Saturday, July 26, 2025
Home Blog Page 1666

Caelus’ Smith Bay press release strategy

0

screen-shot-2016-10-05-at-9-27-26-am

TAX CREDITS VETO REVERBERATES ACROSS NORTH SLOPE

It was October of 2013, and then-Gov. Sean Parnell was welcoming the news that Caelus Energy had signed an agreement to buy up Pioneer Natural Resources’ Alaska subsidiary. A big exploration project was ahead.

Not many in Alaska had heard of Caelus. No one even knew how to pronounce the name. But the company said it was ready to spend $1.5 billion in Alaska in the next six years, and it had solid investors behind it, such as private equity behemoth Apollo Global Management LLC. This was several steps up from merely a wildcat operation.

Other companies were also coming north: Brooks Range Petroleum and Great Bear Petroleum applied for the tax incentives, which helped them with financing their exploration.

“The More Alaska Production Act is already leading to new jobs and opportunities for Alaskans. Simply put, it’s working,” said Parnell.

Caelus President James C. Musselman in 2013 cited MAPA, Senate Bill 21, as a big reason for the investment.

“We are attracted to Alaska because of the enormous geologic opportunity as well as the incentives, such as SB 21, that the state has put in place to encourage energy investment by independent oil and gas companies,” he said.

At that point, SB 21 was being vilified by oil-industry critics like Sen. Bill Wielechowski, who wanted to go back to the higher taxation model, of Sarah Palin’s “Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share” or ACES model.

Gubernatorial candidate Bill Walker, who became Alaska’s next governor, also criticized it, but said he would follow the will of the people. Democrats gathered signatures and put the entire matter to the voters, which was a battle that took place through the primary  in 2014.

Ballot Measure 1 did not pass, and SB 21 remained law, giving explorers and producers confidence that Alaska had finally achieved tax stability. Alaska voters realized that ever-higher taxes had driven away the industry and more competitive taxes would bring it back.

Fast forward to 2016. Gov. Bill Walker has, for two years, cancelled the tax credits that had been put in place to draw in the smaller exploration companies like Caelus.

Caelus owner Jim Musselman was, no doubt, furious when the first set of tax credit obligations were not paid. A serious businessman with a strong portfolio going into the Alaska energy market, his investors and his contractors were counting on that money so they could drill more wells this winter.

It’s not a stretch of the imagination to think that Musselman called the governor directly and chewed him out when Walker did it again this year.

What happened next was that the governor’s attorney general and former law partner Craig Richards quickly exited his prestigious job, with just one day’s notice, and immediately began working on contract for the governor.

And when the writer says immediately, she means just that: Richards ended his career as attorney general on June 23, and by July 5 was deeply embedded in the Executive Office of the Governor.

And what did Richards work on? Matters pertaining to Caelus. Here’s the July billing to the state from Craig Richards Services:

richards-invoice-7-05-2016

It appears from Richards’ invoice that he met with Caelus representatives numerous times and also prepared and met with bankers from ING and Bank of America.

WHY DID RICHARDS MEET WITH ING AND BOA?

Investors get involved with energy tax credit plays because they can get as much as 20% return on investments. But with big rewards come big risks: Last year, Apollo Global Management’s fourth-quarter profits tanked, as unpaid tax credits took their toll on their investments. Apollo has a big stake in Caelus.

Banks such as ING and Bank of America have gotten into the market lately, but for them as well risk is a factor in their decisions. They know their investments could end up in bankruptcy if the tax credits are not paid.

 

Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that Caelus was not happy with the tax credits being pulled out from under them. It knew it had a big play at Smith Bay, and it needed to get drilling going this winter to prove up some additional wells. That was the plan.

But without those tax credits, the drilling had to be put on ice. Everything is delayed, and the entire financial model is structurally shattered.

This was a case of Governor Walker lighting the house on fire, and hiring former law partner Richards to put out the fire.

Part of the arsenal that Richards employed was his recent membership on the Permanent Fund Corporation Board of Directors. He was in front of the board by the end of August, asking them to pay the tax credits to the companies and let the State of Alaska owe that money to the Corporation.

That didn’t work.

THE BIG ANNOUNCEMENT

Then comes early October. Caelus put out a press release announcing a massive find at Smith Bay. It’s a story so big that the Wall Street Journal picks it up nicely.

Caelus announced that it can recover between 1.8 billion and 2.4 billion barrels of oil at Smith Bay, which could put 200,000 barrels a day through the Trans Alaska Pipeline System. The whole find, Caelus estimates, is 6 billion barrels. To put that in perspective, since TAPS started up in 1977, the total throughput has been nearly 17 billion barrels.

That’s great news for Alaska, because taxes and royalties comes from what flows through TAPS, and the more the merrier. With its current throughput of 513,000 barrels a day, another 200,000 is nothing to scoff at.

Governor Walker put out a press release applauding the announcement with this three-line statement:

“With an oil pipeline that is three-quarters empty, this is good news for the state of Alaska. I applaud Caelus for this major discovery, and for the company’s commitment to do business in our state. My administration will continue to work with the industry to identify new development opportunities in Alaska’s oil and gas sector, and provide appropriate investment incentives given our current fiscal climate.”

Caelus has likely been sitting on the information about Smith Bay for months, as it’s a company that typically holds its cards close. A press release of this magnitude probably means it’s trying to entice investors to come play, because there is real money to be made.

Now that Caelus has been burned by the State of Alaska, the company is doing the next best thing: Looking for new money in the private equity market so it can finish the work on the first two wells and drill another one this winter.

Caelus the company came to Alaska strong. It had its ducks in a row to do the work near the North Slope, one of the most trying places on earth to operate. The company earned the money from tax credits. It’s the law that the credits must be paid.

Governor Walker has been a squirrely teammate for Caelus, so Musselman had to pivot and throw the pass elsewhere with seconds on the clock, since drilling can only be done in the winter up on the North Slope. Alaskans might want to hope there’s a receiver there to catch it.

 

 

 

Beltrami’s junkyard snarl

0

CAN’T TWEET HIS WAY OUT OF THIS ONE

Union Boss Vince Beltrami has a journalism degree from University of Alaska Anchorage, and boy-howdy, he knows his way around Twitter in an #olddognewtricks sort of way.

Beltrami is the well-shaved head of the AFL-CIO in Alaska, and he decided it’s also time for him to be a state senator. He can be both!

Beltrami makes $180,000 as the union boss plus he can pull down another $50,000 as a senator, which might enhance the lifestyle to which he’s become accustomed.

screen-shot-2016-10-04-at-3-12-55-pm

But the “What-Me-A-Democrat” candidate for Senate District N ran into the social media buzzsaw last week like a rookie.

Beltrami on Twitter tried to deny that he supports a state income tax.

But the equally media-savvy people at Alaska Americans for Prosperity produced the document with Beltrami’s initials on it. On Beltrami’s own letterhead.

Like a boss, AFP.

screen-shot-2016-10-04-at-9-13-07-am

Beltrami wasn’t happy to see that AFP actually had the resolution by the Alaska AFL-CIO and wasn’t afraid to post it, in all its glory.  He rebutted:

“Never personally stated a position, but initialing a resolution from a statewide body is close enough for you? #dontbeslimyAFP.”

Exhibit A is the resolution in which Boss Beltrami makes it clear, by use of his union president letterhead and his initials, that he supports Governor Walker’s income tax legislation.

afl-cio

BEFORE THAT, BELTRAMI SUPPORTED STILL MORE TAXES…

screen-shot-2016-10-04-at-9-55-14-am

Jeremy Price of Alaska Americans for Prosperity, was getting a chuckle over the photo above from January, when he was working on getting the tax cap, Prop. 8, on the Anchorage municipal ballot.

New Mayor Ethan Berkowitz, a Beltrami ally, was blowing past the historic tax limits, and voters were having none of it (the petition easily received the required signatures and Prop. 8 passed with 60 percent of the vote).

Boss Beltrami? He wouldn’t sign the petition and came down on the side of higher property taxes.

Price said he’s made it his Facebook profile picture through the November election. Good times.

NICE-TO-NASTY ON FACEBOOK

Not to be outdone by his Twitter prowess, Beltrami posted his latest video ad on Facebook, in which he is benignly playing in his yard with a child, perhaps his own.

“Hate me?! How could anyone? If you really know me, it’s not possible from rational human beings. Can I get an Amen?” Beltrami wrote on Facebook.

The chairman of the Alaska Republican Party, Tuckerman Babcock, must have been up late because he fired back on the Facebook feed:

“What a charlatan! This is the same bossman who totally backed Barack Obama, Mark Begich and then demanded the Democrats drop their candidate and join with Walker. Posing as an independent: he is one of the the biggest frauds on the campaign trail. When the big boss sits on both sides of the public employees negotiating table what do you think will happen to the state budget? The sky will be the limit… This has nothing to do with ‘hate’, but everything to do with responsible, honest leadership.”

screen-shot-2016-10-04-at-3-13-36-pm

That’s when Beltrami transmogrified from his “Nice Twinkle-eyed Daddy” persona in the video to his Stink-Eye Junkyard Dog:

“I feel like I’m arguing with a kindergartner,” Beltrami snarled back at Babcock. “You obviously don’t have your facts straight which is why I ignored your query. But like a petulant child I’m sure you won’t stop until you get an answer. And I don’t want you to hold your breath and stamp your feet, so…no I wouldn’t be on both sides of the table. You, of all people, from your MEA union busting days, know that’s not how collective bargaining works. And no, I made no such demands of anyone in the gubernatorial race. All I said is what was published in the ADN article. And then I went fishing. 

So, on the policy issue, you think I’d have a conflict but that management employees of oil companies who happen to be senators (and whom I like) have no such conflicts when dealing with oil and gas issues? Your hypocrisy shreds your own assertions. 

Feel free to have the last word, as I’m sure you’ll be unable to resist yourself.”

So much for not fitting into a box.

PUNCH, DODGE, WEAVE

screen-shot-2016-10-04-at-2-22-58-pm

Monday’s candidate forum at the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce gave Beltrami a chance to go on the record on fiscal issues. But he either didn’t want to or he just couldn’t.

The candidates were asked to first introduce themselves, and most did just that. But Beltrami used his introduction to begin a volley of missiles at incumbent Sen. Cathy Giessel, a popular nurse practitioner from South Anchorage who he hopes to unseat. He introduced himself as having run the largest job training program in Alaska.

He was the only candidate present who refused to say whether he supports using the Permanent Fund Earnings Reserve to balance the State’s budget.

When asked more about the budget and whether State spending reductions are called for, Beltrami emphatically said that State of Alaska employees “were the only ones to give last year to fix the fiscal crisis.” In Beltrami’s own well-used Twitter insult…screen-shot-2016-10-04-at-10-02-24-am

 

 

 

John Henry Heckendorn for the defense

screen-shot-2016-10-03-at-6-23-32-pm
John Henry Heckendorn came to Alaska first in 2012 to work on Rep. Andy Josephson’s race. He was a student at Whitman College.

EXPERT WITNESS ALSO BILLING THE DEFENSE CANDIDATE FOR CAMPAIGN MANAGEMENT

Closing arguments in the case of Nageak vs. Mallott, also known as the “District 40 Election Law Mauling,” were made this afternoon. But not before the attorney for defense-side candidate Dean Westlake called his expert witness.

That expert witness, it turned out, was Westlake’s very own campaign manager, who took the stand and, under oath, and proceeded to list his unique qualifications as an expert: He is 26 years old. He graduated from Whitman College in 2012 and moved to Alaska from Andover, Mass., and for four years and four months he has worked in Alaska politics, mainly running campaigns.

Heckendorn became the political director for the Alaska Democrats. He now owns his own campaign consultancy, Ship Creek Group. He interned for Mark Begich. He took calculus and statistics in college and taught himself Excel.

He was, in fact, John Henry Heckendorn, the force behind Westlake’s rise to beat Rep. Ben Nageak by eight votes. The race is now subject to a judge’s decision about whether it’s yielded a valid result, given the multiple instances where election workers flouted the law, or whether there needs to be a do-over.

Heckendorn’s 54 months of campaigning qualified him in the eyes of the court as an expert witness. Of course, he first had to get to court. Heckendorn very nearly did not make the trial because he was defending a speeding ticket in traffic court nearby.

When he did arrive, he whipped out a spreadsheet he had built that showed how hard he and his fellow campaign consultants had worked on the Westlake race and how he believed they had won fair and square. They got started early on the Westlake campaign, pursued video, Facebook, and digital media buys. They hired a plane and flew Westlake into Shungnak not once but twice. They did yard signs. They worked that race like no other, raised and spent a lot of money on it. And that’s why the results should count.

That was the Heckendorn defense: We know we won because we know how hard we worked.

As the expert witness, the mop-topped politico also stated that Sen. Lisa Murkowski didn’t put up much of a campaign effort in District 40, so the people who came out to vote were doing so for the state House race, which pitted Democrat Nageak of Barrow against Democrat Westlake of Kotzebue.

In his analysis, Heckendorn stated that no one was motivated to come out and vote for Murkowski. With such heavy hitters as Westlake and Nageak as candidates on the Democratic ticket, why would anyone ask for a Republican ballot?

The case is in court because in various parts of District 40, voters were told to vote both the Republican ballot and the ADL ballot — the Alaska Independence Party, Democrats, and Libertarian ballot.

That way they could vote in every race. In other parts of the districts, numerous irregularities occurred, enough to possibly sway the vote.

It’s against the law to vote more than one ballot. It always has been.

Tim McKeever, the attorney for plaintiff Rep. Ben Nageak, asked Heckendorn about that spreadsheet in his hand. On cross examination, McKeever asked Heckendorn to explain some of the numbers.

Heckendorn admitted that his key sum had been entered in error — numbers were transposed. It was a mistake, but it was still right, he said, because it proved a point.

McKeever then asked the expert witness if he remembered what happened back in 2010. That would have been when Heckendorn was a sophomore in college, and his memory of the Lisa Murkowski-Joe Miller match up may have been more theoretical, since he had not yet been to Alaska.

McKeever asked the expert witness if he was using the preliminary numbers in his spreadsheet, or were they the certified numbers. Heckendorn seemed unsure. They were recent numbers, that’s all he knew.

Later, during closing arguments, McKeever pointed out to the judge that the expert witness who had been brought in by Westlake was not aware that in rural Alaska, the federal races are exceedingly important. In rural Alaska, they ask for the “Murkowski ballot,” as it’s known. That’s because so much of their lives are governed by the feds.

“They live in a federal sea. The implications of decisions made at the federal level are more meaningful to them,” he said, referring to fish, game, tribal, and land issues.

 

The curiosity of having a campaign manager for one side of a contest serve as the expert witness was not lost on observers. One said: “This is like if Lisa Murkowski went up on the stand and then they brought in Scott Kendall as an expert witness in the case.” Kendall is a campaign consultant for Murkowski.

Heckendorn explained in great detail how hard his team had worked on turnout because that was the key to winning, he said. He could not explain, then, why fewer people voted in 2016 than in 2014 in the District 40 area, other than to say that there were no ballot initiatives at play during the Aug. 16 primary.

 

At the end of the State’s final arguments defending the faulty election results, Assistant Attorney General Margaret Paton-Walsh finally dropped the race card. She said that to have a new election in District 40 would mean that Native voters in Shungnak were disenfranchised.

It was a Hail Mary pass, to be sure, because even the most elementary observer could deduce that if some villages in District 40 got to vote two ballots, while others were held to the law, then the true disenfranchised voters were everyone else outside of Shungnak and a couple of other villages. Native or otherwise, those who only got to vote one ballot are already aggrieved in this case, and it’s remarkable the State of Alaska would not rise to defend them.

Judge Andrew Guidi said his decision would come no later than Oct. 6. The case will likely also be heard at the Alaska Supreme Court on Oct. 12.

Previously:

State’s argument: Mistakes happen

Day in court for Ben Nageak

Governor targets Nageak with election hit squad

Recount: Eight votes apart

Democrats’ press release defends illegal voting

 

 

 

 

Sex. Now that we have your attention…

CAN ALASKA HAVE A RATIONAL DISCUSSION ABOUT SEX CRIME PUNISHMENT?

In Alaska law, if there are three years separating two persons under the age of 19 who are engaged in sex, the sentence for the older person could be as harsh if he was a 45-year-old male preying on a 14-year-old female.

Because each illegal sex act has its own sentence, young males straight out of high school having sex with younger females can face a lifetime of prison for something that has been going on between the sexes since…well, forever. A summer of teen sex can have a very high price for the older individual.

Maybe that’s fair. Maybe not. As they do elsewhere, Alaska’s laws governing sexuality change with the era and societal norms. Men, in particular, are held to a standard in 2016 that women are rarely bound to, and more and more men are locked up for longer and longer periods as a result.

Sex crimes and punishment were one of the topics lawmakers tackled with Senate Bill 91, the criminal justice reform bill that passed during the last legislative session. During committee hearings, lawmakers asked what could be done to deal with the very real differences in crimes as they pertain to rape, sexual assault, age differentials, and other matters that happen between sexual beings.

THE JKT AMENDMENT

screen-shot-2016-10-02-at-11-01-39-pmRep. Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, with the confidence of youth, bravely waded into it during a House Judiciary Committee review of SB 91 in April.

He may have been influenced by the story of a young man with a well-known Sitka last name of Grussendorf, who had drawn a severe sentence for a case stemming from an indictment for having had oral sex and other sexual acts, including penetration, with an underage someone.

This was an 18-year-old man using some very bad judgment and a victim who will probably have a lot to work through during her life. He happened to have some family members who had political connections, but that’s not the crime; in Alaska, just about everyone has access to their legislators.

But the sentencing of Grussendorf may have been the kind of overkill punishment that a young lawmaker would feel inclined to correct for the future.

Kriess-Tomkins brought forward an amendment to SB 91 to have the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission take a fresh look at all sentencing laws for sex crimes.

And it’s about time. Some 800 Alaskans are in prison for some kind of sex crime, ranging from distribution of child pornography to attempted sexual abuse of a minor. The number grows every year, and many of those perpetrators face a lifetime of discrimination for a crime that, to some, seems worse than murder. Can none of them be rehabilitated?

THE MEAT OF THE AMENDMENT

Kreiss-Tomkins proposed that the Commission “appoint a working group to review and analyze sexual offense statutes and report to the legislature if there are circumstances under which victims’ rights, public safety, and the rehabilitation of offenders are better served by changing existing laws; the commission shall deliver the report to the senate secretary and the chief clerk of the house of representatives and notify the legislature that the report is available; the commission may include in the  working  group people   representing a  variety of  viewpoints who are not members of the commission…”

It’s the kind of move for which, if you’re a Republican in Alaska, and you’re facing election, the media might savage you, as they do.

But reporters never batted an eye over the Kreiss-Tomkins amendment, even though this was a clear attempt to start the discussion of reforming sexual offense laws.

In August, Alaska Dispatch News columnist Shannyn Moore got the long knives out for Rep. Cathy Munoz, R-Juneau, for a simultaneous amendment addressing sentencing for sex crimes, while Moore ignored the fact that Democrat Kreiss-Tomkins actually got an even more sweeping amendment through without opposition.

The Munoz proposed amendment had been withdrawn before it was voted on, after Munoz consulted with a respected advocacy group. The Kreiss-Tomkins amendment, however, was never mentioned by the media or anyone else, for that matter.

As Kreiss-Tomkins explained to the House Judiciary Committee, the minimums associated with second-degree murder, and the minimums associated with various sex acts can result in a murder drawing a less severe sentence than some sex crimes.

Given the lopsidedness, his amendment asked the commission to simply take a good look at sentencing for sex crimes, and report back. The Kreiss-Tomkins amendment was adopted without objection from anyone on the committee and, in fact, seemed to be accepted by Quinlan Steiner, Alaska’s public defender, who was present during the hearing.

LOOKING AT SEX CRIME PUNISHMENT: IT’S A THING

Sex offender laws, like drug laws, have evolved imperfectly over the past decades in response to a need to protect the public and bring justice for victims, and hold people accountable.

Thoughtful observers are questioning whether the treatment of sex offenders, particularly young ones, in America is doing more harm than good. Has society gone too far?

Researcher Nicole Pittman (Soros Open Society Foundation fellow) spent 16 months researching a massively documented Human Rights Watch analysis on the effect of stringent punishment for young sex offenders. What she came away with is a picture of lifetime punishment and sanctions so severe that many perpetrators, after they complete their sentences, can never return to society. There are no jobs for them, they cannot find places to live, and the are forever “reporting in” their locations. Their suicide rates are through the roof.

The average sentence in the U.S. for sexual abuse offenders subject to the mandatory minimum penalty is over 235 months, or 19.5 years. Of the 2,317 sex offenders (sexual abuse or child pornography), more than half were convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty.

Is it time that Alaska takes a fresh look at how these crimes are punished?

Democrats and Republicans don’t agree on much, but they seem to agree that sentencing review is due. The ball is now in the court of the criminal justice commission, which will weigh whether the law has balanced on the fulcrum of justice and fairness.

Dingman gets his due

0
46961084 - hands of woman holding bars in jail
Women in prison are vulnerable to correction officer advances.

THE SORDID HISTORY OF ‘UNDUE FAMILIARITY’

By ART CHANCE

Undue Familiarity: This is a Department of Corrections term for any relationship between DOC staff and an inmate that might impugn the ethics and loyalties of the staff member.

It is most commonly used in reference to sexual relationships between Corrections staff and inmates or probationers, but there have been incidents involving financial and other relationships as well.

In the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, the problems became such that they could no longer be ignored or swept under the rug.

In the Gov. Steve Cowper Administration we dealt with those that came to our attention but we didn’t do anything to really go after the problem.

In the Walter J. Hickel Administration, we went after the problem first by changing the policy so that any personal relationship with an inmate was violative.

I spent the next several years in constant disciplinary meetings and grievance arbitrations over charges of undue familiarity with inmates; we won most of them, but the ones we lost were because of management complicity.

As a general matter, if you confronted a male correctional officer with a reasonably substantiated charge that he’d been “unduly familiar” with a female inmate, he’d just sign the resignation that we proffered. I never had a female correctional officer accept the offer to resign; if they’d decided that the inmate was their man, they’d go to the wall over it.

All of the undue familiarity cases I ever lost involved females, and all of them involved complicit management. In a couple of instances the manager was involved with the female officer himself and was compromised in testifying against her.

One that really sticks in my craw even after 20 years is the female correctional officer who took her inmate boy toy to the Rocket Park (Valley of the Moon Park) for a tryst after he’d been released to the halfway house, and then confessed all to a Corrections supervisor.

When I took it to arbitration, the staff and the manager took the stand for the union to first testify that this behavior was something everyone did, and also to attest to what a good officer she was. The offending officer went back to work and last I heard was living with the manager who testified on her behalf.

Another one that really sticks in my craw is a probation officer who took home an inmate who’d been released to probation. When the matter came to me, Corrections management was adamant that they’d given her a direct order that the probationer must leave her home or she would be dismissed.

When I got the manager in front of an arbitrator, the direct order became a wine and candlelight philosophical discussion of the morality of having sex with inmates. For all I know, the manager was entangled romantically with the correctional officer, who remained employed until she completed her stately progress to retirement.

Enter Satch Carlson, columnist for the Anchorage Daily News and English teacher at Bartlett High School in the late 1980s; Carlson drove a late ‘70s Lotus Esprit and had a habit of having “undue familiarity” with 17-year-old girls. The law named after him moved the age of sexual consent from 16 to 18, if the adult is in a position of authority.

Before it was a crime, “undue familiarity” was a matter of people who were getting something that others weren’t. If you were getting it, you got ratted out by someone who wasn’t.

Once it became a crime, if you ratted them out, you were a snitch; that meant the whole criminal code of conduct came into play.

We didn’t make a lot of undue familiarity cases after the Satch Carlson law was passed; nobody would give anybody up.

I don’t have a clue whether I could have won a case against former correctional officer Mike Dingman, and (possibly former) columnist for the Alaska Dispatch News. Dingman was accused of undue familiarity, and he promptly resigned.

(See: Former ADN columnist dinged for ‘prisoner familiarity’)

I have no confidence in Corrections management and haven’t in 20 years. The reality is that “undue familiarity” is a part of the Corrections culture.   Back in the ‘80s and ‘90s, Hiland Mountain Correctional Center was more of a State-run brothel than a State correctional institution.

Another reality is that most of the women in Alaska’s prisons are veterans of the drug and sex trade and are really, really good at getting over on weak-minded men who spend too much time locked up with them.

I only had superficial contact with Dingman back in the day and found him to be supercilious; I’m not impressed by student presidents of backwater universities. That said, the charges against him have not been adjudicated. Corrections made a report and apparently there was no response or adjudication.

At most, Dingman losing his certification is a default judgment; that says a lot, but it doesn’t say everything. Correctional officers do walk the toughest beat in Alaska, and sometimes they do things of which they shouldn’t be proud.

Art Chance is a retired Director of Labor Relations for the State of Alaska. He is the author of the book, Red on Blue, Establishing a Republican Governance, available at Amazon. Recent commentary includes: Union money, lobbying and ‘education.’ 

Brena’s ‘Our Fair Share’ drum beat

STICKING IT TO THE JOB CREATORS

On a crisp Saturday morning, a panel of white-haired men sat on the stage of the Wendy Williams Auditorium at University of Alaska Anchorage and answered each other’s questions about the state’s budget problems.

Libertarian-leaning United for Liberty had manage to push its way onto the agenda, with a cameo on the morning panel by Ric Davidge. Davidge was the only voice to express the need for spending cuts at the panel, which was part of a symposium hosted by Alaska Common Ground, a left-tilting organization that masquerades as a neutral public policy group.

Run by hardcore Democrat Cliff Groh, when Common Ground puts on a symposium, rest assured there won’t be a lot of diversity of thought. There was not a lot of diversity anywhere, if we’re perfectly frank, at least in the morning sessions.

Commissioner of Revenue Randall Hoffbeck started off the  discussion by proposing the governor’s approach of modest cuts and immodest new revenues, while former Senator Rick Halford argued against cutting the Permanent Fund dividends, and Rep. Paul Seaton poured a cup of his own blend of taxes and Permanent Fund restructuring that would take from the rich and give to the poor.

Halford, we note, recently broke with Gov. Bill Walker on the governor’s unilateral grab of half of every Alaskan’s Permanent Fund dividend. Halford also recently all but declared the Alaska LNG gasline project dead — for now. Once an ally of Walker, he’s returned to the fold of the loyal opposition; he did not seek reappointment to the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation board.

Then there was Robin Brena.

ROBIN ‘SUE THE BASTARDS’ BRENA

Robin Brena is an Anchorage oil and gas attorney who has made a luxurious life for himself by suing energy companies. He has no official role in the Walker Administration, although he chaired the governor’s transition team oil and gas committee. He bought the governor’s law practice for an undislosed amount.

Brena is widely regarded as Gov. Bill Walker’s surrogate voice — in elections and in policy.  When Brena’s lips move, the voice you hear is Gov. Walker’s.

Brena’s appearance on the panel today was an acknowledgement that since he is spending tens of thousands of dollars to unseat Republicans during this election cycle (and the last one), what he has to say is very, very important.

He spoke rapidly and repeatedly about how Alaska is not getting “our fair share” of oil proceeds. It was a phrase he made sure he said every time he had the microphone.

Not quite Tourrette-like, it was a mantra like “It’s our oil” that Brena wanted to make sure everyone heard. And so he repeated it.

In fact, he said “our fair share” eight times in the span of the 10 minutes that he possessed the microphone. An astute observer pondered aloud whether he intends to start a citizens’ initiative using that name, since he’s trying to make it stick in the public’s mind.

BRENA CALLS FOR 400 PERCENT TAX HIKE ON OIL

What Brena proposes is that the oil sector should be taxed to make up the entire state budget deficit.

At today’s prices, he’s proposing a 400 percent tax increase.

“We are getting less than our fair share of petroleum revenues,” he said. “Before we go anywhere else [for revenue] we should get it from the oil exported from Alaska…Our historic fair share went from 35 percent in 2012 down to 8 percent. This is unsustainable.”

Our fair share is $2-3 billion more than we are getting right now,” he continued.

Brena paused briefly in his theme to also promote a state income tax of 15 percent of a payer’s federal tax liability, “so citizens of Alaska pay directly and are more responsive to spending by state government.”

But all the other sources of revenue, he said “don’t get us an additional penny of our fair share of petroleum wealth.”

When his turn came to ask a question of the rest of the panel, Brena persisted with his theme: Did anyone on the panel believe that we should reduce spending, raid the Permanent Fund dividend or levy statewide taxes when we’re not yet “getting our fair share of oil?”

“My question is that we need someone who will stand up for Alaskans and get our fair share of petroleum revenue and not to continue this system,” he said.

The “our fair share” theme is also found in Brena’s latest opinion piece published today by the Alaska Dispatch News. 

In it, he proposes completely restructuring oil taxes once again. The last restructuring was with Senate Bill 21, which passed in 2013, was then challenged at the ballot box by Brena and the Democrats. SB 21 was upheld by voters.

Brena now proposes returning to the prior tax structure, which was a job killer:

  • Increasing the base rate for the major legacy fields and for harvesting the resource.
  • Eliminating credits (taken as deductions and paid) for all but the most challenged fields.
  • Eliminating loss carryforwards.
  • Eliminating the “new oil” definition or reducing it to only the most challenged fields (which would not include Point Thomson).
  • Increasing progressivity, which is exactly opposite of what voters passed when they approved SB 21 with “No on 1” in 2014.
  • Increasing the number of state auditors and state lawyers to go after producers for revenue.
  • Insisting on full financial disclosure by producers operating in Alaska.

SURPRISE! ACES IS BACK

What Brena is proposing is the same things that killed jobs and prosperity for Alaskans before, with the bill known as ACES. That legislation depressed investment in Alaska, and it took SB 21 to bring work back to the oil patch.

Those who wonder what’s next in taxes in Alaska will want to read Brena’s opinion piece in the newspaper, because within it is found the roadmap for legislation that Gov. Walker will likely propose during the next legislative session.

 

Road to Juneau: Numbers are better than ferry alone

screen-shot-2016-10-01-at-7-09-35-am
Juneau: The capital that Alaskans can’t afford to visit. / Alaska DOTPF photo

IT’S TIME WE HAVE ACCESS TO STATE CAPITAL

By BRUCE ABEL

Normally I wouldn’t take time to respond to a My Turn in the Juneau Empire, but in this case Rich Moniak’s My Turn on Sept. 25, along with the Alaska Dispatch News article he references, are clearly political push-pieces designed influence Gov. Bill Walker’s decision on constructing the road to Juneau.

While I don’t take issue with Mr. Moniak or anyone else who doesn’t want the road for their own personal reasons, I do take issue with distortion of facts and figures simply to obscure the truth in the court of public opinion.

Mr. Moniak claims the return on investment for the road has a negative cost to benefit ratio. Where was this number ginned up? Over what time period did he calculate the return? Does he understand that a road returns its value in perpetuity?

At best this claim is misleading and a statistical distortion. Currently it costs $299 to place a car on the ferry to Skagway. At $3 a gallon, traveling to Skagway would cost about $15 to get to the Katzehin ferry terminal. A short haul ferry would cost, say, an additional $50. Total savings: $234, or $468 round trip.

I bet these are the numbers that matter to young families. Of all the things one could use as an argument against building the road, this is easily the most ridiculous.  The 28 cents (return on investment per dollar spent) he cites is one of those “Bridge to Nowhere” labels some opposition group obvoiusly hopes sticks.

One of the great tragedies in this debate is that pro-road folks are labeled anti-ferry. This is absurd. We all know ferries connecting communities in Southeast Alaska are essential. However, we also know roads are the single biggest efficiency driver; that’s why none of us paddle our kayak to work or take a canoe to pick up the kids after school.

We know roads are the single biggest efficiency driver; that’s why none of us paddle our kayak to work or take a canoe to pick up the kids after school.

Yet Moniak suggests we should stick with a 1950’s infrastructure in perpetuity. Are we to accept that no further progress will ever be acceptable?

Next, let’s address the “cutting the cost of state government” comment. I’m sure it’s an unintentional oversight, but the nearly the entire road is paid for through the federal highway funds, and it is simply waiting the governor’s signature to proceed.

Road construction will provide 300-plus high paying jobs in Juneau, Skagway and Haines over a 10-year period. Businesses and schools all benefit from these jobs, as does every community member who enjoys the benefits of a healthy regional economy. If Gov. Walker had no other reason to proceed in light of the State’s financial woes, this is reason enough.

Juneau has an aging population and struggles to attract young families, living wage jobs, new businesses, tax revenues, healthy schools and affordable housing. Here we have a half-billion-dollar project, funded and ready to proceed, which would help offset the state’s economic woes and make living in northern Southeast Alaska easier for everyone — and we are expected to think this is a bad thing?

Mr. Moniak says the road would cost $5 million more to maintain than the state currently spends maintaining ferries. The fuel savings and revenue from the short haul ferries would significantly offset that figure.

And what about the ever increasing maintenance costs of our aging ferries? With the Taku offline year round, the Malaspina out of service, the Columbia recently off line for emergency repairs and the fast ferries off line for the winter, how can anyone argue that our growing transportation demand can be met, let alone improved with a worn out fleet of mainline ferries that are a half century old?

Finally, Mr. Moniak says, “Walker can avoid a long and expensive path,” referring to the inevitable lawsuits and conveniently ignoring the cost of replacing the current long haul fleet. Really? I guess your message to the governor is it’s high time Alaska hang up the shingle and proclaim, “Alaska is closed for business.”

Gov. Walker has many difficult decisions on his plate, but this shouldn’t be one of them. Building the road will get more people working, allow better access to all ferry service communities, prevent Southeast Alaska from being a further drain on the state and provide much needed infrastructure improvements that will serve all Alaskans forever.

Guest opinion writer Bruce Abel is the owner of Don Abel Building Supply, past president of the Juneau Chamber of Commerce and past president of Western Building Material Association.

 

State argument: Mistakes happen

0

screen-shot-2016-09-30-at-2-07-51-pm

ASSISTANT AG LOSES HER COOL

Alaska Assistant Attorney General Margaret Paton-Walsh was feeling peevish.

Judge Andrew Guidi had not yet arrived, so she took advantage of the few minutes she had to unload on the plaintiff’s attorney for  Nageak v. Mallott and Bahnke.

It was not yet 8:30 a.m. at Nesbitt Courthouse Room 504, and the square-built attorney in charge of defending the Division of Elections was engaged in domination politics over a seated Tim McKeever.

Paton-Walsh lectured – not in her library voice — about how his asking for documents was inconvenient to her and a waste of time.

McKeever had requested a discovery document this morning for something he felt should have been given to him earlier, and Paton-Walsh was now fuming.

“I have other work to do…” back at her office, she scolded him in front of about a dozen people who had gathered in the Anchorage Superior Court.

McKeever and fellow attorney Stacey Stone responded politely as Paton-Walsh spent more than a minute on a tirade over McKeever’s request.

All they wanted, McKeever and Stone tried to explain, was to see the chain of custody documents for the ballots from District 40, which is the North Slope Borough and Northwest Arctic Borough. And to know who was in the room when ballots were counted.

McKeever and Stone were there to represent Rep. Ben Nageak on Day 4 of his appeal of the irregular voting methods and final certified results of the House primary race, which was a series of missteps, mishaps and miscounts that began on primary day, Aug. 16.

The judge had consented to an expedited trial at the request of Paton-Walsh, who was now bristling with anger over McKeever’s discovery request.

The State’s first witness was Sallie Regan of Juneau, who serves on the State Review Board.

Regan capably responded to the questions posed by Paton-Walsh, as a witness who was well prepared for court. Paton-Walsh staged a bit of courtroom theater by having Regan open ballots from Kivalina and count all seven of them in front of the judge. It was unclear what the purpose of the exercise was, but it filled the time for the State’s side.

When McKeever questioned Regan, however, her testimony was uneven. She didn’t seem to understand his questions, asked for them to be repeated, rested her head on her chin and furrowed her brow. She was not able to answer some questions, and McKeever simply had to move on since she did not seem to understand him.

What became clear in Regan’s testimony is that errors were made in more than half of the precincts in District 40. Some small, some large, but lots and lots of errors. Dean Westlake of Kotzebue beat Rep. Nageak by eight votes, and the trial under way is to determine if a new election should take place in that race due to the extensive problems that have been identified.

McKeever asked Regan if the review board should have counted the 50 extra votes from Shungnak, and she emphatically stated yes, because to not count those votes would have disenfranchised those voters due to an election worker error, which would not be fair.

She did not seem to be concerned that by counting double ballots in Shungnak, the other voters in the District were disenfranchised, as they were only allowed to vote one ballot.

When McKeever asked her if it was common for Alaskans to vote two ballots, Regan said it was, but she was not able to provide any instances in recent years where it had occurred.

 

 

The trial continues Monday with closing arguments. A separate Supreme Court trial is scheduled for Oct. 12, and will consolidate election misconduct charges and the recount issues.

Judge Guidi wants the Superior Court trial to wrap up on Monday.