Friday, July 31, 2026
Home Blog Page 921

Art Chance: The return of the undead public pension system that is unaffordable everywhere

By ART CHANCE

Suzanne’s two stories on HB 55 gave a good 10,000-foot view of Sen. Josh Revak’s legerdemain to bring another bill restoring defined benefit retirement to some State employees. I was present as a State employee at the end of defined benefits and the creation of a defined contribution retirement system.

https://mustreadalaska.com/cost-of-government-revak-rolls-senate-committee-leadership-to-get-lavish-state-pension-plan-reinstated/
If you looked closely, you could still probably find flecks of blood in the Capitol building from the fight to end the defined benefit tiers of the Public Employees Retirement System in 2004 and 2005.   

I was mostly one step removed because retirement wasn’t really in my labor relations portfolio; the State’s position was that retirement was not bargainable with the unions.  

But, since most things about retirement impinged on things that were bargainable, I was involved in most of the planning and decision making that let to the creation of the defined contribution system that went into effect on July 1, 2006.

Ironically, the great fear in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the State was flat broke due to low oil revenue, was that the Legislature would decide that the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) was over-funded, which it appeared to be. Pilfering the retirement funds is a well- worn path through financial downturns for governments. Bill Clinton’s sacking of the Arkansas Teachers’ Retirement is a salient example.   Alaska resisted the temptation to pilfer the retirement funds, but it was a close-run thing as there were a lot of pay days in the late 1980s when we seriously worried if we could make payroll.

Public employee retirement was foundational to the State’s employment system. Even before Statehood, the Alaska Constitution established that a retirement system was a contractual relationship between the State and its employees and employee benefits could not be impaired.   This is why the “legacy” tiers have been maintained and any changes in the systems apply only prospectively.

There were lots of murmurs in the mid to late 1990s about the health of the PERS system. Alaska pretty much missed the “tech boom” of the Clinton years and neither our Permanent Fund nor our PERS investment funds did particularly well. By the late 1990s, it had become acceptable on the 10th floor of the Juneau State Office Building to at least whisper that the PERS system might be under-funded.

All of us in a position to know things knew that we should have been significantly increasing both the employee and employer contribution to PERS for the last several years. The State itself could have paid more into PERS, but the State is only one participant in PERS; every public employer in the State participates in PERS, and ever school district and Rural Education Attendance Area participates in the Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS).   The Democrat Gov. Tony Knowles Administration was not about to tell every political subdivision of Alaska that they had to pony up. And the union-owned Knowles Administration wasn’t about to tell employees they had to pay more.

The PERS/TRS systems and funds were managed by the Department of Administration, Division of Retirement and Benefits (DRB). DRB had a nice comfortable life down on the 6th floor of the Juneau State Office Building. DRB operated much of itself on funding from the retirement system and didn’t have to face much scrutiny from the Legislature, since they didn’t ask them for much money. Administration is a General Fund department and it has to beg for almost every dime it gets, and it has no friends in the other State agencies and gets support from the Governor’s Office only in some, mostly Republican, administrations. DRB had the nicest digs and the best furniture and could train and conference and junket pretty much without interference from OMB or Legislative Audit.

Even though DRB had oversight on billions of dollars of retirement funds and payments into those funds, they had only two “auditors.”   There weren’t much in audit results but there was a lot of travel.  Their job titles should have been “State Tourist.”

The whispers about underfunding were getting too loud and public, so in the last year of the second Knowles term they brought in an actuarial service to study the soundness of the plans. This resulted in the infamous Mercer contract. Mercer is a reputable actuarial contractor to governments, but like all government contractors, it is quite good at giving the contracting government the result it wants.

Happily, for the Knowles Administration, Mercer concluded that PERS/TRS was actuarily sound and no contribution increases were necessary.   But the whispers continued. By the time the smelly lump ended up in the Frank Murkowski Administration’s pocket in December of 2003, the whispers had become an uproar. Of course the unions/Democrats who had been touting the soundness of PERS/TRS before the election began to immediately demand that the new Administration throw tons of money at the PERS/TRS unfunded liability to “save the retirement system.”

I can’t bore you with a lot of details because I was only tangentially involved in looking under the rocks to see what was living  there. Gov. Murkowski’s newly appointed Director of DRB, Melanie Millhorn, carried the spear to see what was true and if something was wrong what needed to be done.   The congenital bureaucrats groused about the former director being replaced and about Melanie not having a background in retirement and benefits, but frankly, not having a background in DRB was an asset. She had a strong background in both private sector and State human resources administration and was also a veteran of State labor relations; in fact she was my former subordinate there. She quickly established that she was not to be trifled with.

Through a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth we concluded that we had no choice but to abandon the conventional defined benefit retirement system. Many of the political subdivisions (“polisubs”), including some big ones, had significant arrearages to the PERS/TRS funds and collecting them would have involved political bloodshed.  There was also the ongoing political problem of maintaining adequate employer and employee contributions. The unions don’t have a right to demand that contributions be bargained, but they can sure make a lot of noise about it. Likewise, the polisubs have no choice but to pay what DRB says they need to pay, but I assure you that when the Municipal League shows up in Juneau, the Administration and the Legislature notice.

Fundamentally, no defined benefit retirement system in the US has been able to keep up with U.S. currency devaluation; the plans can’t make enough money off investments to even maintain the value of the funds and certainly not enough to keep up with inflation. Few, if any, of the surviving defined benefit plans, almost all either union-run or public employer run. are remotely solvent and are only banking on the federal government stepping in to bail them out when they can no longer keep making their promised payments.  

Just as an example, our vaunted $80 Billion Permanent Fund is only worth about $50 Billion in 2000 dollars. My PERS retirement set in 2006 is today only worth about 67% of what it was worth then in real dollars.

The same fools who want to bring back defined benefit PERS also think that if we can get the Permanent Fund to the magic $100 Billion level  the State government can maintain itself at current service level forever simply off PF earnings. Now if they can just run off that pesky private sector other than a few trendy spots owned by lobbyists and lawyers’ wives and a few service providers to keep cars and appliances running, we can all be trust fund babies forever. Visualize the Juneau economy Statewide and with all that beautiful trust fund money, we won’t even have to put up with tourists. It’s a lefty’s dream come true.

The State’s Tier 4 “retirement” scheme isn’t really a retirement system unless you opt for an annuity; the days of getting a check every month for the rest of your life and maybe a little cost of living adjustment and lifetime health insurance are long gone if you started work for a public employer after July 1, 2006.  Actually, even Tier 1 PERS retirees don’t have lifetime PERS health insurance. When you turn 65 you have to enroll in Medicare, which becomes your primary insurance and your PERS insurance is only a supplement.

A real fear was that a Tier 4 employee could “retire,” take the check and go to Vegas until the money ran out and spend the rest of their life on welfare. It could happen, but is it the State’s problem?  The cops complain that recruits take a Trooper position, get trained, bulk up their resume a bit, quit and take the money to go to one of the places that still offers defined benefits. OK, but no matter what, PERS/TRS isn’t going bankrupt so long as the State of Alaska owns anything of value; those other states are just hoping that when bankruptcy comes the Democrats control the White House and the Congress.

And finally, I simply don’t believe all the wailing and bleating about recruitment and retention. The typical new hire to a public employer is in their late teens or early twenties. It is the rarest person who is of that age who thinks about any condition of employment other than whether they can afford to buy beer on Friday and Saturday. Spouses, kids, and mortgages make you start thinking about things like retirement and benefits and these days that is a late-20s, or 30s thing.

The other thing that never gets mentioned with the State is the Supplemental Benefits System. When the State withdrew from participation in 1981, the State employee unions refused to let the State just put the money that would have gone to Social Security in the Treasury.   SBS took what would have been the employer and employee contributions to Social Security and put them in SBS in individual managed investment accounts. If you have a thirty year career with the State and have reasonably successful career advancement, you can leave State service a millionaire in SBS alone in addition to your PERS payout.

The unions and the Democrats just want the issue and would like to force Republican legislators to vote against it and Gov. Mike Dunleavy to veto it, which he should if the bill passes; no employer can afford it and it is aimed at a problem that doesn’t exist.

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. 

Art Chance: Palin is finishing what she started, as every Democrat’s favorite Republican





No full PFD for Alaskans, but HB 55 has lavish pensions for state workers with support from leftist pols, including candidate Walker, Rep. Rasmussen, Sen. Revak

Grassroots activists have been burning up the phones of state senators who in Juneau, telling them to stop HB 55, the bill that would add back billions of dollars in ongoing operational costs for the State of Alaska to pay for lavish benefits for some state workers.

Most of the phone calls are going to answering machines, because this is “Legislative Skits” weekend in Juneau and lawmakers are busy preparing for the festivities that entertained them last night and will entertain them some more tonight.

State Sen. Josh Revak pulled a maneuver last week to bounce HB 55 from a committee chaired by Sen. Mia Costello, who was not allowing the bill to advance because its fiscal costs are so high. Revak joined Democrats to file a letter to force the bill into the Finance Committee, where many think it will quickly advance to the floor of the Senate. The bill sponsors in the Senate are Democrats Tom Begich, Elvi Gray-Jackson, and Bill Wielechowski.

Americans For Prosperity volunteers began calling on Friday and another crew began calling midday Saturday, hoping to reach every senator and the Office of the Governor to stop the bill. They have made over 600 calls in 24 hours, Americans for Prosperity said.

“The audacity of legislators telling Alaskans we are on a fiscal cliff so dire we cannot pay a full PFD, but now we’re going to pass a defined benefits bill that we don’t know how much it costs or how our children and grandchildren will pay for it? It’s going to cost billions of dollars and lead to new taxes,” said Bernadette Wilson, Alaska state director for Americans For Prosperity.

Wilson cited a bill offered by Rep. Adam Wool last year that would put an income tax on Alaskans; Wool said it would bring in $600 million a year. Last May, Democrats said an income tax would be needed before Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s full Permanent Fund dividend plan could advance. And another bill advanced by Democrats last year would implement a 2% sales to address the “fiscal cliff.”

On Friday, gubernatorial hopeful Bill Walker, who is favored by Democrats and state workers, posted support for HB 55. “Fantastic to finally see movement on the important issue of public employee retirement benefits. Fixing our broken public employee retirement systems means more people will stay in Alaska and build their lives here,” the Walker-Drygas campaign said, distorting the truth. Then it told another fib: “Alaska is one of the only states in the nation that lacks a defined benefit retirement system, and we hemorrhage valuable state workers every year as a result.”

In fact, the Social Security Administration says the traditional pensions are fading fast across America:

“The percentage of workers covered by a traditional defined benefit (DB) pension plan that pays a lifetime annuity, often based on years of service and final salary, has been steadily declining over the past 25 years. From 1980 through 2008, the proportion of private wage and salary workers participating in DB pension plans fell from 38 percent to 20 percent (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2008; Department of Labor 2002). In contrast, the percentage of workers covered by a defined contribution (DC) pension plan—that is, an investment account established and often subsidized by employers, but owned and controlled by employees—has been increasing over time. From 1980 through 2008, the proportion of private wage and salary workers participating in only DC pension plans increased from 8 percent to 31 percent (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2008; Department of Labor 2002). More recently, many employers have frozen their DB plans (Government Accountability Office 2008; Munnell and others 2006). Some experts expect that most private-sector plans will be frozen in the next few years and eventually terminated. … Under the typical DB plan freeze, current participants will receive retirement benefits based on their accruals up to the date of the freeze, but will not accumulate any additional benefits; new employees will not be covered. Instead, employers will either establish new DC plans or increase contributions to existing DC plans.”

Must Read Alaska learned Friday that Sen. Revak, who is hoping to be Alaska’s next congressional representative, was told by the firefighters union that his support for the pension bill was the difference for him in advancing from the open primary to the general election. Only four candidates will move ahead from the June 11 special election primary to the Aug. 16 general election, when voters will decide who fills out the remaining months of the late Congressman Don Young’s term. Revak is a long-shot for the position, making his move to the left an important play for union financial support, since his campaign has virtually no money to work with.

Bernadette Wilson, of Americans For Prosperity, said defined benefits are not the problem.

“Sen. [Mia] Costello is who we are really offering our support to,” Wilson said of the Anchorage senator who tried to block the bill from moving forward. “We’re putting enough pressure on legislators — maybe those couple of Republicans who thought they might support it, they need to know they’ll be stepping on a hornet’s nest if they do, and it’s not going to be pretty. And if HB 55 lands on the governor’s desk, we want him to veto it.”

Three days: Judge sets May 3 for final redistricting map legal challenges in Eagle River – Anchorage – Girdwood

Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews set May 3 as the last day that Alaskans may legally challenge any of the unresolved lines on the 2022 redistricting map. Those unresolved lines involve just East Anchorage, Eagle River, and Girdwood, but any decisions that change the political boundaries could have a domino effect across other districts in Anchorage. Previous legal challenges have already been litigated and rejected by the Alaska Supreme Court; just one set of districts is still in dispute.

Background: Every 10 years, after the U.S. Census, the political lines are redrawn all over America to balance out the populations of state House, Senate, and congressional districts. This decennial redistricting exercise in Alaska started in August of 2021, and has been the subject of several lawsuits. Lawsuits are typical parts of redistricting, as political sides try to get more districts that are favorable to their political parties. Redistricting exercises are, by their nature, political processes and are always subject to accusations of gerrymandering.

For the final unresolved part of the map, challenges have been made by Democrat surrogates pushing for another Democrat-leaning seat in the East Anchorage area. After they challenged the maps earlier this year, the courts asked the Alaska Redistricting Board to review its work and find a way to cut Eagle River and a neighborhood in North Muldoon are of Anchorage apart. The Alaska Redistricting Board did that by then pairing a portion of Eagle River with Girdwood and a portion of South Anchorage.

Girdwood plaintiffs filed a lawsuit over that design, pushing to not be paired with Eagle River.; Girdwood has been paired with conservative South Anchorage for the last 10 years. Girdwood is a more liberal enclave, while Eagle River is conservative, but is not South Anchorage conservative.

East Anchorage Democrat Party surrogates submitted a filing that objects to the new map, but they have not actually filed a lawsuit — yet. At this point, they seem to have abandoned Girdwood to fight on its own.

Oral arguments are scheduled for May 12 at 10 am, as a virtual hearing.

Why it matters to election season: Those in Anchorage planning to file for office are impacted by the compressed timeframe, because some of them will not know what district they are in until the last couple of weeks, or even the last couple of days, since the process is likely to go to the Alaska Supreme Court. For example, with the current map the Alaska Redistricting Board has drawn, Republican Sen. Lora Reinbold and Republican Sen. Roger Holland would have to run against each other for the new Senate seat that creates the Eagle River – South Anchorage – Girdwood district.

Tshibaka fundraiser in Anchorage draws 150 supporters

A Thursday evening at Bell’s Nursery was just the ticket for 150 Anchorage residents who came out to hear from Kelly Tshibaka, a Republican running for U.S. Senate. It was not an event for high-rollers or influence peddlers from inside the Beltway in D.C.. Instead, the people who attended the fundraiser were some of the same people who got Mayor Dave Bronson elected in Anchorage — the grassroots.

A Tshibaka campaign insider told Must Read Alaska it was the biggest grassroots fundraiser Tshibaka has had in Alaska, all contributions coming from small donations.

Tshibaka is running with far fewer funds than the incumbent, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who has millions of dollars not only in her own campaign but in parallel political action committees working on her behalf. Tshibaka has the support of the Alaska Republican Party, which has endorsed her.

Tshibaka announced her campaign in late March of 2021 and takes on a powerful political machine that has held that seat for a Murkowski for over 40 years.

Rep. Eastman is kicked from Republican caucus again

Rep. David Eastman of Wasilla has once again been kicked out of the Republican caucus of the Alaska House of Representatives. The announcement was made by Republican Minority Leader Cathy Tilton, who appeared in a press conference today with other members of the caucus.

Rep. Laddie Shaw explained to the media that newer members of the Legislature have finally adjusted to Eastman’s “demeanor,” and the new members are now ready to disconnect with Eastman. He said they have “finally caught up with his personality and come to the realization that we need to be productive.”

Eastman was also removed two years ago from the caucus when he became cross-threaded with fellow Republicans.

One of the aspects of Eastman’s behavior as a representative is the excessive number of amendments he places on bills. But it appears to be a number of other things that make Republicans uncomfortable about having him included in “trusting relationship” conversations.

Eastman came under attack by Democrats earlier this year because he is a member of a group that leftists don’t like: The Oath Keepers, a group made up of former first responders who are patriots. The Republican caucus stood by him during that partisan and media attack, and today they remained resolute that Eastman has his First Amendment right to be a member of what is a lawful group.

The issue of Eastman’s relationship Foundation for Applied Conservative Leadership came up, and his legislative tactics that mirror FACL tactics have built up resentments in the caucus. FACL is known for a scorched-earth strategy and uses asymmetrical warfare tactics in the political realm to attack fellow conservatives. Eastman, Kurka, and Alaska Right to Life President Pat Martin are some of the leading FACL-style political figures in Alaska.

Last week, Rep. Kevin McCabe of Big Lake, advanced a resolution at the Alaska Republican Party biennial convention that criticized FACL and those lawmakers who adhere to its tactics of attacking fellow Republicans.

As he is no longer a caucus member, Eastman will be removed from the House Rules Committee and the Legislative Ethics Committee upon a vote of the Committee on Committees.

Eastman has been a lone wolf since being elected. After he was re-elected in 2018, he would not join the Republican majority, leading to the collapse of the majority. That led to a number of Republicans joining the Democrat majority and Gov. Mike Dunleavy not being able to get his agenda moving in 2019.

Many conservatives have no objection to Eastman’s positions, but object to his tactics. Eastman is seen as the singular person who has prevented people from joining the Republican majority.

Bill to remove front license plate requirement moves to Senate

HB 166, removing a requirement for vehicles in Alaska to have a front license plate, has passed the House and moves to the Senate. 

Rep. Kevin McCabe, prime sponsor of the bill, said the savings to the state is estimated to be $330,000 every year.

“I was honored to see HB166 pass the House floor today. This bill was a result of looking for efficiencies that would result in savings to our state budget no matter the amount. I am happy to take smaller, long-term steps towards a more sustainable budget and this bill does that,” McCabe said. Twenty other states don’t require front license plates, including the most recent one to eliminate the requirement, Ohio, he said.

Voting against the bill were mostly Democrats — Reps. Harriet Drummond, Zack Fields, Sara Hannan, Andy Josephson, Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Liz Snyder, Ivy Spohnholz, Geran Tarr. Republicans David Eastman and Chris Kurka also voted against it, as a wedge has developed between them and the bill’s sponsor McCabe, who has recently called them out for their scorched-earth tactics.

In favor of the bill were Reps. Ben Carpenter, Matt Claman, Mike Cronk, Bryce Edgmon, Neal Foster, Ron Gillham, Grier Hopkins, DeLena Johnson, James Kaufman, Bart LeBon, Kevin McCabe, Ken McCarty, Tom McKay, Kelly Merrick, David Nelson, Daniel Ortiz, Josiah Patkotak, Mike Prax, Sara Rasmussen, George Rauscher, Calvin Schrage, Laddie Shaw, Andi Story, Louise Stutes, Steve Thompson, Cathy Tilton, Chris Tuck, Sarah Vance, and Adam Wool.

Dunleavy to Legislature: Pay the people at least a $3,700 PFD, as gas is set to rise to $17 a gallon in rural Alaska

Gov. Mike Dunleavy asked the Legislature to prioritize a fair Permanent Fund dividend amount, to place surplus revenues into State savings, and to take action on the People First Initiative bills introduced earlier this session.

“I ask the Legislature to pay every eligible resident a PFD this year of at least $3,700,” said Gov. Dunleavy during a press briefing. “We have this tremendous opportunity to provide a 50/50 PFD while having enough to place into savings. The more money in the hands of Alaskans, the better it will be for everyone. These are dire times for Alaskans who are paying at the pump while the government benefits from high oil prices. We need to be putting the money back in our constituents’ pockets.”

In March, Governor Dunleavy reported a projected $3.4 billion increase to the Spring 2022 Revenue Forecast over this year and the next. According to the Alaska Department of Revenue, the forecast is consistent, and the State is still projecting a multibillion-dollar surplus for 2022 and 2023.

In addition to the PFD, the administration’s priority is to rebuild savings with the surpluses in the range of $11 billion over 10 years, based on a conservative forecast of $70 plus per barrel to 2031.

According to estimates from Bloomberg Economics, the average American household can expect to pay an extra $5,200 this year – $433 per month – compared to last year due to inflation rising at a historic rate during the Biden Administration. The economic policies put in place by the Biden Administration are hitting low-income Alaskans the hardest, where they do not have a cushion of savings to protect them from rising prices. 

“We have the resources we need to make this PFD happen, so we wait on the Legislature to make their decision. Rural Alaska is going to see, potentially, $17/gallon of oil in some places. Alaskans should benefit from the State’s resources,” he said.

Dunleavy said that he said the Permanent Fund dividend should be as close to the statutory amount as possible. He acknowledged that his attempt to bring the Permanent Fund dividend formula to a vote of the people of Alaska is not moving in the Legislature.

In this session, Governor Dunleavy has addressed sex trafficking, sex offenses and victim protection with Senate Bills 189, 187 and 188. The bills are part of his People First Initiative, which includes five major intersecting topics: Domestic violence and sexual assault, Missing & Murdered Indigenous Persons, human/sex trafficking, foster care and homelessness.

Column: Vote yes on homeless navigation center

By MAYOR DAVE BRONSON, ASSEMBLYMAN FELIX RIVERA, FORMER ASSEMBLYMAN JOHN WEDDLETON

This week, the Anchorage Assembly will consider plans to construct a homelessness navigation and prevention center on the Anchorage Police Department campus near Tudor and Elmore roads. After many months of collaborative work and constant refinement through public input, we believe that our bipartisan proposal is sound, humane, and represents the most significant opportunity we’ve had in decades to turn the tide on homelessness.

We urge a yes vote on our resolution funding construction of the navigation center.

The navigation center will serve as a point of entry to treatment programs, specialized shelters, and permanent supportive housing all across Anchorage. In the same way that emergency rooms triage and transfer patients to specialized care, the navigation center will be a welcoming facility, staffed by competent navigators whose job is to connect clients to income, benefits, healthcare, and housing.

A key element of any navigation center is a “housing first,” low-barrier approach that prioritizes housing and deprioritizes admission requirements. This means accepting family configurations that traditionally struggle to gain access to shelters – single adults, couples, elders with a caretaker – and working to quickly place them into permanent housing. Only when this most basic human need is met are clients able to meaningfully engage with wrap-around services and address the root cause of their homelessness.

Earlier this week, we had another opportunity to share our plan with the public, and by Thursday’s Assembly meeting the administration will have provided nearly 300 pages of documentation to policymakers and the public. While some cost escalation due to inflation is to be expected in today’s economy, the building is currently priced at $9 million. Preliminary estimates for operating costs are $5 million per year. To put this amount into perspective, current municipality-run shelter operations cost more than $6 million each month. Even with inflation, the navigation center will unequivocally be a cost saver.

The steel-membrane structure, complete with skylights and windows, will be a tremendous leap forward over the ill-suited Sullivan Arena. While the 200-bed sheltering capacity of the navigation center will be temporary, the facility will be permanent – providing homelessness prevention services and meeting other community needs for many years to come. For those worried about winter conditions, rest assured that Sprung structures are already in use on the North Slope, Siberia, and even the Andes Mountains.

None of this would’ve been possible without your feedback. The facility will be designed for 200 clients, and emergency capacity will only be activated in the event of a true crisis. We’ve brought in the Anchorage Fire Department to develop fire mitigation plans, and we will continue to work with our safety partners to ensure pedestrian safety.

While we recognize that the location will always be a point of discussion, it’s worth remembering that the current site was selected after a review of over 70 locations around town. In truth, every one of us lives near a homeless shelter. The shelters are on our trails, in our parks, and behind our businesses. It’s up to us to fix this, and we believe the selected location is the best site by a long shot.

As we move forward, it’s important to maintain perspective. The navigation center is just one part of a comprehensive transition plan from mass sheltering to sustainable operations. On Monday, we celebrated the opening of the Sockeye Inn which will soon provide 61 private rooms for the medically vulnerable. Last Thursday, the Anchorage Coalition to End Homelessness processed over 100 applications for permanent housing from clients at the Sullivan Arena, and we’re very close to securing an additional 120 rooms at the GuestHouse Inn for workforce and supportive housing.

Private entities are also hard at work bringing additional services online. Partnering with the municipality, the Salvation Army is on the verge of reopening its 68-bed substance misuse treatment facility on 48th Avenue. On Third Avenue, the Rasmuson Foundation, Weidner Apartment Homes, Bean’s Café, and Catholic Social Services are working together to open a navigation center as early as next year. These private service providers will continue to bear the lion’s share of homelessness efforts in Anchorage, and we’re tremendously grateful for their efforts.

There’s no denying that the challenge that lies ahead is enormous, but all of us believe that we’ve never been better positioned to make a real difference. Our coalition represents every political stripe and point of view – whether you’re after safer trails, a more vibrant economy, or you share our belief that we have a moral obligation to protect the vulnerable and marginalized, we welcome you to our cause.

We call on the full Assembly to join us with a yes vote on navigation center funding.

Dave Bronson is the mayor of Anchorage. Felix Rivera represents Midtown on the Anchorage Assembly and is the chair of the Assembly’s Committee on Housing and Homelessness. John Weddleton represented South Anchorage on the Anchorage Assembly.

Win Gruening: Constitutional convention would open up a can of worms

By WIN GRUENING

In 1972 and four times since, Alaska voters were presented with the question “Shall there be a Constitutional Convention?” Each time, voters have declined the invitation.  In 2002 and 2012, voters turned it down by a 2-1 margin or greater.

On Nov. 8, 2022, voters will once again be asked to answer the question.

The purpose of a constitutional convention seems quite straight-forward but its impact could be far-reaching and potentially lead to unintended consequences.  

Fortunately, there is a better alternative.

Alaska is one of 14 states requiring a mandatory vote on this question periodically. The Alaska Constitution calls for the question to be automatically placed on the ballot every ten years, but it’s only recently that the prospect of a convention has been taken seriously. 

There are a number of reasons for this but the primary cause is voter frustration with persistent partisan gridlock in our legislature.  

For many, a constitutional convention is seen as a way to settle questions surrounding the Permanent Fund.  How the Permanent Fund should be used, including the dividend formulation and which government services it could support, is often promoted as a reason to hold a convention.  But there’s no guarantee that agreement could be reached on that subject or that discussion would be limited to that one issue. Indeed, judicial appointments, statewide taxes, and abortion are also cited as likely topics.  

While arguments have been made that discussion could be limited to certain subjects, the Constitution is explicit:  “Constitutional conventions shall have plenary power to amend or revise the constitution, subject only to ratification by the people. No call for a constitutional convention shall limit these powers of the convention.”

Even more radical changes could be adopted. One proposal would change Alaska’s municipal governments to 5-member county boards with an elected sheriff and an appointed state senator.  Other politically divisive issues such as school choice and subsistence rights could be raised.  

The convention process involves three separate public votes. The first is whether to call a convention, the second is to elect convention delegates, and then a final vote is taken on whether to approve any constitutional amendments.  This entire process could take as long as four years.

During this time, Alaskans and businesses would be in limbo as taxes, environmental regulations, education, and more could be subject to change and create years of economic, legal, and regulatory uncertainty.

It’s questionable that a constitutional convention would accomplish what promoters claim – especially in Alaska where the guidelines and timelines for selecting delegates and proposing and approving amendments are unique.  

Alaska’s Constitution states: “…delegates to the convention shall be chosen at the next regular statewide election, unless the legislature provides for the election of the delegates at a special election. The lieutenant governor shall issue the call for the convention. Unless other provisions have been made by law, the call shall conform as nearly as possible to the act calling the Alaska Constitutional Convention of 1955, including, but not limited to, number of members, districts, election and certification of delegates.”

Proponents frame the arguments for a convention as a way to bypass the Legislature and let the “people” finally have their say.  Yet, the delegates to such a convention, in most cases, will be the currently elected representatives from voters’ districts. Legislators would be expected to run as delegates from their districts to the convention.  They have campaign staffs, name recognition, and popular support.  

It doesn’t seem likely that a convention populated mostly by sitting legislators would be much different than what happens in every legislative session.

Alaskans could spend millions of dollars on an unnecessary, lengthy, and acrimonious process that could have been avoided.

Alternatively, as with 17 other states, Alaska allows constitutional amendments to be referred to a state-wide ballot with a two-thirds vote in the state legislature.  If our constitution needs to be amended, this is a proven approach, having been used successfully 28 times since Statehood.  Unlike a convention, proposed changes are considered individually.  An amendment would be researched, debated and vetted in a deliberative way without the political theater of a convention. 

Requiring a super-majority of legislators to approve a constitutional amendment for the ballot is a high bar for a reason. Once a proposed constitutional amendment is referred to the ballot, only a simple majority vote is required to pass it. The legislative super-majority rule prevents our constitution from being changed without broad public support.

Our founding document has served us well since 1959.  Since then, it has been hailed as a model constitution for its brevity, flexibility and protection of individual rights. Extensive alterations are unnecessary and a constitutional convention is not the mechanism best suited to make incremental adjustments.

After retiring as the senior vice president in charge of business banking for Key Bank in Alaska, Win Gruening became a regular opinion page columnist for the Juneau Empire. He was born and raised in Juneau and graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1970. He is involved in various local and statewide organizations.