

            1) why do you believe Rodell hates Dunleavy? And why would that matter? Answer both.
            2) What false flag operation?
            3) What does Walker have to do with this?

            You’ve got 3 points to back up. Best get working.

    • Sure, just like anyone could manage the state better than the last half dozen Republicans. Too bad we keep electing the ones who can’t….

  11. “the Permanent Fund Corporation has released Rodell’s personnel file to news agencies”
    “News Agency “
    I almost blew milk out of my nose on that one.
    (Not referring to MRA)

  12. Very sadly, I would not be surprised to see a charge of “sexism” or sexual harassment pop out here fairly soon. It is a common currency of careerists worldwide these days. I hope I am wrong.

    • Didn’t take her long to snuggle up to Pravda, excuse me, the ADN. They’ll run a typical Pravda hit job.

      I had bosses I didn’t like. I had bosses who wanted me to do things I disagreed with or which I thought shouldn’t be done or couldn’t be done legally. But they were the boss, and my choices were simple. I had to accept getting along with someone I didn’t like or one of us had to leave; I’ve done that both ways. I’ve left, and I’ve helped some people leave. If I thought something was I’ll advised or illegal I could try persuasion, and I was often successful in getting positions changed. I don’t think I’ve ever done anything that was outright illegal, but I’ve done a fair share that were “arguably legal.”

      Even if you’re the Governor you have a boss, or in the Governor’s case, lots of bosses. Rodel had a boss, the Board. It is lost on a lot of “director” types these days that all they have is executive authority; they execute policy set by others. If Redell didn’t like the Board’s policies, she had a simple choice.

      That said, the fundamental mistake here is that the Board didn’t remove her the minute they had a Dunleavy majority. A Republican Administration simply cannot govern with Democrat holdovers in high-level positions; they will leak, thwart, and sabotage at every turn. No Republican should ever appoint or retain in an appointive position anyone who has been appointed by a Democrat.

      • “……… A Republican Administration simply cannot govern with Democrat holdovers in high-level positions; they will leak, thwart, and sabotage at every turn. No Republican should ever appoint or retain in an appointive position anyone who has been appointed by a Democrat.”
        True, but that works both ways. Also true is that removals like this will generate controversy. That, too, is something that must be lived with and dealt with. I remain curious about why she was enough of a liability that she had to be separated in this overt way if her power was limited to investing and operating IAW an established Strategic Plan that had been working fine especially since the Permanent Fund controversy up to this point had been all about how to spend the non-reinvested earnings. Frankly, the rats are reeking, and the stench will eventually be found by average noses. I suspect one of two possibilities: first is just hatred of “the other guys”…….fire her! Secondly, the previous Strategic Plan was a target for some reason, and that’s the possibility that intrigues me the most.

        • I don’t think I ever saw your name in the DOSO, so you represent the “I’ don’t know what I’m talking about” element here.

          My head was on the auction block in every election from ’88 to ’04, but the unions and communists, excuse me, Democrats never got it; I left at a time and under circumstances of my choosing.

          • The “I’ don’t know what I’m talking about” element is all you ever have, Art. What’s wrong with that? Did the commies take away your manhood?

      • Art: exaggeration reveals you as a weak thinker. Not as ignorable as Bob Bell though, so there’s that.

  13. If only Mr Rose, her predecessor, had had to work on his communication with the board cuz that’s what guys do isn’t it. The board is treating her like a clerk-typist III like you do…I need you to check with me and receive my consulting demands. That will be a big fat no.

  14. Who and where is this liberal dominated media in Alaska? ADN is owned by whom? This is propaganda, She made money and was tough executive. She wasn’t a patsy to a grifting politician. We all lose with republican grifters in office..

  15. There are no dates or titles on the papers above. Yes the board can fire the CEO for whatever they want, but the legislature has the duty to investigate the process. We know Rodell argued with Dunleavy about the direction of the PFD. I personally don’t trust anything the governor does with the PFD and I have trouble believing he didn’t have something to do with Rodell’s firing

      • “They cannot fire illegally……….”
        She is an at-will executive. Nothing about her dismissal is illegal. It appears, however, highly political. That in itself is not surprising, especially for a position like that. What interests me isn’t the employment of Ms. Rodell. It’s the real reasons behind her dismissal. I fully understand the struggle within this state over the spending of the Permanent Fund earnings. But what does her position have to do with that? Her position is to administer investments and operations in accordance with the plans developed by the Board of Trustees and overseen by the Governance Committee. Is there a struggle over the investment strategy?

        • Don’t worry, there is some Democrat judge who thinks that if s/he does a great service for the Democrats s/he will get appointed to a higher court. If you’re a Republican, you simply expect to lose at the trial court level.

          It really is a myth that anybody with the PFC manages investments; they manage contracts with investment firms and get a lot of nice trips to NYC and SFO for their trouble. You can get the same work done down in General Services for Range 14 wages.

          • “…….It really is a myth that anybody with the PFC manages investments; they manage contracts with investment firms and get a lot of nice trips to NYC and SFO for their trouble…….”
            If the job is to manage contracts, then she has no role in spending the earnings. And as for trips to NYC or SFO, I wouldn’t want to go to either rat’s nest, even for free. They’re both disgusting trash heaps.

          • quite the victim complex there Art. Are you of the opinion that the courts do not weigh legal arguments, just party affiliation? Because you know you can’t argue the legality the case if that’s your excuse. That’s what children do when they don’t get what they want. Break down and start kicking the ground. Pathetic.

  16. This is pertinent and important information that so far as I know can only be learned by reading MustReadAK. As so often happens, the rest of the Alaska media uses filters to keep us from having comprehensive news and the best information. That said, the firing of Rodell and especially the dismissal of Kevin Meyer were poorly done. Notwithstanding MustReadAK, all 4 branches of government, the executive, legislative, judicial and the media are serving Alaskans very poorly at this time.

    • Our guranteed form of government is a confederate (definition “friendly”) republic and has exactly only three branches: legislative, executuve, judiciary. When you start adding “branches” you are fundamentally changing our form of government which you nor your (foreign) associations have delegated authority to do. Only the article 5 convention of we the people has authority to change “This” 1776 Constitution of the United States. Don’t tell me they held a secret convention and didn’t tell anybody. That would be an insurrection. Don’t tell me media did not tell we the people something as germaine as this. We do not have a class of privilege allowed to add branches because we are all equal. Forever. Perhaps you are a monarchist. That is a form of government not allowed in the United States of America.

  17. Not among the worst reviews she’s received. Why would they have fired her over preformance reviews that aren’t that bad? Seems the explanation from the board does not match the facts. And Alaskans will suffer. Dunelavy smells worse than usual on this one.

    • “Why would they have fired her over preformance reviews that aren’t that bad?”

      .

      The Board, under the direct “supervision” of attorney Craig Richards, cited this performance review when they voted to fire Ms. Rodell because it is not entirely negative and has some higher marks in areas that don’t matter much. If it were written in a more negative way with more negative scores and comments, it would be easier for her attorneys to challenge it successfully. The review is “middle of the road” at a time when the Permanent Fund, under her leadership, has been extremely successful. This is a “hatchet job” and should be viewed and interpreted in this way.

      .

      Richards knows how to screw somebody over. He has a lot of experience with this. This is another example of that. I say, “get rid of him, not her”.

      • Agreed. It seems Dunleavy is the reason though. Richards can be tossed, and no loss to Alaska will come of it. But someone needs to be held accountable.

  18. Any intelligent person can read the review and see just cause to let her go. Quit scratching the scab, it was obviously the right decision.

  19. I hear she and von Imhof are close friends. Wouldn’t that be conflict if she is allowed to chair the committee? Just asking for a friend.

  20. It’s interesting to see the comment section struggle with which conspiracy to chase or who to get mad at with this one. Sometimes personalities clash and Boards are notoriously needy/whiny. Big whoop.

    • Pat, the issue is the fact that Rodell was fired for no reason, other than she wouldn’t go along with Dunleavy’s plan of paying out money to Alaskans. And that decision has a direct impact on the Permanent Fund, which has never performed better than under her leadership. Her job is to grow the fund, and she did. Dunleavy’s plan is to pay for the votes he promised 4 years ago, without any concern for the fund. I think most Alaskans would prefer to keep politics out of the permandent fund. It is a big whoop. Another big whoop, which Dunleavy’s hands all over it. Another reason to boot him this election. One of many,.

        • Hunter, why would you comment with absolutely nothing to offer? You must be a genius in your own mind.

      • “……she wouldn’t go along with Dunleavy’s plan of paying out money to Alaskans…….”
        Can you please explain what her role was in preventing any of the proposed earnings expenditures? Aren’t all such spending scenarios the role of the Legislature?

        • Rodell advised lawmakers to stick with a rules-based approach for spending from the fund, in line with resolutions from the board. A 2018 law passed by lawmakers calls for limits on withdrawals that Dunleavy previously proposed exceeding to boost the size of dividend checks.

          Dunleavy wanted her to go along with her plan, and she didn’t. Dunleavy got her fired. It’s not complicated.

    • That’s my thoughts as well and if she has an agenda that is different than the boards, it only makes sense for her to go to her next job. And I invite her to say whatever she thinks we need to hear about how she disagrees with the boards’ plans and priorities. I think that’s what I CEO’s get fired and hired all of the time. She’ll land on her feet just fine. The fund did great under her, but so did my 401k that I did nothing to. And one should calculate that maybe this isn’t “transitory” inflation. And she’s been in there for a long time, as I understand it. And if a Democrat governor comes in and has different plans for the PFD than Dunleavy, there is no question that that Democrat governor wouldn’t even hesitate to find ways to remove the CEO appointed under Dunleavy. But hopefully Dunleavy AND the other party can come to an agreement and are successful at locking up the PFD and throwing away the key so it isn’t used every single campaign to buy votes. Those that think Dunleavy just wants to drain the PFD so he can buy votes can vote against him. I personally just want our government to learn how to retract when needed and the PFD to be out of the reach of politicians’ campaigns. If the PFD gets drained in the process and given out to the citizens that understand what it takes to make a dollar better than the wasteful government, so be it. But I have reviewed Dunleavy’s plan. It won’t drain it, like so many partisan people hope it will. I just don’t want any sticky fingers and she is welcome to speak, which is what I have to believe von Imhof is inviting her to do. Rodell should spend less time talking about herself and more about why she disagrees with the boards’ priorities because she cares about the funds and Alaskans.

  21. I am pleased that even with miscommunications the team did so well for Alaska in the last cycles. They can be very proud of that. The world seems to be turning a corner and ratcheting back to a correcting cycle for a while and different strategies will need to be found.

Comments are closed.