Page 1352 – Must Read Alaska

Turn out the lights, the party’s over

Columns

-

July 31, 2019

22

By ART CHANCE

Thursday is Aug. 1. That is when the Inland Boatmen’s Union employees lose their health insurance for August.

The State pays two weeks behind, so the IBU members have one more paycheck or partial paycheck coming to them. Unless the governor and commissioner of Labor get a “stupid attack,” the strikers aren’t eligible for unemployment insurance, and the union has a minimal, if any, strike fund.

In a week or so, this gets really serious: The tourist season for independent travelers that might use the ferry is over. The only part of the Marine Highway that ever breaks even is the mainline runs and Northern Southeast in summer; that’s gone. From September until May, the ferry system runs mostly empty vessels and hemorrhages money.

Without the ferries, the people of Coastal Alaska and Kodiak will find a way. Without subsidized competition from the State, private shippers may enter the market, though I doubt they’ll try to enter the passenger market, except maybe in summer or for some special events: Southeast Alaska State Fair, Gold Medal Tournament, and Celebration come to mind.

I saw a whiney story in the Juneau Empire about the homesteading community of Gustavus not having any freight service other than the ferry, but the ferry serving Gustavus is a new thing, dating back to Gov. Frank Murkowski. Gustavus got along fine without ferries before.

It should be remembered that vast areas of Alaska, an area much larger that the ferry service area, have no transportation options other than air travel, skiffs, fishing boats, and summer-only barge service; they get by. There will be additional expense and some inconvenience, but the citizenry will adapt.

At this point there is no reason to give the IBU anything to get them back to work. They’ve wrecked the summer season with an illegal strike. The State should have filed an unfair labor practice against them, got a decision, and then sued the IBU for damages. The State obviously listened to its lawyers. If you listen to State lawyers, you will never do anything remotely aggressive; they’d prefer that you just never do anything.

The State Labor Relations Agency always avoided lawyers on its staff and avoided having any more contact with the State’s lawyers than absolutely necessary; all they did was make things cost more and take longer. When I was there, I broke down and changed the minimum qualification for the journeyman level labor relations staff to allow qualification with a law degree simply because the schools had become so dumbed down that it pretty much took a law degree to get anything like logical analysis and a decently written English paragraph.

It was always a problem with the marine unions that they had a very limited professional staff presence in Alaska. The Masters, Mates, and Pilots never had any Alaska staff or even an Alaska office; that’s technically illegal but nobody much cared; there are only about 100 of them. The IBU had offices in Juneau and Ketchikan, but they were staffed by people from the rank and file, not labor relations professionals. The Engineers had an office in Juneau and Greg O’Claray was their rep for many years.

O’Claray was a skillful political manipulator. I feared him on Election Day, but not in a hearing or negotiation. All of them used lawyers for any advocacy and called in staff from Outside when any big deal was going on. Generally that Outside staff had a lot of ego and a very little knowledge of Alaska or the situation.

I don’t think blue state union representatives have changed since I retired and I knew them pretty well. When AFSCME first took over the General Government Unit, they sent national staff out to deal with the rubes in Alaska. I’ll confess to being a bit intimidated at first. We were accustomed to dealing with local independent associations and a few old-fashioned trade unions. We had an adversarial relationship with them, but it was generally collegial. We could pound the table and call each other names all day and adjourn to the bar and critique each other’s performance. The blue state union reps were used to the charade that is collective bargaining in the blue states.

Generally the union owns the government and anything that looks like an adversarial situation is really just a charade to make it look like the government is putting up some resistance to giving the union whatever it wants.

Even though the State spent 20 hours with a federal mediator and the IBU’s California reps this weekend, I’ll guarantee you those union reps were casting about trying to find that certain someone in State government that they could pay off and get a deal.

In my last years with the State I had to have several sidebars with labor arbitrators to tell them that we weren’t running the usual Left Coast charade in which the arbitrator tossed the employer a few crumbs to brag about and gave the union everything it wanted. I had to tell them that it really was an adversarial proceeding and we wanted an actual, legal decision, and if the arbitrator gave the union what it was asking for they’d get it when I ran out of courts to appeal the arbitrator’s decision to – and I did appeal decisions to the courts and get them reversed.

It doesn’t take much of that to make arbitrators behave. Blue state labor relations is hopelessly corrupt and when you bring reps in from those blue states, they expect to find the same corruption.

The State erred in this negotiation by allowing them to reach impasse in the face of illegal proposals on the table. The State erred by not filing an Unfair Labor Practice complaint over those illegal proposals and the illegal strike. I think it is foolish to go to mediation because mediation is an impasse resolution tool under AS 23.40.200(a)(2) and there can be no valid impasse with an Unfair Labor Practice in play. Further, mediation is the factual predicate to seeking an injunction to return the union to work.

I never thought the State could prove a threat to public safety from a ferry strike, but you never know what an ambitious Superior Court judge might think. I know I wouldn’t let it go to Court in Juneau or Ketchikan.

In sum, the people will adapt. The union and the media will do a charade of starving babies and mommies dying of cancer because they can’t get to the doctor, but it will all be a charade. The IBU should be sued for damages and should spend a long, cold, hungry winter out of work. I don’t know if the MM&P would condescend to handle lines, but it would be good if the vessels could be moved to Ketchikan and laid up there. The licensed employees not necessary to maintain the ships in layup should be laid off. They’ll complain, but the State should win, and all the employees have to do is sign up at the hall and they’ll have work somewhere. If anybody cares whether there is a ferry system next spring, maybe the State will have something to talk to the IBU about.

Art Chance is a retired Director of Labor Relations for the State of Alaska, formerly of Juneau and now living in Anchorage. He is the author of the book, “Red on Blue, Establishing a Republican Governance,” available at Amazon.

Anchorage Economic Development Corp: We like PFDs, sometimes

The 907

SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR

-

July 31, 2019

14

Anchorage Economic Development Corp: We like PFDs, sometimes

BY KOBE RIZK

The Anchorage Economic Development Corporation released its annual 3-Year Outlook Report Wednesday in a star-studded lunch meeting at the Dena’ina Center in Anchorage.

It was a stark flip-flop from last year’s report, which stated that “a growing body of evidence indicates the recession is likely near its bottom and the local economy is poised for recovery.”

The AEDC previously anticipated that by this summer, Anchorage would be enjoying strong job growth, higher incomes, and a through-the-roof optimism score.

But according to AEDC, Anchorage’s Era of Good Feelings has come to a sudden end. All of this good news was thrown out the door. The reason? A $3,000 Permanent Fund dividend.

Gov. Michael Dunleavy’s vetoes of about $444 million from the state’s $8.7 billion operating budget—amounting to a total reduction of about 5 percent—will, according to the AEDC’s report, “promise to keep the local economy in recession”.

The governor’s reductions represent around 0.8 percent of Alaska’s $54 billion annual GDP, which the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis says grew over 3 percent in the past year.

Bill Popp, AEDC president and a former member of both the Gov. Bill Walker and Mayor Ethan Berkowitz transition teams, made the presentation.

According to a graph never previously included in an AEDC’s annual outlook report, the Permanent Fund dividend has absolutely nothing to do with employment (as if anyone ever claimed that it did):

The message from AEDC was clear: Paying a full PFD, and the 5 percent budget reduction needed to do so, is the impetus for Alaska’s coming economic troubles.

“While a large PFD may provide an infusion of personal income, its short-term benefits from an economy-wide perspective will not compensate” for the apparent economic bleed-out that will result from Alaska’s modest budget reductions.

What’s more, the AEDC seems to have quite a different position on the PFD than it has had in past years.

Ten years ago, AEDC similarly claimed that Alaskans ought to prepare for a deep recession, and said smaller Permanent Fund dividends would slow the economy.

“It is anticipated that growth will slow in the next three years due to slower employment growth, decreasing returns from investments in the stock market, lower profits for local businesses, and smaller Permanent Fund Dividend payments,” according to the 2009 report.

The AEDC also showed pro-PFD sentiments two years ago when it stated that “the annual Permanent Fund Dividend payment is typically one of the largest government transfers Anchorage residents receive each year. In 2016, the $1,022 payment was worth nearly $300 million to residents.”

If this was true three years ago, would a $3,000 PFD contribute three times that amount to Anchorage today? Would $900 million for one city outweigh the $444 million statewide in budget vetoes this year?

Governor changes staff: Babcock, Stevens swap places

Suzanne Downing

-

July 31, 2019

22

Governor changes staff: Babcock, Stevens swap places

Alaska Gov. Michael Dunleavy today announced changes to his senior staff: Ben Stevens will become the governor’s new chief of staff, and Tuckerman Babcock will take Stevens’ place as senior policy advisor for strategic affairs.

“It’s been a privilege to have Tuckerman Babcock serve as my chief of staff, and I’m grateful for his continued service and commitment to the State of Alaska,” Dunleavy said. “I’m confident that both Ben and Tuckerman’s leadership will continue to help us carry out this administration’s goals and agenda.”

“I’m excited to serve as senior policy advisor for strategic affairs,” Babcock said in a press statement. “This is a move I requested of the governor; which allows me to concentrate on the areas I can best serve the governor’s agenda. This will be a smooth internal transition. I have enjoyed working with Ben these past eight months and know he is more than qualified to serve as chief of staff to Governor Dunleavy.”

Ben Stevens has had a strong career in Alaska politics. Stevens was appointed by Governor Tony Knowles to the Alaska State Senate in August 2001. Stevens went on to serve as Alaska Senate Majority Leader and later Senate President.

“I’m honored that the Governor would ask me to serve as his chief of staff.” said Stevens. “I appreciate the leadership Tuckerman has shown since the transition and I look forward to continue working with him as we move the Governor’s agenda forward.”

Staff changes were announced today during a meeting of the Governor’s Cabinet and staff. A staff transition will begin immediately and take place over the next week.

Recall Dunleavy group ready to launch

Politics

Suzanne Downing

-

July 31, 2019

31

The official launch of the Recall Dunleavy campaign takes place Aug. 1 across the state of Alaska, when activists will endeavor to get the signatures they need from every district on a petition that will then be their basis for yet another petition to get the question on the ballot.

The foundational work has been going on for months, ever since Gov. Dunleavy issued his budget, and the groups involved have been busy building an organization and what they hope is a watertight case for recall. They have lawyers working on it, preparing for a legal challenge. Organizers have purchased the website names “firedunleavy,” “recalldunleavy,” and “dunleavylied”.

Meda DeWitt, is the chair and spokesperson, Joe Usibelli Sr..; Vic Fischer, former Democratic state senator; and former Sen. Arliss Sturgulewski, once a Republican but now an undeclared voter.

The petition, once filed with the necessary signatures, gets reviewed by the Division of Elections director, and then goes to the Department of Law, which must decide if everything is correct.

That decision also involves weighing whether the grounds for recall are sufficient to meet the vaguely worded standards of “Neglect of Duties, Incompetence, and/or Lack of Fitness.” These are judgment calls the Attorney General must make, and if he denies the recall effort based on those grounds or on technical matters, the groups involved will certainly take it to the Superior Court.

The Recall Dunleavy camp is counting on the courts to be sympathetic to their cause. Dunleavy did, after all, cut some of the Supreme Court’s administrative overhead, and the judges are on record protesting those cuts.

The first petition, which is circulating this week, requires 28,501 signatures; the second petition will need 71,252 for certification for the ballot.

THE PRECEDENT: WISCONSIN GOV. SCOTT WALKER RECALL

After making significant budget cuts, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin faced a recall election in 2012, and won. The recall organizers were mainly union activists unhappy with Walker’s limits on collective bargaining rights for state employees. They collected the 900,000 signatures needed to have a recall election. Walker and his lieutenant governor survived the recall, 53-46.

THE CHARGES AGAINST DUNLEAVY

The case being made is quite thin. Here are the exact words:

Neglect of Duties, Incompetence, and/or Lack of Fitness:

Governor Dunleavy violated Alaska law by refusing to appoint a judge to the Palmer Superior Court within 45 days of receiving nominations.
Governor Dunleavy violated Alaska Law and the Constitution, and misused state funds by unlawfully and without proper disclosure authorizing and allowing the use of state funds for partisan purposes to purchase electronic advertisements and direct mailers making partisan statements about political opponents and supporters.
Governor Dunleavy violated separation-of-powers by improperly using the line-item veto to (a) attack the judiciary and the rule of law; and (b) preclude the legislature from upholding its constitutional Health, Education and Welfare responsibilities.
Governor Dunleavy acted incompetently when he mistakenly vetoed approximately $18 million more than he told the legislature in official communications he intended to strike. Uncorrected, the error would cause the state to lose over $40 million in additional federal Medicaid funds.

THE RULES FOR RECALL

Section 11.8 – Recall.

All elected public officials in the State, except judicial officers, are subject to recall by the voters of the State or political subdivision from which elected. Procedures and grounds for recall shall be prescribed by the legislature.

Sec. 15.45.470. Provision and scope for use of recall.

The governor, the lieutenant governor, and members of the state legislature are subject to recall by the voters of the state or the political subdivision from which elected.

Sec. 15.45.480. Filing application.

The recall of the governor, lieutenant governor, or a member of the state legislature is proposed by filing an application with the director. A deposit of $100 must accompany the application. This deposit shall be retained if a petition is not properly filed. If a petition is properly filed the deposit shall be refunded.

Sec. 15.45.490. Time of filing application.

An application may not be filed during the first 120 days of the term of office of any state public official subject to recall.

Sec. 15.45.500. Form of application.

The application must include
(1) the name and office of the person to be recalled;
(2) the grounds for recall described in particular in not more than 200 words;

(3) the printed name, the signature, the address, and a numerical identifier of qualified voters equal in number to 10 percent of those who voted in the preceding general election in the state or in the senate or house district of the official sought to be recalled, 100 of whom will serve as sponsors; each signature page must include a statement that the qualified voters signed the application with the name and office of the person to be recalled and the statement of grounds for recall attached; and

(4) the designation of a recall committee consisting of three of the qualified voters who subscribed to the application and shall represent all sponsors and subscribers in matters relating to the recall; the designation must include the name, mailing address, and signature of each committee member.

Sec. 15.45.510. Grounds for recall.

The grounds for recall are (1) lack of fitness, (2) incompetence, (3) neglect of duties, or (4) corruption.

Sec. 15.45.515. Designation of sponsors.

The qualified voters who subscribe to the application in support of the recall are designated as sponsors. The recall committee may designate additional sponsors by giving notice to the lieutenant governor of the names, addresses, and numerical identifiers of those so designated.

Notice on all matters pertaining to the application and petition may be served on any member of the recall committee in person or by mail addressed to a committee member as indicated on the application.

Sec. 15.45.530. Notice of the number of voters.

The director, upon request, shall notify the recall committee of the official number of persons who voted in the preceding general election in the state or in the senate or house district of the official to be recalled.

Sec. 15.45.540. Review of application for certification.

The director shall review the application and shall either certify it or notify the recall committee of the grounds of refusal.

Sec. 15.45.550. Bases of denial of certification.

The director shall deny certification upon determining that

(1) the application is not substantially in the required form;

(2) the application was filed during the first 120 days of the term of office of the official subject to recall or within less than 180 days of the termination of the term of office of any official subject to recall;

(3) the person named in the application is not subject to recall; or

(4) there is an insufficient number of qualified subscribers.

Sec. 15.45.560. Preparation of petition.

(a) The director shall prepare a sufficient number of sequentially numbered petitions to allow full circulation throughout the state or throughout the senate or house district of the official sought to be recalled. Each petition must contain

(1) the name and office of the person to be recalled;

(2) the statement of the grounds for recall included in the application;

(3) a statement of minimum costs to the state associated with certification of the recall application, review of the recall petition, and conduct of a special election, excluding legal costs to the state and the costs to the state of any challenge to the validity of the petition;

(4) an estimate of the cost to the state of recalling the official;

(5) the statement of warning required in AS 15.45.570;

(6) sufficient space for the printed name, a numerical identifier, the signature, the date of signature, and the address of each person signing the petition; and

(7) other specifications prescribed by the director to ensure proper handling and control.

(b) Upon request of the recall committee, the lieutenant governor shall report to the committee the number of persons who voted in the preceding general election in the state or in the district of the official sought to be recalled by the recall committee.

Sec. 15.45.570. Statement of warning.

Each petition must include a statement of warning that a person who signs a name other than the person’s own to the petition, or who knowingly signs more than once for the same proposition at one election, or who signs the petition while knowingly not a qualified voter, is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

Sec. 15.45.575. Qualifications of circulator.

To circulate a petition booklet, a person shall be
(1) a citizen of the United States;
(2) 18 years of age or older; and
(3) a resident of the state as determined under AS 15.05.020.

Sec. 15.45.580. Circulation; prohibitions.

(a) The petitions may be circulated only in person throughout the state.

(b) A circulator may not receive payment or agree to receive payment that is greater than $1 a signature, and a person or an organization may not pay or agree to pay an amount that is greater than $1 a signature, for the collection of signatures on a petition.

(c) A person or organization may not knowingly pay, offer to pay, or cause to be paid money or other valuable thing to a person to sign or refrain from signing a petition.

(d) A person or organization that violates (b) or (c) of this section is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

(e) In this section,
(1) “organization” has the meaning given in AS 11.81.900;
(2) “other valuable thing” has the meaning given in AS 15.56.030; (3) “person” has the meaning given in AS 11.81.900.

Sec. 15.45.590. Manner of signing and withdrawing name from petition.

Any qualified voter registered to vote in the district represented by the official sought to be recalled may subscribe to the petition by printing the voter’s name, a numerical identifier, and an address, by signing the voter’s name, and by dating the signature. A person who has signed the petition may withdraw the person’s name only by giving written notice to the director before the date the petition is filed.

Before being filed, each petition shall be certified by an affidavit by the person who personally circulated the petition. In determining the sufficiency of the petition, the lieutenant governor may not count subscriptions on petitions not properly certified at the time of filing or corrected before the subscriptions are counted. The affidavit must state in substance

(1) that the person signing the affidavit meets the residency, age, and citizenship qualifications for circulating a petition under AS 15.45.575;

(2) that the person is the only circulator of that petition;

(3) that the signatures were made in the circulator’s actual presence;

(4) that, to the best of the circulator’s knowledge, the signatures are the signatures of the persons whose names they purport to be;

(5) that, to the best of the circulator’s knowledge, the signatures are of persons who were qualified voters on the date of signature;

(6) that the circulator has not entered into an agreement with a person or organization in violation of AS 15.45.580(b);

(7) that the circulator has not violated AS 15.45.580(c) with respect to that petition; and

(8) whether the circulator has received payment or agreed to receive payment for the collection of signatures on the petition, and, if so, the name of each person or organization that has paid or agreed to pay the circulator for collection of signatures on the petition.

Sec. 15.45.610. Filing of petition.

A petition may not be filed within less than 180 days of the termination of the term of office of a state public official subject to recall. The sponsor may file the petition only if signed by qualified voters equal in number to 25 percent of those who voted in the preceding general election in the state or in the senate or house district of the official sought to be recalled.

Sec. 15.45.620. Review of petition.

Within 30 days of the date of filing, the director shall review the petition and shall notify the recall committee and the person subject to recall whether the petition was properly or improperly filed.

Sec. 15.45.630. Bases for determining the petition was improperly filed.

The director shall notify the committee that the petition was improperly filed upon determining that

(1) there is an insufficient number of qualified subscribers; or

(2) the petition was filed within less than 180 days of the termination of the term of office of the official subject to recall.

Sec. 15.45.640. Submission of supplementary petition.

Upon receipt of notice that the filing of the petition was improper, the committee may amend and correct the petition by circulating and filing a supplementary petition within 20 days of the date that notice was given, if filed within less than 180 days of the termination of the term of office of the person subject to recall.

Sec. 15.45.650. Calling special election.

If the director determines the petition is properly filed and if the office is not vacant, the director shall prepare the ballot and shall call a special election to be held on a date not less than 60, nor more than 90, days after the date that notification is given that the petition was properly filed. If a primary or general election is to be held not less than 60, nor more than 90, days after the date that notification is given that the petition was properly filed, the special election shall be held on the date of the primary or general election.

Sec. 15.45.660. Preparation of ballot.

The ballot shall be designed with the question of whether the public official shall be recalled, placed on the ballot in the following manner: “Shall ( name of official ) be recalled from the office of . . . . . .?”. Provision shall be made for marking the question “Yes” or “No.”

Sec. 15.45.670. Conduct of special election.

Unless specifically provided otherwise, all provisions regarding the conduct of a general election shall govern the conduct of a special election for the recall of the state public official, including but not limited to, provisions concerning voter qualification; provisions regarding duties, powers, rights and obligations of the director, of other election officials, and of municipalities; provision for notification of the election; provision for the payment of election expenses; provisions regarding employees being allowed time from work to vote; provisions for counting, reviewing, and certification of returns; provision for the determination of votes and of recount contests and court appeal; and provisions for absentee voting.

Sec. 15.45.680. Display of grounds for and against recall.

The director shall provide each election board in the state or in the senate or house district of the person subject to recall with at least five copies of the statement of the grounds for recall included in the application and at least five copies of the statement of not more than 200 words made by the official subject to recall in justification of the official’s conduct in office. The person subject to recall may provide the director with the statement within 10 days after the date the director gave notification that the petition was properly filed. The election board shall post at least one copy of the statements for and against recall in a conspicuous place in the polling place.

Sec. 15.45.690. Certification of election results.

If a majority of the votes cast on the question of recall favor the removal of the official, the director shall so certify and the office is vacant on the day after the date of certification.

Sec. 15.45.700. Filling vacancy.

A vacancy caused by a recall is filled as a vacancy caused by any other means is filled.

Sec. 15.45.710. Insufficiency of grounds, application, or petition.

A recall submitted to the voters may not be held void because of the insufficiency of the grounds, application, or petition by which the submission was procured.

Sec. 15.45.720. Judicial review.

Any person aggrieved by a determination made by the director under AS 15.45.470- 15.45.710 may bring an action in the superior court to have the determination reviewed within 30 days of the date on which notice of determination was given.

MRAK Almanac: Meet an astronaut in Homer; Gold Rush Days in Valdez

Almanac

SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR

-

July 30, 2019

0

MRAK Almanac: Meet an astronaut in Homer; Gold Rush Days in Valdez

The MRAK Almanac is your place for political, cultural, and civic events, events where you’ll meet political leaders or, if you are interested in getting to know your state, these are great places to meet conservative- and moderate-leaning Alaskans.

Alaska Fact Book

Question: Is it true that there are more men than women in Alaska?

Answer: While the gender ratio in the United States was estimated to be 96.7 men to 100 women in 2010 (the most recent iteration of the U.S. Census), Alaska’s individual ratio was 108.5 men to 100 women. Alaska has the highest ratio of men to women in the country.

As an old sourdough saying goes “for women in Alaska, the odds are good, but the goods are odd.”

7/31: The Alaska Retirement Management Board’s actuarial committee will hold a meeting via teleconference at 9 am. Read more here.

7/31: The House will gavel in at 10 am in Juneau, with the Senate gaveling in at 11 am.

7/31: Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority will hold a program and planning committee meeting in Anchorage at 8:30 am. The committee will be taking steps to begin crafting the FY21 budget and hearing updates from several important mental health stakeholders. Read the agenda here.

7/31: The Anchorage Economic Development Corporation will hold its 3-year Outlook Luncheon at the Dena’ina Center in Anchorage. Tickets are $90, and many Alaska business leaders and government officials will likely attend. Read more here.

7/31: Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Board of Directors will meet in Anchorage at 10 am. The board will be considering a resolution approving the issuance of over $225 million in mortgage revenue bonds from the state. There will be a period for public comment, read the agenda here.

7/31: The Federal Subsistence Management Board has closed several zones within game management Unit 4 (in Baranof Island) to the harvest of mountain goats. The order goes into effect today at 11:59 pm. Further details here.

7/31: A great day to view the bore tide in Turnagain Arm. The two most popular vantage positions are Beluga Point and Bird Point. The tides will occur between the hours of 3 pm – 5 pm. See a more specific schedule here.

7/31: Female veterans round table talk in Fairbanks. Congressional representatives and VA staffers will be present to hear the concerns of local veterans. Read more at this link.

7/31: Deadline for public comment on NOAA’s draft Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Tug Powhatan oil spill in Sitka. The plan involves compensating the Sitka community for the economic damage of the spill in which “25.5 billion Pacific herring egg-equivalents were killed”. Visit this link to review the plan.

7/31: Last edition of the Gazebo Nights summer performances in Fairbanks’ Pioneer Park. Come enjoy live music for free. Begins at 7 pm.

7/31: Do you want to meet an astronaut? The Homer Public Library will host NASA astronaut Rex Walheim to speak about his life and experiences. Begins at noon, learn more here.

8/1: The Kodiak Island Borough Assembly will hold a regular meeting at 6:30 pm. The assembly will be voting on a letter to be sent to the Alaska Marine Highway System in opposition to reduced winter ferry service to Kodiak. Find the full agenda here.

8/1: Aviators Forum hosted by the Alaska Aviation Museum in Anchorage. Nick and Lita Oppegard, both former pilots with Wein Air Alaska, will be presenting about their adventures over the years. Read more at the Facebook link here.

8/1: Regular meeting of the Haines Borough Assembly at 6:30 pm. The assembly will be considering an ordinance to levy a 2% sales tax on alcohol and marijuana sales in the borough. There will also be a period of public comment, read the agenda here.

8/1: The Anchorage Assembly’s Community and Economic Development Committee will meet at 9 am. Read about items for Thursday’s meeting here.

8/1: Regular meeting of the Skagway Borough Assembly at 7 pm. Read the full agenda at this link.

8/1: Regular meeting of the Ketchikan City Council at 7 pm. Thursday’s agenda includes consideration of a license renewal for Rainforest Cannabis Cultivation, LLC as well as a “sales tax holiday” for the first Saturday following distribution of the PFD. Read the full agenda here.

8/1-8/2: The State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors will hold their quarterly meeting in Anchorage. Further details here.

7/31-8/4: Gold Rush Days in Valdez. This annual 5-day event celebrates both the rich history and future of Valdez. Festivities include old time games, gold panning, a gold rush parade, and so much more. See the full event lineup here.

Alaska History Archive:

August 1, 1943—76 years ago: The U.S. Army began daily bombings of Japanese-occupied Kiska in the Aleutian Chain. The Japanese had occupied the small island, as well as the nearby island of Attu, for over a year. Alaska’s Aleutian region was strategically important during the World War II as both the U.S. and Japan fought for control of the Pacific region.

August 1, 1977—42 years ago: The S.S. Arco left Valdez with the first oil shipment from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. The 1,883-foot vessel continued through the Valdez Narrows, sometimes only a half-mile wide, and embarked on a 1,200-mile journey to a refinery in northwest Washington near Seattle.

IBU bosses turn down State’s offer to allow workers to work

The 907

Suzanne Downing

-

July 30, 2019

0

IBU bosses turn down State’s offer to allow workers to work

The State of Alaska labor negotiators offered the Inland Boatmen’s Union a deal that would allow workers to go back to work, without disciplinary action for striking, while contract negotiations continue.

On Aug. 1, members of the Inland Boatmen’s Union will lose their health insurance benefits and they’ll also be heading into more weeks without pay.

But according to Department of Administration Commissioner Kelly Tshibaka, the IBU bosses said “no deal.” The workers will have to stand on the picket line, while the Alaska Marine Highway System vessels are tied up.

According to comments being made to news reporters, the rank and file members of the IBU want to go back to work. But as of Wednesday, the ferries are idle for the eighth day since the strike began on July 24.

What the union is asking for is more of every Alaskan’s diminished Permanent Fund dividend, which is has already been cut in half by the Legislature.

The union is also demanding the State of Alaska give it an exemption to the Janus ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, which affirmed that workers have a right to join or not join a union. Their rights are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Such an exemption would illegally force worker to become members of the union and force the State to be responsible for collecting the dues for the union.

Tshibaka: State has made numerous concessions; IBU has dug in

Columns

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR

-

July 30, 2019

17

Tshibaka: State has made numerous concessions; IBU has dug in

By KELLY TSHIBAKA
COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION

The Department of Administration, of which I serve as commissioner, is responsible for negotiating state worker union contracts. We take that responsibility very seriously. Our goal is to negotiate fair labor contracts that help our State of Alaska employees build better lives for themselves, while also serving the best interests of their fellow Alaskans.

Our team at the DOA, and those that preceded this Administration, have made every effort to address the Inland Boatmen’s Union’s demands without further compounding our State’s ballooning deficit.

In fact, since December 2016, the State has met with IBU representatives over 40 times. We believe it would be a dereliction of our duty, both to unions and Alaskans, for us to enter into a bargaining agreement that would benefit one union in the short-term but would further imperil the well-being of all Alaskans (including the IBU) in the long-term.

The State has faced several hurdles during negotiations with IBU representatives from California, including the IBU’s demands for wage increases at rates that are untenable in this fiscal climate and impermissible under Alaska law. The other Marine unions, whose members work alongside IBU employees, did not ask for such demands; they seem to better understand Alaska’s dire fiscal situation—and care about it! Labor unions are supposed to help their employees secure fair pay, not preferential pay.

During 20 hours of mediation last weekend, IBU brought in negotiators from California who don’t seem to understand Alaska laws. They repeatedly sent wage offers that are not legally permissible or feasible. Anyone who knows Alaska law and the legislative process would have known better.

IBU has yet to give the State a proposal that is legally allowed.

IBU notified the State it would strike over a provision regarding Union dues payment and collection that conflicts with the free speech protections guaranteed to all IBU-represented employees by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This is illegal.

IBU’s illegal strike began based on demands that all non-resident employees receive the same salary value as Alaskan employees. Alaska law (AS 23.40.210), however, requires that any agreement include a pay plan that provides for a cost-of-living differential between the salaries paid to Alaskan employees and non-resident employees. The IBU was demanding that the State accept this and violate the law. This is illegal.

IBU amended these provisions after the State informed the union that these provisions would render its strike illegal. But amending those illegal provisions after the strike was announced does not magically erase the illegal basis for striking in the first place. Under law, the IBU is obligated to end the strike and reach a deal.

The State has made numerous concessions to IBU, including four package proposals that granted some of IBU’s important requests, such as a 3-year deal and a wage increase, but IBU refused to change its illegal offer. The State proposed IBU employees contribute to their health care plan.

But the IBU agreed only if the State provided a “bonus” that covered the cost of premiums and paid members more than $700,000 extra for their trouble. That’s not a compromise. That’s an outrage!

The State also offered the IBU an ability for employees to return to work, without disciplinary action for striking, while we continue to negotiate the contract so the employees would be able to make money. The IBU refused to sign it.

Since the illegal strike began on Wednesday, July 24, the State of Alaska has lost nearly $3 Million of revenue in AMHS passenger ticket refunds. Our coastal communities, businesses and citizens have incurred millions of dollars in costs related to loss of visitor traffic, alternative transportation, and unexpected lodging. The strike has shut down a major transportation artery in the height of tourist season. It has been the logistical equivalent of a heart attack to coastal Alaska. The damages suffered is already incalculable.

We remain open to working with the IBU to reach an agreement that is lawful, good, and fair to employees and all Alaskans. We will not abandon our posts at the negotiating table until we reach a fair and fiscally responsible outcome.

We sit ready to receive the first legally permissible offer IBU is ready to make.

Kelly Tshibaka is the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration.

US Justice Department grants $6 million to Alaska for rural safety

The 907

Suzanne Downing

-

July 30, 2019

1

US Justice Department grants $6 million to Alaska for rural safety

The Alaska Department of Public Safety received a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice for infrastructure projects such as jails or office space in rural Alaska.

The $6 million will be released over two years and is a portion of the $10 million promised by the Justice Department after U.S. Attorney General William Barr visited rural Alaska in June.

“U.S. Attorney General Barr saw firsthand that our rural communities could benefit with some additional tools to bolster Alaska’s rural public safety, and he listened,” said Gov. Michael Dunleavy. “This $6 million commitment will reinforce the positive changes we are making through tightening Alaska’s crime laws and filling the ranks of the Alaska State Troopers – I thank the U.S. Department of Justice for their continued support of Alaskans and look forward to continued collaboration on improving rural public safety in discussion with rural Alaskan stakeholders, the US Department of Justice, the State of Alaska and its various departments.”

“From day one of this administration we have fostered strong partnerships to find solutions to improve public safety in our rural communities,” said Department of Public Safety Commissioner Amanda Price. “The Emergency Law Enforcement Declaration by DOJ reinforces the strides we’ve already taken to provide a stronger law enforcement presence where it is needed most. DPS is committed to helping our partner agencies to prioritize individual community needs to get the maximum benefit from this funding.”

The funds will be made available in October.

In contentious meeting, UA regents approve path to single accreditation

SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR

-

July 30, 2019

31

In contentious meeting, UA regents approve path to single accreditation

By KOBE RIZK

In an 8-3 vote and after hours of discussion, the University of Alaska Board of Regents directed UA President Jim Johnsen to pursue a single-accreditation model for the UA system. The plan to implement single accreditation would presumably eliminate much of the administration at UA’s individual campuses and centralize system administration at one yet-to-be-determined location.

The detailed plan for implementation, which Johnsen will present to the board in September, will likely also include consolidating academic programs and schools (such as engineering, education, and business) and ramping up the university’s focus on online education.

Regents met in Anchorage Tuesday morning to continue discussions of the university’s future in the face of a 41 percent reduction of unrestricted general funds from the state of Alaska, amounting to a 17 percent to the system’s budget overall. Today’s meeting was the regents’ third special meeting to be held this month.

While the possibility of the Alaska Legislature partially restoring funding to the university remains, the governor’s veto power looms and university administrators had previously outlined to regents the increasing severity of cuts required with each passing month of inaction.

The university system’s three chancellors presented on option 2, a so-called “consortium model” between the three main campuses (UAA, UAF, and UAS) that would rely on inter-campus collaboration for cost-saving. In this model, the three main campuses would maintain their own separate accreditations as well as administrators such as vice-chancellors, provosts, and deans. A “leaner” statewide administration would have less control in the day-to-day operations of the system’s campuses.

While regents ultimately elected not to adopt this plan, they directed Johnsen to “work with the chancellors” to implement the new single-accreditation model.

Gov. Michael Dunleavy telephoned into the regents’ meeting in the midst of their budget and structural discussions. Dunleavy recalled his personal connection to the university (he received his master’s degree at UAF) and affirmed his support for the institution despite his veto of over $130 million in state funding.

The governor’s Office of Management and Budget Policy Director Mike Barnhill presented at length to the board about a proposed “step-down” deal in which this year’s reduction would be spread over two years, with an approximately $85 million reduction for FY20. Barnhill recommended that the board work to decrease “administrative overhead” across the system and only making reductions of academic programs as a last resort. It is unclear if the regents accepted that offer.

The regents’ next scheduled meeting is Sept. 12-13 in Juneau, though it is possible that another special meeting is held before that time.

Turn out the lights, the party’s over

Anchorage Economic Development Corp: We like PFDs, sometimes

Governor changes staff: Babcock, Stevens swap places

Recall Dunleavy group ready to launch

MRAK Almanac: Meet an astronaut in Homer; Gold Rush Days in Valdez

IBU bosses turn down State’s offer to allow workers to work

Tshibaka: State has made numerous concessions; IBU has dug in

US Justice Department grants $6 million to Alaska for rural safety

In contentious meeting, UA regents approve path to single accreditation

About us

The latest

Special session: A Republican Overriders Caucus turns on governor and reverses his spending veto

Anchorage pedestrian deaths spiked 150% after Assembly ends jaywalking as an offense

Cessna dodges Glenn Highway traffic, crashes through fence at Merrill Field, no injuries reported