Saturday, September 20, 2025
Home Blog Page 33

‘That is a shame’: Dunleavy blasts liberal lawmakers for ignoring education reform and focusing on money

On the eve of a special legislative session, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy issued a pointed statement criticizing the leadership of the Alaska Legislature for its priorities, saying some lawmakers appear more interested in overriding his vetoes than addressing what he describes as a crisis in public education.

“The Alaska Legislature will gather in Juneau tomorrow for a special session focused on public education reform and increasing Alaska’s food production and security,” Dunleavy said in a statement released Friday. “There are reports that legislative leadership plans to hold at least two veto override votes before gaveling out and departing the capitol building for the airport.”

Dunleavy lamented what he sees as a lack of action on substantial reforms.

“No hearings on bills to improve Alaska’s dismal student test scores, no effort to lift the public school system from 51st in the nation, no tribal compacting to improve educational opportunities for our rural and Native students, and no apparent desire to prevent high school seniors from being unprepared because they don’t have the skills needed to compete for good jobs in the increasingly competitive 21st century economy,” he said. “That is a shame.”

The governor, who has made education reform a central plank of his administration, pointed to the Alaska Reads Act — passed in 2022 by a single vote, as evidence that policy changes can lead to measurable improvements. He said the results since then have validated his position.

“Three years later, reading test scores prove that policy improvements make all the difference,” Dunleavy said. “The problem is some lawmakers don’t seem to care. If they do, they wouldn’t squander every opportunity they’ve had to continue that improvement in other core areas like mathematics and writing.”

Instead, Dunleavy said, the focus remains on funding, not outcomes.

“Public discourse is all about money. They say if we only spent more of it the scores would improve. That is the same excuse that has been made for decades,” he said. “As soon as more money is approved, the special interest groups and unions get very quiet.”

Alaska has among the highest per-student education spending in the country, the governor noted. He emphasized that since 2019, state funding for public K-12 education has increased by over $1.5 billion, and that even after his vetoes, the most recent budget includes the largest increase to the Base Student Allocation in state history.

“The budget I signed this summer contained a BSA increase of $500 per student,” Dunleavy said. “Even with my partial veto, that’s still the largest BSA increase in state history.”

He closed his statement by calling on lawmakers to take responsibility and work with him during the special session.

“Here is the question I have for lawmakers who have resisted any meaningful education reforms,” he said. “If the legislature is not responsible for public schools — who is? I encourage Alaskans to ask their representatives and senator the same question.”

“We know what is needed to improve educational outcomes for students. The policies have been vetted and discussed for years. I am ready to work the next 30 days with senators and representatives, school board members, superintendents, teachers, anyone who wants to make our school better.”

The special session begins Saturday in Juneau. It’s unclear if the Legislature has the votes to override the governor’s veto of a portion of the increases to education that was passed during the regular session. Dunleavy said such increases should be accompanied by policy changes that could lead to better performance, such as more charter schools, tribal compacting, and other reforms.

Details: Bombshell report indicates Clinton, Soros group plotted to ‘demonize’ Trump with Russia smear

By THERESE BOUDREAUX | THE CENTER SQUARE

Newly declassified intelligence documents indicate that Hillary Clinton, her 2016 presidential campaign managers, and a top member of a George Soros group plotted to fabricate the Trump-Russia collusion campaign to distract the public from Clinton’s email scandal.

Declassified by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, the 29-page “Durham annex” from 2023 chronicles the Office of Special Counsel’s (OSC) investigation into purported efforts by the Clinton campaign and its allies to falsely tie Russia’s cyber interference attempts during election season to Trump.

In its investigation, OSC uncovered emails that appeared to be sent by Leonard Benardo, senior vice president of Soros’ Open Society Foundations, to people involved in Clinton’s campaign. Soros is a billionaire funder of Democratic campaigns.

The emails appear to show that Benardo engaged in discussions with Julianne Smith, one of Clinton’s foreign policy advisors, about how to use reports of Russian interference in the election to Clinton’s advantage and Trump’s detriment. Benardo later told OSC he had no recollection of writing the emails.

In an email dated July 25, 2016, Benardo told an undisclosed person that “politicization is on the table” and that he and Smith had been discussing ways to create a story casting Trump as “an agent of influence” in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s attempts to undermine the election “in the interest of Donald Trump.”

“Julie [Smith] says it will be a long-term affair to demonize Putin and Trump. Now it is good for a post-convention bounce. Later the FBI will put more oil on the fire,” Benardo wrote, indicating that Clinton’s campaign planned to use the FBI to push the story.

While the FBI established early on that Putin ordered “cyber influence operations” to undermine faith in the U.S. democratic process, it found no evidence that Putin interfered on behalf of Trump. 

But former President Barack Obama and his senior advisors reportedly pressured the Intelligence Community to assert otherwise, according to documents declassified last week. Obama has denied the allegations.

The Clinton campaign’s goal, it appeared, was to divert Americans’ attention away from her email scandal, since “Hillary is hardly good-looking as far as credibility is concerned,” Benardo added.

Clinton served as Secretary of State under the Obama administration from 2009 to 2013, where she used a private email server for official agency communications, putting thousands of emails with sensitive or classified information at risk. 

According to a follow-up email by Benardo dated two days later, Clinton personally approved of the plan to fabricate the Trump-Russia collusion.

“HRC approved Julia’s idea about Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections. That should distract people from her own missing email, especially if the affair goes to the Olympic level,” Benardo wrote. 

“The point is making the Russian play a U.S. domestic issue. Say something like a critical infrastructure threat for the election to feel menace since both POTUS and VPOTUS have acknowledged the fact IC would speed up searching for evidence that is regrettably still unavailable,” he clarified. 

Upon finding the emails, the Office of Special Council questioned Benardo, who told them he did not know who “Julie” referred to and he did not draft the emails “to the best of his recollection.” 

Clinton, when questioned by OSC, said the plan she apparently approved “looked like Russian disinformation.” Campaign Chair John Podesta and other advisors each denied the validity of the emails and each called the emails “ridiculous.”

Smith was also interviewed and said she recalled neither drafting or receiving the emails nor proposing a plan to Clinton or other campaign leadership to try tying Putin to Trump. She also denied enlisting the FBI to further such efforts.

But OSC found that the verified communications between Smith and campaign advisors implied otherwise. The same day Benardo purportedly sent the email about how the FBI “will put oil on the fire,” Smith texted a Clinton campaign advisor and asked them to “see if [Special Assistant to the President and National Security Council member] will tell you if there is a formal fbi or other investigation into the hack?”

The Clinton campaign advisor, whose name is redacted, replied that the person in question “won’t say anything more to me. Sorry. Told me she went as far as she could.”

Ultimately, OSC determined that “it is a logical deduction that [redacted] Smith was, at a minimum, playing a role in the Clinton campaign’s efforts to tie Trump to Russia,” and that available evidence “supports the notion that the campaign might have wanted or expected the FBI or other agencies to aid the effort” via a formal investigation. 

“In short, neither the Office nor [redacted] have been able to determine definitively whether the purported Clinton campaign plan [redacted] was entirely genuine, partially true, a composite pulled from multiple sources, exaggerated in certain respects, or fabricated in its entirety,” OSC concluded, adding that regardless, the entire affair was “concerning.”

As of Thursday afternoon, Clinton and her former campaign advisors have not responded to the Durham annex’s publication, despite outcry from Republicans. The Trump administration is presenting the report as the “smoking gun” confirming recent allegations that Obama, Clinton, and the Intelligence Community created a deliberate smear campaign to delegitimize Trump’s first presidency.

Based on the Durham annex, the Obama FBI failed to adequately review and investigate intelligence reports showing the Clinton campaign may have been ginning up the fake Trump-Russia narrative for Clinton’s political gain, which was ultimately done through the Steele Dossier and other means,” U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said Thursday.

“History will show that the Obama and Biden administration’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies were weaponized against President Trump,” he added. “This political weaponization has caused critical damage to our institutions and is one of the biggest political scandals and cover-ups in American history.”

Supreme Court ruling bolsters Trump’s power to remove Diane Kaplan and other CPB officials

A Supreme Court ruling that upheld President Trump’s removal of three Democrat-appointed commissioners from the Consumer Product Safety Commission will reverberate through other corners of federal governance, most notably in an ongoing legal standoff over control of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

The July decision in Trump v. Boyle affirmed the president’s authority to remove CPSC commissioners without cause, which applies to the administration’s efforts to oust Diane Kaplan, Laura Ross, and Thomas Rothman from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting board. All three were dismissed by the president in April but have refused to vacate their posts, citing statutory protections intended to shield CPB board members from political interference. Kaplan is the former longtime president of the Rasmuson Foundation in Alaska.

At the heart of both disputes is a constitutional question: How much control does the president have over independent agencies?

The Court’s decision in the CPSC case is a break from a long-standing precedent that protected officials of independent agencies from at-will removal by the president. In recent months, the justices have chipped away at that doctrine, ruling in favor of presidential authority in two other major cases — one involving the National Labor Relations Board and another targeting the Merit Systems Protection Board.

In the Corporation for Public Broadcasting case, the Trump Administration relies on the same legal logic. Its lawsuit argues that the president, as the nation’s chief executive under Article II of the Constitution, must be able to remove federal officers—appointed or otherwise—who no longer reflect the administration’s priorities or policies.

Though the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is structured as a nonprofit under DC law, it was created by Congress and receives federal appropriations. Like the CPSC, it was designed to operate independently, with board members typically insulated from direct political pressure. Both entities include statutory language limiting removal to instances of “neglect of duty” or “malfeasance.”

The CPSC commissioners — Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr. — made arguments similar to Kaplan and her colleagues, claiming their dismissals violated these protections. In both instances, initial lower court rulings sided with the ousted officials, invoking Humphrey’s Executor as a safeguard against executive overreach.

However, the Supreme Court’s new interpretation significantly shifts the balance, signaling that such protections may no longer be legally enforceable where executive authority is concerned.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting oversees the disbursement of federal funds to public radio and television stations nationwide, including more than 100 outlets that broadcast to 13 million Americans. It plays a key role in shaping media access and public discourse. It defines the public narrative.

The outcome of the public broadcasting litigation, now backstopped by the Supreme Court’s decision in the CPSC case, will likely determine whether this expanded presidential authority becomes the new norm across the federal government.

Kaplan said, “my selection for the board was mainly based on my long service as CEO of Alaska Public Radio Network, not my foundation work. I held the board’s radio seat which is mandated in CPB’s enabling legislation.”

Paul Fuhs: Supreme Court ruling limits green Lawsuits, clears path for Alaska projects

By PAUL FUHS

The very recent US Supreme Court ruling in the 7 County Infrastructure Coalition vs. Eagle case is especially important for Alaska, but it has received little attention in the media.  It is a landmark decision with substantial clarifications for environmental impact statements and associated lawsuits under the National Environmental Policy Act.  The decision is embedded at the end of this column and I encourage you to read it. It’s fairly technical but easy to explain and based on common sense. 

The essence of the ruling is that the agencies (and the courts) can only consider the environmental impacts of the actual project before them, not any imagined upstream and downstream impacts of the project.

The particular case involved a railroad from the Uinta Basin oil field in Utah to refiners in the southern US. The oil had previously been transported by on-the-road tank trucks, presenting a safety hazard and potential for accidents.  After issuing a 3,600 page environmental impact statement, the US Surface Transportation Board authorized the permit. They were immediately sued by local and environmental groups, including the notorious Center for Biological Diversity, which has already filed 266 lawsuits against the Trump administration in their quest to shut down all oil, gas and mining operations in the United States.

They had argued that the rail line would mean more production at the oil field and increased refinery operations, which would create more fuel which could be burned elsewhere and thus create more CO2. No mention was made that if this oil wasn’t transported, it would just come from somewhere else.

By a vote of 8-0 the Supreme Court overruled the Washington DC Appeals court that had found these arguments persuasive and had blocked the rail line. The Supreme Court decisively ruled that an EIS should only cover the project under that agency’s jurisdiction, which then limits the judicial challenges to the EIS. It also detailed and clarified many of the processes of an EIS under NEPA, and stated that there was no “statutory text” to justify these extended considerations. In other words, ending the endless claims of increasingly tenuous impacts.

We witnessed a good example of this judicial abuse in the Center for Biological Diversity lawsuit against Alaska’s Willow project (which will eventually put 180,000 barrels a day into the Trans Alaska Pipeline). Their pleadings are a textbook case of the abuse of the judicial process, arguments similar to those in their many other cases across the country. Unfortunately, for far too long, these tenuous claims were accepted by gullible or even complicit judges which CBD venue shopped for. Even if they couldn’t win, they could use time to destroy a project. When they did win, they were awarded attorney fees, which they then used to bankroll further lawsuits, in one case, for instance, where the judge granted them $340,000 over a biological opinion against the Fish and Wildlife Service.

In their pleadings against the Willow project, they claimed that because the oil will be burned, the project should be blocked because it would cause 258 million tons of CO2 over the life of the project, including “foreign oil and gas consumption.” 

The Center for Biological Diversity then complains that the Bureau of Land Management EIS did consider these claims, but found that the project would result in a “net increase of only 35 million tons CO2.”  The Bureau made this conclusion based on the fact that If the oil was burned in Japan, it would displace coal fired plants and result in a “net reduction”.  The Center for Biological Diversity calls this an “implausible conclusion,” but how can you see it any other way? This is only common sense.

What really reveals their motivation in bringing this lawsuit, which is contained in Section 47 of their pleadings, is where they state:  “This necessary transition (from carbon based fuels), leaves no room in the global carbon budget for developing new fossil fuel discoveries, especially in the Arctic.”

This openly displays their strategy, not to “protect endangered species”, but to shut down oil and gas production wherever it occurs. Particularly egregious is singling out of the “Arctic” in their attacks.  It is ridiculous on its face, since it wouldn’t mean even one drop less oil being burned.  It would just come from somewhere else.

In the case of Alaska, that somewhere else is the Alberta Tar Sands, the dirtiest oil in the world. They already produce four times as much oil as we do for the US, and have indicated they would increase production to meet any deficiencies. They stated their reserves would allow these levels of production for the next 149 years. That is the alternative.

Thankfully, for this unanimous Supreme Court decision, most, if not all, of this foolishness will go away. Combined with the Chevron decision,  the provisions in the Big Beautiful Bill and President Trump’s Alaska executive order, we can look forward to a prosperous future in our resource based economy.

Paul Fuhs is the former mayor of Dutch Harbor, Former commissioner of Commerce and International Trade for Alaska, former chairman of the board of AIDEA, the Alaska Energy Authority, and the State Bond Bank. He currently serves as the Arctic Goodwill Ambassador for the Northern Forum, the transArctic coalition of regional governments and states.

Murkowski and Shaheen demand $50 billion for Ukraine

Sen. Lisa Murkowski has joined forces with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, to introduce legislation that would more than $50 billion in American taxpayer dollars to Ukraine over the next two years, as it fights with Russia.

The proposal was introduced by Sheehan on Thursday. President Donald Trump has set an Aug. 8 deadline for Moscow to engage in peace negotiations or face a new round of sanctions.

The Shaheen-Murkowski legislation would add to the over $460 billion already spent on Ukraine as it defends itself against Russia aggression.

The bill also appears to be a direct response to recent developments in Trump Administration policy. In March, Trump paused intelligence sharing with Kyiv for a week following a dispute with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Recently, the Pentagon delayed some weapons transfers pending a policy review.

The legislation may face political headwinds. Republican leaders in both the House and Senate are deferring to Trump on foreign policy matters, and the administration has taken a hard line against increasing foreign aid. Congressional appropriators advanced a separate defense funding measure Thursday that includes just $1 billion in Ukraine-related military assistance, a fraction of what the new bill proposes.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the US has allocated approximately $182.8 billion in emergency funding to support Ukraine and the region, with $175 billion approved by Congress through five bills, the most recent being $60 billion in April 2024.

Although Congress passed the aid package in 2024, the vote revealed fault lines within the GOP: 18 senators opposed the measure, including then-Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, now vice president.

Democrats’ favorite polling firm shows just how special session is going to go on Saturday

As the Alaska Legislature prepares to gavel in for a special session on Saturday to consider overriding Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s recent veto of a fraction of the increase to education spending, new polling from the Democrat-leaning firm Data for Progress suggests that Alaskans side with the Democrats in the Legislature on this issue.

The survey, conducted just before the session convenes, shows Alaska voters want more support for public education, corporate tax transparency, and consumer protections. These findings were released to shore up support for veto overrides during what is predicted to be a one-day, override-and-out session.

No questions were asked about whether schools should be held accountable for being at the bottom of the performance matrix in spite of some of the highest funding in the nation.

According to the poll, 57% of Alaska voters support even more funding for K–12 public schools, while just 17% support decreasing it. A similar majority backs overriding Dunleavy’s veto of the education funding bill passed earlier this year. This suggests that there will be a veto override, but that the NEA and the Democrats will push for even more spending next session.

Other findings reveal public support for legislative action on several fronts, which may indicate the Democrats in charge and their Republican enablers will try to override more than just the governor’s partial veto of education excesses.

  • Oil Taxes and Transparency: Voters support reforming Alaska’s tax structure so that all major oil and gas producers pay corporate income tax. They also favor requiring the Department of Revenue to publish corporate tax audit results—another bill vetoed by the governor.
  • Payday Lending: Alaskans back a 36% interest rate cap on payday loans and support overriding the governor’s veto of legislation to enforce it.
  • Sales Tax Equity: Voters support taxing online companies based outside Alaska for sales made within the state, especially if the revenue goes toward public education.
  • Opposition to ICE Contracts: A majority oppose building an ICE detention center or contracting with ICE to house detainees from other states in Alaska.
  • Renewable Energy and Federal Cuts: Voters support a Renewable Portfolio Standard and oppose federal cuts to clean energy programs, public broadcasting, and fisheries protections.
  • Session Attendance: A majority of respondents said lawmakers should attend the special session and not skip out.
  • Miscellaneous Issues: The poll also found strong support for eliminating daylight saving time and disapproval of the omnibus legislation known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

Data for Progress says the poll sample was carefully weighted to reflect the likely electorate, including political leanings, age, race, geography, and voting history.

The polling was informed by Democrats and is intended to embolden Democrats in the Legislature, who currently hold effective control in both chambers, as they prepare for a likely clash with the Republican governor over budget priorities and policy direction.

What is unclear is how many Republicans will turn their backs on the governor during this special session.

The full survey and methodology are available at dataforprogress.org.

Wainwright man arrested on federal child exploitation charges

8

A 31-year-old man from the village of Wainwright was arrested Wednesday by the FBI on multiple federal charges related to the alleged sexual exploitation of minors in his community, which has a population of about 600.

According to the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Alaska, Robert Segevan faces charges including receipt and possession of child pornography, attempted enticement of a minor, and attempted production of child pornography. If convicted, he could face a minimum of 15 years and up to life in federal prison.

The North Slope Borough Police Department first received a complaint on Oct. 22, 2024, from a 15-year-old who reported that Segevan had repeatedly asked for sexually explicit photos via a digital messaging app. Despite attempts to block him, the victim said Segevan allegedly created new accounts to continue making contact.

Two other minors also reportedly received similar requests. Authorities say the contact began in 2023 and persisted over time.

On Nov. 7, 2024, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children flagged an account linked to Segevan for child sexual abuse material. The report indicated that Segevan had allegedly asked a fourth minor victim to meet for sexual contact.

A search warrant return on Nov. 14, 2024, provided law enforcement access to two of Segevan’s user accounts on the platform. Investigators say they found several explicit images sent from a fifth minor.

Police executed a search warrant at Segevan’s residence on Dec. 24, 2024, seizing electronic devices that are still being analyzed.

On June 30, 2025, the FBI received another complaint alleging that Segevan continued to ask one of the previously identified victims for explicit images and had been harassing other minors in the Wainwright area.

Segevan is formally charged with one count of receipt of child pornography, one count of attempted enticement of a minor, one count of possession of child pornography, and one count of attempted production of child pornography.

The case is being investigated by the FBI Anchorage Field Office and the North Slope Borough Police Department, with support from the Anchorage Police Department as part of the FBI’s Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Force.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office encourages anyone with information about Segevan or any of the usernames he is alleged to have used — including “Ethan Allen,” “tukak,” “robertsegevan20,” or “robertsegevan24” — to contact the FBI Anchorage Field Office at (907) 276-4441 or submit a tip anonymously at tips.fbi.gov.

Wind power: Study exposes renewable energy’s weak link

By OLIVIA MCPHERSON-SMITH | REAL CLEAR WIRE

China is the world’s largest generator of wind power and a team of researchers at the heart of the global wind industry has just discovered an inconvenient truth: weather-dependent sources of electricity are a bad bet when the climate is changing.

In an article published this week in the journal Nature Climate Change, the Beijing and Shenzhen-based researchers find that around 20% of the globe’s wind turbines are located in areas that will become increasingly susceptible to “wind droughts” due to changing climactic conditions. As the name implies, wind droughts are sustained periods of uncharacteristically low gusts that render wind turbines useless. Even with aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers predict that these acute snaps of atmospheric stillness will become both more frequent and longer in a global geographic belt that stretches north of Houston to just south of Anchorage.

These findings will come as little surprise to utility operators across Western Europe, who are also located within the latitudinal wind lacuna. Germany, which has the largest wind fleet in Europe, was blighted by calm skies in March of this year. Electricity prices soared 48% higherrelative to the preceding March and coal and natural gas plants carried the burden in Europe’s largest economy.

Inept during periods of calm, wind power also struggles in wild weather. The goldilocks requirements of wind were notably evident in Texas, which has the largest wind build-out of any state, during Winter Storm Uri of 2021. Though the storm drove down electricity generation across the board, nuclear, natural gas, and coal proved to be the most resilientsources of electricity during the assault on the Lone Star state’s grid.

The oscillation between erratic booms and busts of renewable electricity generation chips away at the wind industry’s key selling point of reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Coal plants may pick up the slack during wind downturns, but they otherwise operate below their designed capacity due to an influx of federally subsidized renewables into the grid. Yet, operating a coal plant below capacity is inefficient and typically results in higher greenhouse gas emissions on a per megawatt hour basis. The federally induced proliferation of wind turbines thus lock the grid into a twist: dispatchable power is a necessary stopgap for increasingly intermittent wind generation, but a surge in wind generation increases the relative emissions of approximately 20% of America’s dispatchable electricity generation, which leads to progressive calls for a build-out of more wind power that will require a stopgap.

The mounting academic and empirical warning signs of wind power’s shortcoming are lost on the global climate lobby, which continues to recycle decades-old talking points. Just last week, the former president of the Socialist International turned United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres declared that the future must be powered by renewables, in part, because there are “no embargoes on wind.” Given the exacerbation of conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan during Guterres’ term as Secretary General, it remains to be seen how the Secretary General will negotiate the end of a wind drought with the skies.

For Guterres and his comrades, recent research on wind droughts should provide another data point that illustrates how today’s renewable technology will fail to propel the world’s economy. Neither citizens nor the environment are well served by constructing rhetorical Potemkin villages, where en vogue technologies are lauded and their drawbacks ignored. Realism around the strengths and weaknesses of various energy technologies is the only sustainable path forward.

Oliver McPherson-Smith, PhD served as the inaugural Executive Director of the National Energy Dominance Council in the second Trump Administration.

Procurement dispute brews over Anchorage’s opioid settlement micro-housing awards

An Alaska-based veteran-owned business has filed a formal protest against the Municipality of Anchorage, claiming the city violated state and local laws in its handling of a $1.2 million housing project funded by opioid settlement money.

Zack Gottshall, owner of Cama’i Enterprises, submitted a detailed letter on Thursday to Mayor Suzanne LaFrance, Anchorage Community Development Authority Director Mike Robbins, and Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor. The letter alleges the city’s procurement process for the “Microunits for Recovery Residences” project unlawfully disenfranchised his company, a certified Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, by failing to apply legally mandated scoring preferences for veteran-owned and Alaska-based businesses.

Gottshall wrote that during a mandatory site visit, he raised concerns about the RFP’s omission of required bid preferences with a representative from the mayor’s office, but was told the scoring matrix would not be changed. He argues this amounts to a violation of Alaska statutes and Anchorage Municipal Code, and that the decision disadvantaged protected business classes, including his own.

He cites Alaska Statute 36.30.321, which requires the application of a 5% preference for Alaska bidders and veteran-owned businesses, as well as additional scoring benefits for disability-owned enterprises. He also references the Alaska Opioid Abatement Fund statute (AS 37.05.590), which places opioid settlement funds under state control and mandates that any spending from them comply with the state procurement code.

Gottshall contends that because the opioid funds used for the project originate from state litigation and are held in trust by the State of Alaska, any local use of the funds must also follow state procurement law, including all statutory bid preferences. He claims the municipality and ACDA failed to comply with those laws, thereby compromising the legitimacy of the entire bidding process.

He also accuses the city of violating multiple sections of Anchorage Municipal Code, including failing to ensure fair treatment of bidders, neglecting to support disadvantaged economic actors, and using evaluation criteria that discriminated against protected business classes.

Gottshall demands that the Municipality immediately suspend any award under the current RFP, disclose evaluation records and scoring documents, and either reissue the RFP with proper preferences or re-score the existing proposals in compliance with state law. He also calls for disqualification of any vendor that received an award based on what he describes as illegal scoring criteria.

In the letter, Gottshall emphasizes that the Municipality and ACDA were given ample notice and opportunity to correct the process. He warns that moving forward with the project as currently structured will result in legal and political consequences.

The letter can be read here: