Clear As a Bell: Alaska Constitution Calls for Transparency in Government

By Edward Martin, Jr.

Alaskans are right to be frustrated. We see delays in Medicaid and SNAP, backlogs in permits, secret contracts, and billion-dollar decisions made with little public explanation. Recent reporting and op-eds, such as Cliff Groh’s “Alaska can’t afford secrecy deals and fiscal fantasy,” have rightly criticized secrecy surrounding investments of the Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR) and opaque agreements related to the proposed gasline project. 

Those concerns deserve to be heard and addressed. Alaska’s fiscal and governance crisis is not only a failure of management, judgment, or political courage, but a deeper failure to follow the Alaska Constitution and the statutes enacted to enforce it. 

Transparency is not a preference. It is not a campaign promise. It is a constitutional principle. 

The CBR Is Not a Hedge Fund 

The CBR exists for a specific purpose: to stabilize state finances during downturns and ensure continuity of essential services. It is not a venture capital pool. It is not a speculative instrument. It is a public trust fund governed by constitutional principles and fiduciary standards. 

When public officials commit CBR funds to illiquid, high-risk private equity — especially through contracts negotiated outside public view — the question is not simply whether the investment was “reasonable” or “competent.” The question is whether constitutional fiduciary duties were violated. 

Under Alaska’s constitutional structure, public officers are not owners of public funds. They are trustees. Trustees are required to act prudently, transparently, and within the limits of the authority granted to them by law. When that framework is ignored, the result is not just bad policy; it is erosion of the rule of law. 

Accountability Was Designed into the System— But Has Been Ignored 

Alaska’s founders did not assume perfect leaders. They assumed human fallibility. That is why they built in safeguards: oaths of office, separation of powers, legislative oversight, and statutory bonding requirements. 

Bonding statutes exist to ensure that when public officials handle vast sums of money, there is financial accountability if those funds are mishandled or misused. When officials act without proper bonding or indemnification, risk is shifted away from decision-makers and onto the public — precisely what the framers sought to prevent. 

We cannot meaningfully talk about “competence” or “incompetence” while ignoring the legal mechanisms for accountability. 

Secret Contracts Are a Symptom, Not the Disease 

The same structural problem appears in discussions about the gasline. The issue is not whether Alaskans want affordable energy or economic development. We do. The issue is how decisions are being made, by whom, and under what authority. 

When the State enters agreements whose terms are shielded from public scrutiny, assigns controlling interests to private entities, or withholds cost estimates on projects that could obligate future generations, that is not merely poor optics. It raises fundamental questions about delegation of authority, legislative control, and compliance with public records and procurement laws. 

Administration Cannot Be Fixed by Revenue Alone 

Calls to “explore additional revenues” often follow these discussions. But Alaska’s Constitution was never intended to treat revenue as a substitute for compliance. Before asking Alaskans to contribute more, the State must demonstrate that it can follow the law it already has. 

Legislative audits have warned that agencies are failing to comply with state and federal law. Workforce shortages and training gaps may explain some failures, but they do not excuse them. A government that cannot meet its basic legal obligations — to disclose, to account, to comply — cannot rebuild trust simply by adjusting tax or revenue policy. 

The sequence matters: law first, policy second. 

Constitutional Literacy as Priority #1 

With statewide and legislative elections approaching, voters will hear many promises about efficiency, courage, and honesty. Although those qualities are important, Alaska’s future first depends on a fundamental commitment to constitutional discipline. 

The Alaska Constitution does not ask us to trust blindly. It asks us to insist on transparency, enforce accountability, and remember that public power is a loan from the people — not a possession of officeholders. 

If we want to restore trust, protect essential services, and secure Alaska’s future, we must stop treating constitutional compliance as optional or secondary. It is the foundation on which everything else rests. 

Because no amount of new revenue, new leadership, or new slogans can fix a government that has drifted away from the rule of law.