By ZACK GOTTSHALL
Something serious is happening inside the Federation of Community Councils (FCC)—and Anchorage’s residents should be paying attention.
The FCC’s executive staff have introduced draft bylaws that would eliminate the voting power of every community council delegate and consolidate control under a small, unelected Board of Directors. The proposal, dated October 10, 2025, would replace the long-standing board-of-delegates model—where every neighborhood council has a vote—with a corporate-style structure in which just seven to eleven individuals make all decisions.
This is not reform. It is a deliberate move to remove authority from the very people the FCC was created to support.
For nearly fifty years, Anchorage’s Community Councils have been the foundation of local participation in city government. Their purpose is clearly defined in law. Anchorage Municipal Code 2.40.020, which implements Article VIII of the City Charter, guarantees citizens “a direct and continuing means of participation in government and local affairs” and ensures “maximum community involvement and self-determination.”
Each council—whether in Fairview, Spenard, Eagle River, or Girdwood—elects its own officers and sends a delegate to the FCC. Together, those delegates represent every neighborhood in Anchorage, guiding how the FCC’s municipal grant funds are used to support public meetings, communication, and recordkeeping.
The Municipality of Anchorage’s own reference guide, Community Councils 101, is explicit about the FCC’s role:
“The FCC is not recognized in the charter or municipal code; the organization is granted money by the Assembly to provide support to the community councils.”
That means the FCC exists to assist, not to command. It has no statutory authority. The councils are recognized by law; the FCC is not.
The proposed bylaw changes reverse that relationship. By eliminating delegate votes, FCC staff are positioning themselves—and a handful of board members—to direct how public funds are spent and how community issues are prioritized. Delegates who now make motions and shape agendas would be reduced to passive observers.
That change violates the purpose of AMC 2.40.020 (A)–(B), which was enacted to keep citizen participation direct and continuous. Removing delegate authority inserts a private layer between the community and local government—an insulated intermediary with no legal accountability to the public.
Anchorage’s neighborhoods have long been able to bring forward concerns—from homelessness to road safety, zoning, and drainage—through their councils. The FCC’s staff now propose to take those voices out of the equation.
That is not efficiency. It is control.
The FCC is funded by the Anchorage Assembly to support neighborhood participation. If its own staff rewrite bylaws to override those neighborhoods, they’re acting beyond the purpose of that public grant. The Assembly allocates taxpayer money to strengthen councils’ advisory role—not to fund an internal bureaucracy that limits it.
If implemented, this new structure would turn the FCC from a service organization into an unaccountable management board. That is not what the Charter envisioned when it promised “maximum community involvement.”
Anchorage’s Assembly members should not let this proceed quietly. They should review the proposed bylaws before adoption, ensure the FCC remains aligned with its grant purpose, and withhold further funding if it does not. The Municipal Ombudsman should also evaluate whether the proposal conflicts with the Charter’s guarantee of direct citizen participation.
This is a question of governance, not convenience. The FCC staff were hired to serve the councils, not to rewrite the system that keeps those councils free and self-determining.
Anchorage’s neighborhoods have earned their voice in city affairs. It should not be handed away to a small group operating without a public mandate.
The next FCC Board of Delegates meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 15, 2025, from 6:00–8:00 p.m. at the FCC Conference Room and via Zoom (Meeting ID: 896 0052 8663). The agenda includes the “Introduction of Draft Bylaws” as a discussion item for delegates, with revisions expected to return for a potential vote in December. Residents and council members are encouraged to attend and provide comment.
Zack Gottshall is a retired U.S. Army Intelligence Officer, a Commissioner on the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights, Vice President of the Taku/Campbell Community Council, and a small business owner in Anchorage, Alaska.
The Anchorage assembly will simply wave this through because it conforms to their idea of Communist collectivism and central control.
This. 100%
yep. the commies there pretend to represent all voters but they despise anybody who speaks up with facts and challenged their biden agenda. these people are sick in more ways than one. sane goes for the mayor.
Such important message
PLEASE go on the local talk radio shows and tell everyone about this!!
What John Hancock said!
Wish the state would build a bypass over or around Anchorage so I could travel to Kenai without passing through we could just drive by and watch it die.
Quite likely that this is being done at the behest of the Assembly. Community Councils have long been used as training grounds for democrat candidates. What better way to ensure the continuation of current democrat control at the local level than to control who gets supported? This is not a bug. It is a feature. Cheers –
I zoomed into a recent FCC meeting where this was being discussed. This proposal is very concerning. I started going to Spenard Community Council meetings in the 1980s. When I was first elected to the State House in 1986, the first law I passed was to require more notice to Community Councils of liquor licenses and road projects close to their neighborhoods. As an attorney, I agree that this power consolidation appears inconsistent with current municipal law.
Dave Donley
Speaking only for myself and not the ASD or School Board.
Thanks , Dave for bringing common sense and legal prowess to light.
Does Anchorage’s population realize there are neighborhood councils?
The bylaws being proposed were not written by the staff of the FCC. They were drafted by a sub-committee of FCC delegates that has been meeting for almost a year.
What’s this about the bylaw Committee being chaired by a self-appointed delegate who never let his council know, nor ever reported to them in four years?? It sounds like he did the writing.
When you don’t spend time writing reports back to your council, you have lots of time to fool around with structural systems.
Kinda like: The Forest belong to the People. No One allowed in the Forest.
Commies do what commies do.
Nothing to see here, move along.
In the end, “Sic Semper Tyrannis!”
Zack, my friend, what’s not clear to you?
.
Bless you for caring, but really …convince us first, why working stiffs should give a damn about de facto homeowners associations representing themselves as community councils, folks we never elected, begging the Assembly for the privilege of paying more money to get (fill in whatever want)?
.
Sure and they mattered way, way back in the day when people believed elected officials cared about them …but now? seizing private property for their bloody trails, bending over for casinos, bending over for their education industry, minding everydamnbody’s business but their own …Eaglexit, remind again which community councils went all in for Eaglexit or joining Eaglexit?
.
Bottom line… thanks for caring about the community, may we respectfully suggest the social sewage of community councils, and your Federation of Community Councils mean little, if nothing, to taxpayers who work for a living and don’t have time, or incentive, to mind their neighbors’ business for them?
As an attorney, I Dave Donley ,,,,, Beware everyone the unbonded / Statute Violator / Law Braker ! I am not Joking, Liberty Ed
I participated in the Zoom meeting. They had a draft copy of the bylaw changes under discussion, but the copy presented was not the latest draft under discussion. There was a motion made by a community council president, and it was seconded, to table the matter because many community councils did not have a timely opportunity to review and discuss these changes. Eventually, the FCC talked it’s way around the motion in some convoluted way to ignore the motion, and in the end they did. If memory serves, the FCC ruled that the president of the community council that made the motion was not a delegate, and therefor could not make a motion. They decided they would not delay their advancement of the draft based on the idea that they put much work into it for about a year now. But it is obvious to me, they are doing this without regard to the community councils. They community councils do not appear to fully engaged in this discussion.