Page 1434 – Must Read Alaska

MRAK Update: We’re up to 20,000 comments!

Columns

-

August 1, 2019

MRAK Update: We’re up to 20,000 comments!

A Must Read Alaska reader who writes under the pen name of “Steve-O” provided the 20,000th comment on the MRAK website since this conservative news-and-commentary site launched in May, 2016.

That’s 740 comments a month.

Steve-O wrote his comment beneath an op-ed posted from the Anchorage Daily Planet, titled, “Let the Nuttiness Begin.” It’s about the recall effort underway to get rid of the governor. Here’s the 20,000th comment:

“Make no mistake, this is more about wearing down the populace than anything else. The prolonged siege in the high castle that is Juneau is what these folks want. The working folk will tire of their antics, is the hope. The working folks will accept the rule from on high, and simply return to plowing the fields. The more the ruling class can numb the general populace the more they can get away with…unless by rubbing our hair the wrong direction hard enough and long enough they wake the sleeping beast! The squeaky wheel that is the government employee keeps getting louder and the people they are supposed to serve is just beginning to wake.”

COMMENTS AND HOW THEY WORK AT MRAK

Must Read Alaska welcomes comments on stories. When you read a story, you have an option to comment at the bottom of the story. Write your thoughts and send it, and your comment will seem to disappear. It goes into the approval line, which is checked frequently throughout the day. Each comment is scanned quickly for language and for persistent trolls who are overly harassing or abusive. Those who are setting too unpleasant a tone will roll into the trash bin, while those who are polite opponents, even those who joust continuously (you know who you are) get approved.

If the editor has time, she’ll clean up grammar and spelling. Cuss words will get redacted before a post is approved, and it’s all done quickly between phone calls and stories and is an admittedly imperfect process.

There are some comments that are mistakenly snagged by the site’s pretty-smart spam filter, and the MRAK editor checks the list of blocked spam a few times a week to see if a valid comment ended up there.

Must Read Alaska allows pen names, but weeds out comments from those who have pen names that are abusive. If you choose a nasty pen name, your comment will go in the trash.

In other words, keep it clean, have a good dialogue with other readers, stay civil, and it all works out.

CHECK THE FORUM, TOO

There’s another place to make your views known, and that’s the MRAK Forum. It’s a place where folks can chime in on existing topics or create their own. It’s not tied to a specific story, but is topic-driven. The MRAK Forum is just getting off the ground, so feel free to step up and create your own Forum topic thread. As with comments, you may use a pen name.

The forum is a bit more of a Wild West, and is only lightly monitored. (If you see abuse there, be sure to alert suzanne @ mustreadalaska . com so that this site can retain its sassy-but-polite character.)

THANK YOU, READERS AND COMMENTERS

Must Read Alaska’s editor is grateful to everyone who visits this site, whether or not they offer their own ideas. Thank you for being a reader, and thank you for taking the time to write a response to what you see here.

Juneau’s rainbow crosswalk: Political signal or just happy place?

The Social

Suzanne Downing

-

August 1, 2019

6

Juneau’s rainbow crosswalk: Political signal or just happy place?

The gender-diversity group that kept painting unsanctioned rainbows at a downtown Juneau crosswalk finally won: The City and Borough of Juneau let them paint an approved rainbow on a crosswalk at the corner of Main and Front Streets in the heart of downtown. It was paid for with private funds raised at GoFundMe.com

It is bright, even garish in its fresh-paint phase, and it’s got a social change message painted all over it: The rainbow is the adopted flag of the LGBTQ movement, representing gay pride and acceptance. According to Wikipedia, it is the symbol of a social movement.

Although one cannot trademark a rainbow, the gay pride movement has achieved virtual ownership of the rainbow flag as a symbol with strong and sometimes controversial political and policy meaning in our culture.

Some Juneau conservatives are not impressed that the city is allowing city streets to become canvases for political messages. One critic asked why there are not crosswalks painted with the flag of Israel to show solidarity with a nation that is always under persecution. How about painting the symbol of a donkey on a crosswalk? An anti-climate change crosswalk? A crosswalk devoted to POW/MIAs? Or maybe salmon, our state’s favorite finned protein? Who could be opposed to any variation on the rainbow crosswalk theme?

“It puts the city into a position of having to make a decision the next time an advocacy group comes to City Hall and asks if it can paint a crosswalk,” explained a critic, speaking on terms of anonymity.

The project is being done in collaboration with the Juneau Arts and Humanities Council, and the $10,000 to be raised for the project will keep it in paint for the next three years, with the expectation that it will have to be repainted annually. It is a pilot project, and the group indicates that other rainbow crosswalks could pop up in Juneau in the future.

Juneau isn’t the first to have a rainbow crosswalk project. San Antonio, Seattle, St. Louis, Phoenix, and dozens of other cities and towns have pioneered the political paint jobs.

Third time a charm? Giessel and Edgmon ask governor to call Special Session III

Politics

Suzanne Downing

-

August 1, 2019

67

Third time a charm? Giessel and Edgmon ask governor to call Special Session III

Senate President Cathy Giessel and House Speaker Bryce Edgmon asked Gov. Michael Dunleavy to call a third Special Session in order to hammer out a formula for the Permanent Fund dividend going forward.

The two made the request in a letter to the governor on Wednesday. The current special session runs through Aug. 7, and both the House and Senate are currently adjourned until Aug. 6.

“Among our discussions in the legislature is the future use of the earnings of the Alaska Permanent Fund and the need to consider policy issues relevant to the long-term sustainability of the Fund and the PFD. There is also broad recognition that given the complexity involved that attempting to find a solution during a regular legislative session is difficult if not virtually impractical,” they wrote.

“We are proposing that a special session take place before the end of the 2019 calendar year to consider the issue. Furthermore, it is our wish to work collaboratively with your administration on the timing of the special session, the location, and the need to ensure the broadest possible debate be facilitated relative to the critical nature of the issue under discussion.

“To that end, the co-chairs of the bicameral legislative Permanent Fund Working Group have been directed to schedule meetings as soon as practically possible. Their purpose is to do the advance work necessary for the Legislature to meet its objective during the special session.

“We thank your administration for being available to work with the PFWG and hope the atmosphere of mutual collaboration can continue in upcoming months. We also extend our gratitude to you for making yourself and your team available to meet and discuss the many important issues that came with passing operating and capital budgets during this second special legislative session,” Giessel and Edgmon wrote.

The Legislature can call itself into a special session, but needs 40 votes, which it may find difficult to muster under the current political climate. Meanwhile, the spending bill and Permanent Fund dividend bill has not yet been transmitted to Dunleavy’s desk, where it will face a series of line item vetoes.

The Alaska experience: Too much spending has led to social ills

Columns

Suzanne Downing

-

August 1, 2019

11

The Alaska experience: Too much spending has led to social ills

By TOM BOUTIN

A balanced budget is the most durable fiscal plan for any state, any government. For that reason I am more optimistic about the economic future of Alaska because of efforts to reduce state spending, including the ongoing veto process.

Throughout the 2018 election I understood that, if elected, Michael Dunleavy would do everything possible to balance the state budget at a lower level than the 2019 budget. During the campaign season I carried with me a table from the Legislative Finance Division that showed 2019 spending to be 13.4 percent higher than 2018, and I spoke to people about that, correcting media reports that the state budget had been reduced.

Going door to door last year I found people angry that the operating budget had grown at all, that it had grown so large, and that the PFD amount no longer relied upon the statutory formula.

Claiming the state budget has been reduced while total spending consistently rises has not worked, obviously. It has brought us the Goose Creek prison debt, the Constitutional Budget Reserve liability, the Permanent Fund dividend mistrust, and most recently temporary suspension of the Power Cost Equalization electricity subsidy. Billions of dollars are gone forever.

The 2020 budget, if the vetoes return to become law, is the first honest budget reduction – ever. Gov. Michael Dunleavy’s fiscal plan is the clearest plan of any governor since I first arrived here in 1973.

Yes, lower state spending will be felt by the retail and service sectors, mostly in the near term. But the first, best hope for the Alaska economy and for Alaska producing enough goods and services to allow 700,000 Alaskans to continue our high level of aggregate consumption is not a new or expanded state program. It’s a balanced state budget.

The amount of goods and services Alaskans produce for sale to the rest of the world has not kept pace with increases in aggregate consumption nor with government spending. I believe production will rise in the mid to long-term once the annual budget conundrum is fixed and annual state spending matches recurring revenues.

Quality of life is not derived from government. If it was then our current level of spending would have solved instead of grown our homelessness problem. Alaska prisons would be empty and we would have no drug problem. Our high school students would all qualify for free-ride scholarships at Ivy League colleges.

The Alaska experience is solid proof that spending cannot provide satisfactory outcomes in education, health care, drug dependence and crime. We are the example – the worst case scenario – cited by opponents of irresponsible state spending. If left unchecked state and municipal government can displace and discourage basic industries, and that is the always overlooked upside to spending reductions when economists paid by government react to balanced budget proposals.

By almost any measure creating a tension between the PFD amount and the state operating budget has not worked as intended. It didn’t help that the contrivance was preceded by inaccurate claims of budget reductions. If we don’t first ask the voters to decide I think there is every likelihood they will pass their own ballot initiative.

Advocates for bigger spending never address the economic losses that come from spending down savings. In the particular case of health care, lobbyists conveniently avoid mentioning the rampant abuse, fraud and waste. As a taxpayer I hope to see year over year reductions in Medicaid subsidies, at least until I see a TV news story featuring someone wearing a prison coverall while talking to a judge about that Beaver full of building materials that crashed when Medicaid was paying the charter.

The only way to honestly and conclusively address and resolve the annual state budget conundrum is to reduce spending. Taking the process away from special interests in Juneau will help and the vetoes recalibrate state spending to head in that direction.

Past political impasses in the legislative branch were resolved by spending more money. Hold-outs to legislation and policy caved once extra programs and projects dear to them were funded. That is how we got here today with our wants portrayed as needs and consumption much too high for what we produce.

In this strong-governor state a balanced budget can and should eliminate the political solutions achieved by spending more money, which is where we are today. Solving our political arguments by exacerbating our fiscal problems worked better at 2 million barrels per day than it does now. The best outcome for the Alaska economy is a balanced state budget and those 182 vetoes were honest progress in that direction. I hope we see them again. Don’t bet against the honest man in the room.

The Alaska experience is proof that spending record amounts on food stamps increases participation in the program, destroying self-reliance in the bargain. The Alaska experience also proves that spending record amounts on education decreases performance on standardized tests. At this unsustainable level of governmental spending we have seen crime in our cities grow exponentially, education results plummet, homelessness expand in every city, and the University of Alaska begin to lose accreditations.

Anyone can easily conclude that dollars are not the solution, especially when filtered through government, but I think we can go even further and admit that too much spending has exacerbated our social ills. If it’s true that we would have a more robust private sector were the government footprint smaller, it’s probably also true that there would be greater adult workforce participation, and therefore Alaska would actually have fewer homeless people.

For that reason I believe that over the mid- to long-term a lower operating budget will lead to increased employment, a more balanced economy, and a healthier state.

Tomas Boutin lives in Juneau. He has worked 40 years in the private sector and 18 years in state government.

Doctor had revolving door for opioids

The 907

Suzanne Downing

-

July 31, 2019

1

Anchorage Dr. Michael Don Robertson pleaded guilty on Wednesday before U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Gleason to a single count of conspiracy to commit controlled substance fraud, and one count of health care fraud.

Robertson, who practiced psychiatry before having his Alaska license revoked last year, distributed controlled substances “outside the usual course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.”

Between May 2015 and March 2018, Robertson issued 465 prescriptions of meperidine, a highly addictive narcotic also known as Demerol, to 30 different recipients, totaling 32,109 pills. According to court documents, the doctor knew the recipients did not truly need the drug for any legitimate medical purpose.

Robertson issued the prescriptions as part of a conspiracy: Recipients filled the prescriptions and gave the drug back to Robertson, who then gave them prescriptions for other controlled substances, including fentanyl and oxycodone.

Demerol, is a Schedule II controlled substance, and is an opioid that is as addictive as drug such as morphine, opium, codeine, and hydrocodone.

The charges also included fraud against Medicaid for some 790 controlled substance prescriptions.

“The diversion of prescription drugs is a significant cause of the opioid crisis,” said U.S. Attorney Bryan Schroder. “It is especially disappointing when the pills are diverted from appropriate medical use by physicians – those we trust to protect the health of the public. The U.S. Attorney’s Office, along with our partners in the DEA, will do our job to protect the public by investigating and prosecuting all violators.”

Robertson was a graduate of the Kansas City University of Medicine Bioscience College Of Osteopathic Medicine and had practiced for over 35 years. His specialty was child & adolescent psychiatry.

The sentencing hearing is scheduled for Oct. 25, 2019, in Anchorage. Robertson faces a maximum sentence of up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000, or both, on the charges. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the actual sentence imposed will be based upon the seriousness of the offense and the criminal history, if any, of Robertson.

Turn out the lights, the party’s over

Columns

Suzanne Downing

-

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 Update: We’re up to 20,000 comments!

Third time a charm? Giessel and Edgmon ask governor to call Special Session III

The Alaska experience: Too much spending has led to social ills

Doctor had revolving door for opioids

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

About us

The latest

Opinion: They Don’t Really Care About Us

BREAKING NEWS: Assassination Attempt at White House Correspondents’ Dinner

New Parking to Improve Access to Hooligan Fishing Spots