Opinion

OPINION: A smoking gun that shot blanks

The Journal was involved in two stories this past week we wanted no part of, but that ended up presenting a textbook case study in how and how not to practice journalism. On Friday, July 13, Republican blogger Suzanne Downing put up a post under a click-bait headline of “Smoking Gun” accusing Gov. Bill Walker of breaking state law by submitting an opinion column with a link to a campaign video and the Journal and its parent newspaper the Anchorage Daily News of committing campaign finance violations by publishing it. On Tuesday, July 17, the House Subcommittee on Ethics was presented with the deposition of former Journal reporter Naomi Klouda in the case against Rep. David Eastman, who was booted from the Ethics panel this session by a 31-6 vote based on a finding that he violated Alaska law by revealing the existence of an ethics complaint against Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux to Klouda on April 28, 2017. The Journal’s involvement in the Eastman case began that day when Klouda did what real reporters do when they are presented with an allegation: she attempted to verify it. In the case of Eastman, she was actually following his own advice when he told her that she should call the Legislative Ethics Office and ask Administrator Jerry Anderson about a complaint that had been filed within the previous week against LeDoux. Unbeknownst to Klouda at the time, though Anderson would quickly make her aware, ethics complaints are confidential until they are resolved. Anderson informed her that he could neither confirm nor deny the existence of any complaint and asked who had told her about it. Klouda, whose interview with Eastman was entirely on the record, told Anderson that he had told her to call the Ethics office and ask about LeDoux. Because we could not confirm the existence of the complaint, and after Anderson informed us of the serious nature of anyone disclosing a pending complaint, we did not report Eastman’s allegation against LeDoux. A couple weeks later, Klouda and I met with Anderson at his cramped Downtown Anchorage office where for the second of four times, including a deposition given under oath, she recounted in exact detail what Eastman told her that day. Unlike Eastman, her version of events has never changed, and his attorney was left with nothing else but to attack her preservation of notes despite all the contemporaneous documentation at the time, the phone records that show she called Anderson immediately after talking to Eastman and Anderson’s own sworn testimony that all support Klouda’s account. When we reported on the Ethics committee’s recommendation to remove Eastman this past January, LeDoux did confirm that a complaint had indeed been filed against her. We learned on July 17 that the complaint had actually been filed April 27, 2017, the day before Eastman told Klouda to call the Ethics Office and ask about it. The reason for the alarm expressed by Anderson on receiving Klouda’s inquiry the very day after a confidential complaint was filed suddenly became clear during the July 17 hearing. Besides attacking Klouda’s notes by introducing the entirely irrelevant Reuters guidebook and inventing other standards for reporters out of thin air, Eastman’s attorney argued that it wasn’t reasonable to believe that he would do something so stupid as to violate the ethics law by telling her about a pending complaint against a fellow legislator. Just because an action is stupid doesn’t mean people don’t do it, which brings us to Downing and the striking contrast with Klouda. Without a shred of evidence, Downing accused the governor of using state resources to promote a campaign video and the Journal and ADN of being accomplices in the violation by publishing the column with the link to YouTube. Downing didn’t contact ADN Opinion Editor Tom Hewitt to ask about the origin of the column or what the editorial policy is regarding submissions by candidates. Nor did she contact yours truly despite having my cell phone number. Instead, she published a piece of fake news with no reporting and appointed herself as judge and jury of the Alaska Public Offices Commission to declare it was only a question of how many, not if any, legal violations took place. Klouda attempted to verify an allegation before publishing it. Downing made no attempt to verify her allegations. When Klouda could not confirm the existence of a complaint, we did not publish the allegation. Even after being informed that the Walker column came from the campaign and not from his state office, Downing has yet to correct or update her post as of the morning of July 18. Klouda had no agenda when she called the Ethics Office to check on Eastman’s allegation. Downing’s anti-Walker agenda is plastered all over her blog. If the Journal shared Downing’s lack of standards, we could have reported Eastman’s allegation of a complaint and the details he described to Klouda along with the obligatory “could not confirm or deny” from Anderson. We instead chose to be responsible and regardless of how the Ethics committee ultimately rules, Klouda’s effort to get the story right was presented in detail during the July 17 hearing as Eastman’s attorney was left with only an emotional misdirection about her credibility and a defense that boiled down to his client not being that dumb. Downing won’t make that same argument but the next time you read one of her attacks on her ideological foes keep in mind her standards when she writes about her friends. Editor's note: On July 19, the House Subcommittee on Legislative Ethics upheld its decision that Eastman violated the law by disclosing the existence of the complaint to Klouda. Andrew Jensen can be reached at [email protected]

COMMENTARY: Without better habitat protections, salmon are vulnerable

As a commercial fisherman for over four decades, I am supporting Ballot Initiative 1 and voting “Yes for Salmon.” I have participated in a variety of fisheries around the state from Southeast to the Bering Sea, and have experienced a multitude of uncertainties inherent in the business. Fish stocks fluctuate, weather conditions vary, markets can be fickle, mechanical breakdowns happen, foreign exchange rates rise and fall, and politics shift with the wind, to name a few. Exposure to risk — both physical and financial — plays an especially outsized role in commercial fishing, but like any other type of business, finding some level of predictability is a key to success. Although there are many risk factors beyond our control, Alaska fishermen are lucky to have predictability when it comes to management of fisheries. The mandate for sustainable resource use in Article 8 of the Alaska Constitution provides a foundation for a sophisticated management system administered by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The department uses the best available science and data collection methods along with a participatory public process at the Board of Fisheries to develop regulations that promote sustainable resource use. That predictability allows fishermen like me to make better decisions about my business that have ripple effects on family, crew, community and throughout the economy. Alaska’s fishery management system may be the envy of the world, but we are clearly vulnerable when it comes to protection of freshwater habitat. Throughout the northern hemisphere, where salmon were once bountiful, most places have seen their great runs diminish to a mere trickle or even lost altogether. The causes for salmon run decimation are well documented and nearly always related to loss of habitat. It’s often not from any one factor or project, but the cumulative effect of many disruptions. One only needs to look at the Pacific Northwest as an example of the loss and subsequent difficulty in rehabilitating those once-abundant stocks. I am hoping that Alaska will learn from the mistakes of others and act to effectively protect salmon habitat before it is too late. While some claim that Alaska has “robust” permitting laws, the few column inches pertaining to salmon habitat protection in the voluminous book of fishery statutes (Title 16) is grossly insufficient. ADFG — the agency with actual responsibility for upholding the constitutional mandate — needs the authority required to assure that salmon habitat is protected. Present habitat permitting laws date back to statehood 60 years ago at a time when our population was 224,000 residents, a third of today’s roughly 740,000! Over the years since statehood, many have recognized the shortcomings of the present guiding statute (AS 16.05.871 section d), which states that “The commissioner shall approve the proposed construction, work, or use in writing unless the commissioner finds the plans and specifications insufficient for the proper protection of fish and game.” “Proper protection” falls for short of a “robust” standard that will bring us the salmon-enhanced future that most of us desire. Two years ago, the Board of Fisheries stepped in with a request to the Legislature for changes to the permitting statutes. Alaska Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak, rose to the challenge with proposed legislation, but the bill never made it out of committee. Legislative inaction has made the “Yes for Salmon” ballot initiative a credible alternative if salmon habitat is to be protected. With increasing pressure to develop Alaska’s non-renewable resources, the threat to salmon habitat is real. The status quo may be appealing to development interests, but unless costs are internalized — borne by the entity undertaking the project, the rest of us end up paying the price. When considering salmon habitat protection, Ben Franklin might have altered his famous axiom to state that “an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure.” So, I am supporting the “Yes for Salmon” initiative because there is nothing in the present statutes that will preclude a long-term decline in salmon viability as the state becomes more developed. The initiative clarifies what constitutes “proper protection” of fish and game, sets up a permitting process that is transparent and workable, and recognizes that not only has the state of Alaska changed, but the state of the science is also far more advanced. Chip Treinen of Anchorage holds an MBA from Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley and has over 40 years of fishing experience in Alaska’s waters.

COMMENTARY: Stand for Salmon will hurt rural Alaska

Generations of Alaska Native people have revered salmon for its life-sustaining properties and role in the growth and survival of our communities. To say that Alaska Native people respect fish, especially salmon, is an understatement. Salmon constitutes a big part of who we are as Native people. As a proud Alaska Native woman and the Executive Director of the ANCSA Regional Association, I have the privilege of working with the CEOs of the twelve Alaska Native Regional Corporations. Together, our corporations, formed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, are owned by over 127,000 Alaska Native people. The Association exists to promote and foster the continued growth and economic strength of the Alaska Native Regional Corporations on behalf of their shareholders. Our mission is simple: collaborate to create a sustainable socioeconomic future for Alaska Native people. Recently, our organization took a public stand opposing Ballot Measure 1, also called “Stand for Salmon,” which its organizers claim is designed to protect fish, including salmon. Some Alaskans question why we became involved, and why we chose not to support the Ballot Measure. It’s critical for our shareholders and others to understand that the position we took was in no way “anti-salmon,” as some false accusations have claimed. On the contrary, our position is very much pro-Alaska, and especially pro-rural Alaska. Salmon have provided the bedrock of our communities for hundreds of years and must be protected for the next generations; no one disputes that core precept. But this ballot measure is so deeply flawed, and does so little to actually protect salmon that we were compelled to speak against it. Indeed, we feel so strongly about this issue that we have committed our official support to the ballot measure group, Stand for Alaska, which opposes the Stand for Salmon measure. It’s important to note that we do not take issue with the purported purpose of Ballot Measure 1, which claims a desire to protect fish, especially salmon. However, when more is learned about the ballot measure, including who wrote it, the lack of public input, the legal questions it raises, and the economic harm that it would cause to our communities, we could not in good faith stay silent. Not only would its passage jeopardize important resource development projects in Alaska, but also smaller infrastructure projects in rural Alaska. I listened with great interest when Doyon Ltd. President and CEO Aaron Schutt told a group that if the ballot measure passes, water and sewer projects would become all but impossible to construct in rural Alaska. As an organization whose membership is dedicated to improving the quality of life for thousands of Alaska Native shareholders and descendants, we can’t allow this to happen. We must stand together and reject this ballot measure that purports to be designed to protect salmon, but that will likely set our communities and Alaska Native people back by decades. Salmon has sustained our people for many generations; it’s become a part of who we are as people and what has allowed our communities to thrive and exist today. It represents our past, present, and future — and it’s engrained in our heritage. But on this issue, we must join and stand together for Alaska and our future by voting no on Ballot Measure 1. ^ Kim Reitmeier is the executive director of the ANCSA Regional Association.

OPINION: Times adds to escalating rhetoric of incitement

Democrats sure love to quote mob movies when they want to sound tough. Back in 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama was at a fundraiser in Philadelphia when he referenced “the Chicago Way” as described by Sean Connery’s Jim Malone in “The Untouchables.” “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” said Obama, who rose to power from the Chicago political scene. “Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.” There’s no need to imagine the sort of breathless pearl-clutching from so-called progressives had such a statement emanated from Obama’s opponent Sen. John McCain or his running mate and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Just a few years later, a deranged individual who believed the government was using grammar as a means of mind control shot up a constituent gathering in Arizona hosted by Rep. Gabby Giffords. Before the blood dried or the bodies of the six killed turned cold, the fingers were being pointed at Palin for inspiring the shooter because she’d included Giffords’ district in a standard-issue map of targeted congressional seats. The disgusting smear against Palin was repeated just more than a year ago by the New York Times editorial board when a fan of Bernie Sanders and Rachel Maddow attempted to assassinate Republican members of Congress on June 14, 2017, at a baseball practice in Alexandria, Va. Only because Capital Police were on hand to protect the third-ranking member of the House leadership, Rep. Steve Scalise, who was gravely wounded in the attack, did we narrowly avoid the worst political bloodbath in our nation’s history. Unlike the Giffords shooter, the political motivation of the man who attacked the Republican members was splattered all over his social media accounts. So what did the Times do with this evidence? Go after Palin, of course. “Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably,” the Times editorial board wrote the following day. “In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.” The Times was eventually forced to issue a correction that noted there were zero links between Palin and Loughner, and she unsuccessfully sued the paper for defamation. The case was dismissed because she couldn’t prove the editorial writers knew what they were writing was false, despite the fact the claim against Palin had been debunked for years. Turns out ignorance is a defense. Now, with violence and harassment against members of President Donald Trump’s administration and his supporters on the rise and being actively encouraged by the likes of Rep. Maxine Waters, the Times has decided to throw more gasoline on the fire. On July 6, in a rallying cry to Democrats to oppose whomever Trump would eventually nominate to the Supreme Court to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, the editorial board wrote: “This is all the more reason for Democrats and progressives to take a page from “The Godfather” and go to the mattresses on this issue. “… This call to arms may sound overly dramatic. It’s not.” “Going to the mattresses” means going to war with rival mafia families. Whether in the movies or real life, it means blood in the streets. It means a series of attacks and retaliations carried out by mob soldiers who lie low in bare apartments lacking furniture with mattresses on the floor. If Democrats didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any at all. We don’t even have to wait to see if the unhinged rhetoric of the left will inspire actual violence. The assassination attempt on Scalise and his fellow Republicans proves it already has. A man has been arrested for threatening to kill Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai and his family over net neutrality. Yes, net neutrality. Sen. Rand Paul, who was on the baseball field with Scalise getting shot at and later had his ribs broken in an assault by his neighbor, was the subject of additional threats recently and Capital Police arrested a man for threatening to chop him and his family up with an ax. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has now been harassed multiple times in public by progressive activists, who have also gotten in the face of his wife and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. Simply wearing a Make America Great Again hat is now an invite to assault, as we saw in Texas where a 16-year-old had his ripped off and a drink thrown in his face at a Whataburger by a member of the Texas Green Party. The anger on the left has boiled over, and as long as the hateful demonization of Republicans keeps up it won’t be long before we see a repeat of the attack at a baseball field. America will reject the left’s tactics this fall. Republicans will hold the House, expand their majority in the Senate and cement control of the Supreme Court with the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh. To borrow another phrase from “The Godfather” that the Times can understand, Trump is going to settle all family business. Andrew Jensen can be reached at [email protected]

COMMENTARY: Sweeney will be champion for Native issues at federal level

The U.S. Senate’s recent confirmation of Tara Sweeney as the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior is a positive move, and Cherokee Nation looks forward to working with her on issues important to Indian Country. She is the first Alaska Native to serve as the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs and the first woman in the post since Ada Deer served in that capacity for President Bill Clinton. Throughout her many years of work on behalf of the Native people in her home state of Alaska, Sweeney is a strong voice on a multitude of issues, from tribal self-determination to the promotion of economic development opportunities. She has also championed increased access to capital for underserved Native American populations. That depth of knowledge and passion will be a benefit for all Native people in the United States, especially since the role of Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs plays a critical role in the government-to-government relationship the federal government has with tribal nations. Closer to home, Sweeney provided her expertise to Cherokee Nation Businesses by serving on its Economic Development New Market Tax Credit Advisory Board. She is aware of our efforts and successes in economic development that is reshaping northeast Oklahoma, where we employ over 11,000 people and have a $2.03 billion impact on the state. We utilize the dollars generated by our business success and federal funding to make a positive impact on more than 360,000 Cherokees we serve through the development of affordable housing, health care facilities, education and job creation. For us at the Cherokee Nation, it is important to have a knowledgeable and skilled person in this role, especially as we continue to advocate for issues affecting our service programs, land and other resources. O ther priorities Cherokee Nation is pursuing on Capitol Hill include funding for staffing and operations for our expansion at W.W. Hastings Hospital, a joint venture project with the Bureau of Indian Education at Sequoyah High School, amendments to the federal “47 Act,” or Stigler Act, to protect certain land ownership rights for citizens of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma, and continued funding for federal programs important to tribal governments. These priorities would not be possible without a solid working relationship and partnership with the federal government and the Department of the Interior. Bill John Baker is the principal chief of the Cherokee Nation. This column originally appeared July 9 at Native News Online.(nativenewsonline.net).

OPINION: The pointless pander by Walker-Mallott on Pebble

Gov. Bill Walker and Lt. Gov. Byron Mallott are serious about seeking reelection, but it appears they are abandoning any attempt to win the support of the resource development industry. How successful their effort will be remains to be seen, but after splitting off GOP votes from former Gov. Sean Parnell in 2014 the new strategy is apparently to siphon votes from Democrat challenger and former Sen. Mark Begich. Running to the left in 2018 after appealing to Lisa Murkowski moderates as a nonthreatening alternative to Parnell in 2014 is the only explanation for the letter signed by Walker and Mallott submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on June 29. At the end of the scoping period in preparation for the environmental impact statement process for the proposed Pebble mine, Walker and Mallott asked the Corps to suspend the entire effort. To be sure, Walker and Mallott declared their opposition to Pebble in 2014, which is not a controversial position to take in Alaska. But members of the resource industry who were willing to overlook that position quickly found out that was the only position he was forthcoming about. Walker pledged to keep the current process for the Alaska LNG Project on track; instead he immediately began to undermine it to wrest state control from the producers. After endorsing its repeal, Walker pledged to support the results of the referendum that August that upheld the current oil production tax known as SB 21; instead he introduced a series of oil tax hikes and over two years he vetoed $630 million in payments owed to small oil and gas exploration companies that deepened the state recession and wrecked the state’s credibility with investors. He also picked a fight over the Prudhoe Bay plan of development — a typically routine annual filing that defines expected drilling and production estimates — by trying to extract detailed information about natural gas sales and marketing from the three owners of the field. Walker and Mallott clearly don’t believe they’ll be able to fool the industry twice, so they are following Begich’s lead. Begich gave his position on Pebble to Laine Welch of Fish Radio published June 13 in which he said that the first thing he would do as governor would be to inform the Corps that state lands or right-of-way access would not be granted and that the state would not participate in the effort. That would “finally put an end to this project,” Begich said. Walker and Mallott wrote in their letter that they will continue to “champion” resource development such as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or building the gas pipeline, however, “the (Pebble Limited Partnership) has yet to demonstrate to us or the Alaska public that they have proposed a feasible and realistic project. Without, at minimum a preliminary economic assessment, but preferably a pre-feasibility study, the Corps will be unable to take a hard look at all reasonable alternatives in the draft EIS.” Don’t look now, but the exact arguments they make against Pebble can easily be applied to ANWR and Walker’s dream of the gasline. There is as yet no economic assessment to justify drilling in ANWR, currently in the EIS process, and opponents make the same case that there is no economic rationale for the effort. Demonstrating a “feasible and realistic project” is also a hurdle the Alaska LNG Project, also in the EIS process, is far from clearing. The short-circuiting of the permit process to stop projects is the favored strategy of Alaska’s many opponents to responsible development. Advocating the Corps take just such a step against Pebble reveals the claim to be resource champions as a truly hollow one and betrays their request as the pointless pander that it is. Andrew Jensen can be reached at [email protected]

COMMENTARY: Time for Alaska industries to evolve and Stand for Salmon

Here in Dillingham, at the confluence of the Nushagak and Wood Rivers, sockeye salmon are arriving in significant waves — silver tsunamis of biomass, truly our Alaskan Gold. And through the window of my office in Dillingham, I’m watching 737 and C-130 aircraft loaded down with tens of thousands of pounds of fresh fillets lift off for Anchorage. It’s almost the height of fishing season. And as this town is transformed from sleepy outpost to buzzing commercial hive, I’m reminded once again how biological health and market evolution are combining to benefit thousands of families invested in their commercial fishing enterprises. This $1.5 billion, 14,000-job Bristol Bay sockeye economy rests on healthy salmon habitat and clean water throughout the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds. We have the most pristine rivers, lakes, and wetlands ecosystem anywhere in the North Pacific. That allows all these fish to come home and seed a voluminous next generation. And it affords the next round of smolts the best possible environment to grow to maturity and head to the sea. Any major threat to habitat is a threat to our economy. That’s why the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corp., charged with sustainably developing the region’s marine resources, has come out in favor of stronger salmon habitat protections that will be in front of voters this fall — the Yes for Salmon initiative. And that’s why we’ve consistently spoken out against the Pebble Mine proposed for the headwaters of the Nushagak — where the mine would wipe out 30 miles of salmon streams and tributaries and 3,000 acres of adjacent wetlands, just in its first phase. But we also know that the we can’t get complacent with mother nature’s bounty and simply maintain the status quo. Over the last three years, our organization has joined with private sector partners and fishermen in Bristol Bay to drive a massive shift from delivering canned salmon to now producing frozen and fresh products that consumers are demanding. We have helped hundreds of boats add chilling capacity onboard, and processors are increasingly shifting to fillets and portions. This is moving Bristol Bay salmon up the value chain, bringing higher prices and opening up more and more market share for Bristol Bay products here in the United States. It increases the annual impact from Alaskan salmon on the American economy — now pegged at $4.2 billion. Other Alaskan industries know the mantra of adapting, evolving and bringing greater value to customers and society. As a state, we stand on the threshold of another opportunity. By adopting the development standards outlined in the Yes for Salmon initiative, Alaska will set the pace for how to grow responsibly while also protecting the fish and game that are central to our way of life and our economy. We know it’s possible for Alaskan industries to develop major projects responsibly: the Trans-Alaska pipeline was built without any major damage to habitat, because state government at the time believed in strong oversight and committed resources to monitor construction. But because we have no clear scientific standards on the books for permitting development in salmon habitat, the system is open to exploitation and influence in Juneau. And it simply does not have the needed rigor to handle the next generation of mines such as Pebble. Now is the time for Alaska to lead on responsible development. I believe in the importance of oil, gas and mining. I come from a family of South Dakota Black Hills settlers who balanced gold mining interests with community interests and I have no interest in seeing these industries falter. Having studied the initiative and weighed the merits of our public support for some time, I can honestly say this will not shutter these important sectors. It will encourage them to grow correctly, by not irreparably harming key salmon habitat. If we want a future in salmon, we need to have future-oriented business community. And that means tending to the needs of this impressive, home grown, renewable economy that depends on our careful stewardship. ^ Norman Van Vactor is president and CEO of Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation.

COMMENTARY: Stand for Salmon initiative is too extreme

Although our economy is struggling, there are new opportunities on the horizon. At our shop in Fairbanks, Flowline Alaska Inc., we are gearing up for new projects and are excited for the future. But Ballot Measure 1 threatens new opportunities for our family-owned company and my community here in Fairbanks. As written, Ballot Measure 1 imposes new regulations that would jeopardize not only new development projects, but also existing ones. And it’s not just mining and oil development. We’re talking about critical, local infrastructure upgrades that are badly needed in many communities. Roads, dams, wastewater treatment facilities and airports, just to name a few, all require many permits. Whether we’re building, repairing or replacing an existing structure, Ballot Measure 1 will make necessary infrastructure projects cost prohibitive or impossible. Flowline is focused on oil and gas and jobs for Alaskans. We proudly call Fairbanks home, and we care deeply about what happens here. The fact that Ballot Measure 1 would make it more difficult for our community to grow and prosper is unacceptable. Alaska has promising economic and employment prospects just within reach: new oil fields, the opening of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and even a natural gas pipeline project. These opportunities provide more than a few jobs; they offer new sources of revenue for the state and local communities, and more money flowing into the Alaska Permanent Fund. Under Ballot Measure 1, those opportunities could be postponed — possibly forever. Alaska can’t wait any longer for more jobs and new sources of state revenue. Alaska can’t afford to take on new and different regulations when our current ones are viewed with respect by other states. To embrace an extreme and untested permitting system that risks a shutdown of existing operations and puts new projects in the deep freeze would be self-defeating and not in the best interests of Alaskans who value jobs and a strong economy. My family has enjoyed many summers catching salmon on the Gulkana River. We want salmon to be protected just like everyone else, but we don’t have to abandon economic growth and job creation in order to protect our fish. Alaskans work very hard to have both economic development and strong salmon runs. In many cases, development projects have actually enhanced fish habitat. Just look at what Red Dog mine did for Middle Fork Creek. A once uninhabitable river is now a home to fish thanks to mining. That might be a hard concept for the folks in the Lower 48 who funded this measure to understand, but we do things differently here in Alaska. I’d like to think that means we do it better. Alaska can enjoy both a good economy and strong salmon protections, but not if we pass Ballot Measure 1. Please join me in voting “no” on Ballot Measure 1. Genevieve Schok Jr. works in management at Flowline Alaska, Inc.

OPINION: Employers have every right to Stand for Alaska

The usual ado is being made about so-called “Outside” corporations contributing millions of dollars toward the defeat of the Stand for Salmon initiative that could appear on the ballot this November. While the Supreme Court ponders the constitutionality of the measure after oral arguments in April with a decision to be issued in September, the companies with billions worth of investments at stake have plunked down $5 million collectively for the opposition group Stand for Alaska as of the most recent public reports. They include Kinross Gold Corp., which just announced a $100 million expansion of the Fort Knox mine near Fairbanks, and the parent company of the proposed Donlin gold mine that is nearing the end of the environmental review process and has a construction price tag north of $5 billion. There’s also ConocoPhillips, which has spent billions over the past several years to bring CD-5 into production and to develop the Greater Mooses Tooth-1 project that will start adding oil to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System this year to be followed not long after by Greater Mooses Tooth-2. Those three combined projects will add nearly 100,000 barrels to the daily throughput of TAPS at no small cost to ConocoPhillips and no small benefit to the state treasury and Permanent Fund. Other contributors include the owner of the Kensington gold mine near Juneau, which went through a 20-year fight with environmental groups before beginning operations, and the owner of the Red Dog mine in Northwest Alaska that also cleared multiple obstacles by opponents before becoming one of the state’s great resource development success stories. Yet despite these and other companies’ long histories in Alaska, their tens of thousands in employees, billions in payroll through direct and indirect jobs along with generous contributions to the state’s nonprofits, arts and education programs, they are still cast as “Outsiders” attempting to unfairly use their monetary resources to “exploit” the state. The refrain has become as tired and predictable as “it’s our oil.” Even setting aside companies whose headquarters may be located outside the state’s borders, there is no shortage of local companies and groups opposing the measure represented by the Alaska Support Industry Alliance, the Resource Development Council, the Alaska Chamber and the biggest local chambers of commerce in the state including Anchorage, Juneau, Ketchikan and Fairbanks. There’s also the Alaska Native regional corporations, with the exception of the Pebble-opposition captured Bristol Bay Native Corp., who have joined together against the Stand for Salmon initiative. All outsiders, right? The argument is ridiculous on its face, but the attitude is pervasive and it should be no surprise the resource industry that has built Alaska and shoulders virtually the entire burden of taxation is not messing around when it comes to defeating the measure or waiting to see if the Supreme Court does the right thing and strikes it down as an unconstitutional seizure of the Legislature’s authority. Andrew Jensen can be reached at [email protected]

COMMENTARY: FCC is committed to rural telemedicine in Alaska

One of my earliest trips as a Federal Communications Commission commissioner was to a health care clinic in Fort Yukon, Alaska, population 554. The clinic may not have all the amenities of a big-city hospital, but it does have a broadband connection. High-speed internet access has made a big difference for this clinic. It’s meant access to doctors far away who can review medical information beamed to them by a local nurse. Fort Yukon’s story isn’t unique. Today, communications technology has fundamentally transformed the delivery of health care in rural America. Telemedicine can help address the workforce shortages that are too common in rural health facilities. Rural patients can use interactive videoconferencing to consult with specialists anywhere in the country — expert care that was unavailable and unimaginable not long ago. Chronic disease management has been revolutionized as wearable sensors can detect real-time complications and alert a family member or first responder to intervene. Digital tools can empower people with diabetes to monitor their blood-glucose levels. Bottom line: digital medicine helps rural communities increase access to health care, reduce costs, and improving patient outcomes. No state stands to benefit more from telemedicine than Alaska, which is home to many of the most remote communities in America. In a filing with the FCC, the Alaska Native Health Consortium estimated that 20 percent of Alaska Natives rely on telehealth, and that remote consultations within their network save $10 million annually in avoided travel costs. They put it simply: “(W)e cannot provide care in rural Alaska without telecommunications.” But there’s a fundamental challenge in Alaska, as in many parts of the Lower 48: promoting enough broadband to support digital health services. Nearly one-quarter of Alaskans can’t access fixed broadband service to support high-bandwidth applications like telemedicine. In rural areas, that number is dramatically higher. Established in 1997, the FCC’s Rural Health Care Program is an essential tool for closing these gaps in internet access. This program helps health care providers afford the connectivity that they need to better serve patients. But it’s facing some real problems. Most significantly, the program is currently underfunded. Its budget hasn’t increased a dime beyond its initial allocation of $400 million a year in the late 1990s. A second problem is that under today’s rules, if the program is oversubscribed (that is, if more than $400 million in reimbursements is requested from the program), every recipient sees a funding reduction. In 2016, program recipients saw a 7.5 percent trim in support. For funding year 2017, we’re looking at a chop of up to 26 percent. We need to update the FCC’s Rural Health Care Program to better reflect the needs of and advances in digital health care. That’s why I recently introduced a plan to increase the program’s annual funding cap from $400 million to $571 million. This new spending level reflects where the cap would be today if it had been adjusted for inflation all these years. This 43 percent increase would apply to the 2017 funding year in order to give rural health care providers immediate relief. Going forward, the plan would also give providers more certainty by adjusting the cap annually for inflation and allowing unused funds from prior years to be carried forward to future years. Notably, support for this approach is bipartisan. This May, Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan joined a coalition of 30 U.S. Senators from Alaska to Alabama and New Hampshire to New Mexico in calling on the FCC to increase the Rural Health Care Program’s spending cap. And the Trump Administration has broadly recognized the value of telemedicine, especially for veterans. And this proposal is just a start. We also need to make sure that every dollar spent in the program is spent wisely to benefit health care providers in Alaska and their patients. That’s why the FCC is moving forward on a separate track to make sure that the program functions more efficiently. This proposal is also personal. I grew up in rural Kansas, the child of rural doctors. I can remember my father waking up early to make long drives to small towns in order to treat patients who otherwise would never see a specialist. For me, this issue isn’t about technology; it’s about people and their ability to access to basic care they need to lead healthy lives. As long as I am FCC chairman, one of this agency’s top priorities will be harnessing the power of communications technology to improve health care in rural America. Devoting the resources necessary to make the FCC’s Rural Health Care Program a 21st-century tool will go a long way toward achieving this result. ^ Ajit Pai is the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

OPINION: Trump’s win in Singapore another blow to resistance

The major buildup of the U.S. missile defenses at Fort Greely continues, but the possibility their capability will be tested against an attack from North Korea is less now than it was a week ago thanks to President Donald Trump. Trump’s June 12 summit with Kim Jong Un, though the redundant cast list of media, Democrats and NeverTrumpers predictably tried their best to discredit it, was an unquestionable success of diplomacy the aforementioned Peanut Gallery claimed he’d be incapable of pulling off. This same clownshoe-clad posse that carried water for President Barack Obama’s deal with Iran bound in cheesecloth and sealed with pallets of cash, his normalization of relations with the Castro brothers and his post-election “flexibility” offer to Vladimir Putin is now attempting to argue with a straight face that Trump was swindled in Singapore. Giving up nothing more than a photo op and a pause in military exercises with South Korea, the securing of an agreement to finally repatriate the remains of thousands of U.S. casualties in the Korean War represents an achievement no president has managed in 65 years despite several other “deals” with the so-called hermit kingdom. That’s in addition to the freedom for three American hostages held by the Kim regime achieved without billions of dollars, sanction relief or the release of Taliban leaders that Obama exchanged. If nothing else comes of this summit, the return of American soldiers to their families is a historic feat on its own. But there will never be any concession of a Trump victory by his increasingly unhinged opponents, who would probably give up the climate change cause if the president suddenly embraced it. Trump famously bragged that people would “get tired of winning” if he were elected, yet there’s no sign of fatigue so far either for his supporters or members of the #resistance that apparently still believe screaming “F*** Trump” on live TV will win regular Americans to their cause. The stock market is up; unemployment is down to record lows across every demographic group including African Americans; wages are rising; and job openings topped the number of people looking for work for the first time ever in April. Obama once snickered that there’s no “waving a magic wand” to create jobs. He and others scoffed at Trump predicting 3 percent GDP growth. The measly 1.5 percent average growth over Obama’s eight years — the worst of any president since World War II despite near-zero interest rates and trillions in stimulus aided by endless “quantitative easing,” aka printing money, by the Federal Reserve — was dubbed the new normal. The Atlanta Federal Reserve is projecting GDP growth could top 4 percent for the second quarter. Meanwhile, the national media continues to drop once proudly-held standards of ethics and best practices in the name of taking Trump down as the intelligence community across the alphabet is concurrently exposed for its malfeasance and treachery under Obama’s watch in the false belief that Hillary Clinton would win and its abuses would never come to light. Resorting to porn stars and disgraced figures like James Clapper, John Brennan and James Comey has done nothing but backfire upon them all as Trump has let this farce play out with Robert Mueller indicting Russian trolls and nonexistent companies with his dream team of Democrat-donating lawyers and exiled lovebird agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. The same media that forced the revelation of Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s clients after Mueller’s lackeys in New York raided his office now howl with indignation when one of their cohort had her phone and email metadata seized after it was discovered she was sleeping with her source that was illegally leaking classified information from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Schadenfreude doesn’t even begin to capture the karmic tail-kicking being administered to Trump’s ankle-nipping pursuers. House Misery Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-lusional, has called the tax relief “crumbs”, defended the “spark of divinity” in MS-13 gang members and poo-pooed the jobs numbers with a sarcastic “hip hip hooray.” Democrats are running on tax hikes, open borders and impeachment with billionaire Tom Steyer proving that there is actually a bigger waste of money for rich guys than donating it to Jeb Bush. Good luck with that. The RNC is flush; the DNC is broke. Half the Democrats in the Senate are up for reelection but their adherence to Chuck Schumer’s obstruction strategy will likely have them in Washington during August voting against Trump’s nominees while 10 GOP challengers in states won by Trump get the field to themselves. Wile E. Coyote hatched better plans. And somewhere, Jim Acosta is crying in the shower. Andrew Jensen can be reached at [email protected]

AJOC EDITORIAL: Net neutrality fight misses the bigger problem

The May 16 vote in the U.S. Senate to reverse the Federal Communications Commission repeal of “net neutrality” rules produced a split from Alaska’s delegation with Sen. Lisa Murkowski joining 49 Democrats and Sen. Dan Sullivan voting with his Republican colleagues. The Democrats’ rare victory in the Senate was a small one, however, as there is not support in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives or from President Donald Trump, who appointed FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, to restore the 2015 net neutrality rules. Democrats want to make a campaign issue out of net neutrality with tech-savvy millennials by portraying it as a battle of David vs. Goliath with giant internet service providers in one corner and would-be innovators supposedly in danger of being throttled or blocked in the other. In fact, net neutrality boils down to a battle of Goliath vs. Goliath with the ISPs facing off against the dominant content providers known as FANG: Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google. According to Canadian bandwidth management systems vendor Sandvine, those four companies combine to take up some 56 percent percent of all internet traffic during peak periods, with Netflix taking the lion’s share of that number at about 36 percent. Next up is YouTube, owned by Google, at about 15 percent. Netflix had become such a bandwidth hog by 2014 that ISPs such as Comcast and Verizon started slowing down its streaming video; that forced Netflix to sign deals with them to pay a toll so its customers could enjoy faster speeds. Those deals were voided under the 2015 net neutrality rules that required all traffic to be treated the same regardless of whether it was a blogger or a corporate behemoth like Netflix with 125 million customers. That was a huge win for content providers who were able to go back to free-riding on the infrastructure built by the ISPs while continuing to charge customers for the services they provide over that same infrastructure. In practice, so far as the content providers are concerned, net neutrality is akin to “highway neutrality” if all road traffic was treated the same regardless of weight, length, value, etc. Of course we all understand that not all road traffic causes the same impact and therefore users pay different fees, tolls, taxes and the like. Google doesn’t pay anything for using about one-sixth of the available bandwidth during peak hours, but it definitely charges for YouTube TV and for ad placements on that content flowing through the ISPs. Netflix is using more than a third of the available broadband and likewise pays nothing for the privilege while raking in billions per month in subscriber revenue. If anything leads to “throttling” of internet speeds it would be two companies who are using almost half of the available bandwidth. The fears of ISPs throttling or blocking content are overblown to be sure, but speaking of net “neutrality,” does anyone believe companies like Google, Facebook or Twitter are “neutral”? Google manipulates search results. Facebook and Twitter have gotten into the speech censorship business by blocking users and the practice of “shadowbanning.” The corporate leadership and culture of these companies are overwhelmingly, outwardly, proudly, left-wing in nature. They are by far the dominant platforms for search and social interactions and there is no shortage of incidences of them using their clout for ideological purposes. In 2012, President Barack Obama’s reelection team was praised for its ability to microtarget voters by scraping data from millions of Facebook profiles, and the company did nothing about it. In 2016, that became a scandal when Cambridge Analytica did the same thing on behalf of then-candidate Trump. YouTube has “demonetized” conservative users; Facebook curtailed the page for the popular duo of African-American Trump fans Diamond and Silk; Twitter similarly polices progressive speech far more loosely than it does that of the right. So-called “net neutrality” does nothing to address the lack of neutrality when it comes to political speech exhibited by the Silicon Valley titans who claim to be for a free and open internet with them as champions of open public platforms. They have revealed themselves to be anything but. Andrew Jensen can be reached at [email protected]

GUEST COMMENTARY: Alaska telecoms committed to open internet

We are writing to assure you and all Alaskans that we are committed to the principles of net neutrality. We do not block websites. We do not censor content. We do not throttle, discriminate, or degrade network performance based on content. These core tenets of Net Neutrality define our networks and the internet access we offer Alaskans. The internet has become essential to most Alaskans. And it’s done so, for the most part, with very few—but often changing—rules. Regulators under four different presidents have taken four different approaches. Courts have overturned regulatory decisions. Regulators have reversed their predecessors. This continual back and forth is especially difficult for Alaska’s providers, many of which are small businesses and cooperatives, who find themselves whipsawed by this parade of regulatory regimes. They struggle to assess and meet ever-changing regulations, while continuing to build and operate critical networks in some of the most challenging environments on Earth. Attempting to ensure net neutrality through the Congressional Review Act will not appropriately address the uncertainties surrounding net neutrality, it will compound them. Solidifying the FCC’s 2015 order does not guarantee privacy and risks imposing tremendous regulatory burden on Alaska’s broadband providers, which would divert critical resources from broadband service across rural Alaska to regulatory compliance. We join Alaska’s congressional delegation in calling for legislative action by Congress. Only legislation can ensure consumers’ rights are protected and provide consistent rules of the road for all internet companies across all websites, content, devices and applications. It is time for Congress to end the debate once and for all, by writing new laws that govern the internet and protect consumers. Until Congress acts, be assured of the commitment of all Alaska Telecom Association members to provide an open internet to Alaskans. Christine O’Connor is the executive director of the Alaska Telecom Association. Dave Goggins is the president of ATA. Alaska Telecom Association members include Adak Telephone Utility, Alaska Communications, Alaska Power &Telephone Company, Arctic Slope Telephone Association Cooperative, Bristol Bay Telephone Cooperative, Bush-Tell, Copper Valley Telephone Cooperative, Cordova Telephone Cooperative, GCI Liberty, KPU Telecommunications, Matanuska Telephone Association, Nushagak Cooperative, OTZ Telephone Cooperative, Summit Telephone Company, TelAlaska and United Utilities.

GUEST COMMENTARY: Loving salmon, and against ‘Stand for Salmon’ initiative

I love salmon, but I care deeply about Alaska too. That’s why I oppose the salmon initiative. I doubt that there is anyone in Alaska that wants to protect salmon more than me. Transporting salmon, by aircraft, barges and trucks is a major part of our business, and sport fishing is my favorite pastime. Fishing has been and will continue to be a mainstay of Alaska’s economy and way of life for most Alaskans. The proponents of the so-called “Stand for Salmon” ballot measure want you to believe their proposal is just about protecting salmon, and that it won’t hinder development. If that were truly the case, I would support the measure, but unfortunately, once again, outside groups are trying to stop development, kill jobs and destroy Alaska. The “Stand for Salmon” initiative would make it extremely expensive and difficult for any type of development or community project. Whether it’s building a mine, repairing or building roads, developing an oilfield on the North Slope, or building a home, this initiative would be a major permitting impediment. We need to protect our unique and cherished ecosystems, especially in areas like Bristol Bay which rely so heavily on commercial and sport fishing industries. Many Alaskans were led to believe this would stop the Pebble Mine, but the initiative goes way beyond stopping one project in Alaska. Instead, it negatively impacts all resource development. This is a broad effort to attack Alaska statewide, and that’s why I decided to join the effort to defeat the initiative before it destroyed our state. The fish habitat ballot measure would cripple many industries by adding layers of unnecessary rules and regulations that would serve only to slow down or stop development and community projects, large and small. Building roads or runways in rural Alaska is already an expensive undertaking. Piling burdensome regulations onto those projects makes them harder to fund, if they are funded at all. Fortunately, once Alaskans find out the true meaning and purpose of this ballot measure, they are speaking out against it. Our Attorney General Jahna Lindemuth said the measure “would have the effect of categorically blocking certain mines, dams, roads and pipelines.” The Laborers and Teamsters unions oppose the measure because it would cause statewide job loss. Aaron Schutt, the president of Doyon, Ltd., one of the Alaska Native corporations, said “there will not be another significant project built in rural Alaska if this initiative passes.” Once again, Alaska needs to rally against an ill-conceived ballot measure that will be a huge roadblock to our state’s economy. Stand for Alaska is the name of an impressive coalition of businesses, native organizations, and individual Alaskans who love salmon but care about Alaska too. Lynden is a proud member of this group and we will help push back on the false narrative that Alaskans must choose between development and habitat protection. We can have both and have for many years. For more information about our coalition and the ballot measure, visit standforak.com. If the Alaska Supreme Court allows this ballot measure on the General Election ballot this November, I’m firmly voting no, and I encourage my fellow Alaskans to do the same. Jim Jansen is the chairman of Lynden and a supporter of Stand for Alaska.

GUEST COMMENTARY: Alaskans deserve process, not knee-jerk opposition, to Ambler Road

A recent House Resources committee hearing on the Ambler Mining District Industrial Access Project served as a reminder how prevalent a role outside environmental groups play in Alaska politics, particularly when it comes to mining projects. Perhaps nowhere else in America do environmental groups spend as much time, money and effort to insert a voice into how — or even if — we manage our own resources. Knee-jerk opposition to resource development often ignores the needs and best interests of Alaskans. It also discounts that these projects, in this case a potential road leading to a mining district in Northwest Alaska, make huge regional economic contributions to fund education, healthcare, and opportunity for future generations of our state. The Red Dog Mine, one of the largest lead and zinc mines in the world, has been in operation since the 1980s. It’s the only non-government tax contributor to the Northwest Arctic Borough and plays a critical role in supporting important services, especially schools. Since mining began at Red Dog over 25 years ago, more than $140 million has been provided to the borough. During that same period, over $880 million has been provided to the state and over $695 million to the federal government. Seven hundred-fifty Northwest Arctic Borough jobs are connected to Red Dog; accounting for roughly $75 million in annual wages. In addition, over $160 million is spent annually on goods and services from Alaska-based businesses. The economic and social benefits that the Red Dog Mine has brought to the region go on and on. Roughly 150 miles to the east of Red Dog is the mineral rich Ambler Mining District. The topic of recent legislative hearings was the feasibility of an access road being pursued by the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, or AIDEA. The road project is important because it would allow responsible development of mineral resources used in everything from solar panels to windmills and electric cars. The Ambler Access Project road alone would create hundreds of local jobs during the construction phase. Once built, providing industrial-only access to known mineral deposits, mining development could account for thousands of direct jobs during mine construction and operations. The benefit to the region would be a multiple of the long-term positive benefits the Red Dog Mine has brought. Despite the significant employment and economic benefit potential the project represents, the House Resources hearing included testimony from naysayers, arguing about the economics of the advanced-stage exploration project and challenging the return on investment of a proposed private toll road paid for with other people’s money. The Wilderness Society representatives, while generally stating support for the access road itself, had a lengthy presentation disagreeing with the economic model presented by AIDEA. AIDEA still has a lot of work to do, and they have detailed the rigorous process necessary to finalize a financing package for private investors interested in purchasing bonds to build the access road. Similarly, Trilogy Metals just finished a pre-feasibility-level study that demonstrates robust project economics, and as the Wilderness Society testified, more drilling work is needed at the potential mining projects. That work will continue this summer with recent news that the mining companies pursuing these opportunities have the funds in hand to do that. AIDEA and its proposed Ambler Access Project are going through the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, process to complete scoping requirements for an environmental impact statement, or EIS. This includes comments from the public relative to concerns and issues that must be addressed in the permitting process. This is followed by a draft EIS; another public comment period; a final EIS; a third public comment period; and then ultimately a record of decision. Nothing can be built before then. The NEPA process is incredibly rigorous, incorporating local input into project design and decision making, and has always resulted in a better project. At the end of the day, Alaskans should support this process to ensure that — once all the facts are made available — those who stand to be most affected by the road have a say in how it’s designed and developed. Nobody is building a road or a mine at this point, and none of the numbers are final, but Alaskans, especially residents of the region, deserve this process to play out. They deserve to hear all ideas, concerns and options for the road moving forward. What they don’t deserve is to have another resource project shut down by outside special interest groups before all the facts are available and the permitting process complete. John MacKinnon is the Executive Director of AGC of Alaska, a construction trade association representing over 640 companies in Alaska. Jim St. George is the President of AGC of Alaska. He is founder of STG Incorporated, an Anchorage-based construction management and services company specializing in heavy industrial construction projects in rural Alaska.

AJOC EDITORIAL: At last call, bar lobby tries to cut off crafters

Chronicling political hypocrisy is typically no more difficult than shooting the idiomatic fish in a barrel. And sometimes the fish jump in front of the bullets. Such is the case with the 11th-hour hijacking of a bill to update Alaska’s alcoholic beverage regulations known as Title 4. In the works for six years to develop points of consensus among stakeholders, Senate Bill 76 was sent to the House in a unanimous vote on April 30. Less than a week later, a former bar owner, Rep. Louise Stutes of Kodiak, and a current bar owner, Rep. Adam Wool of Fairbanks, were aided in passing an amendment aimed at cutting a leg out from under popular craft tasting rooms by the reliably anti-business Rep. Andy Josephson of Anchorage and the reliably unremarkable Rep. Gary Knopp of Kenai. A parade of bar owners testified on May 2 to the House Labor and Finance Committee with their complaints about the success of craft beer and spirit tasting rooms. Despite having very limited hours to serve no more than 36 ounces of beer or 3 ounces of spirits to a single customer, and prohibited from offering any entertainment such as televisions, live music or even a pool table, these craft tasting rooms have apparently unlocked the secret to success: offering a product people want in an atmosphere they enjoy. To hear the bar owners tell it, though, these crafty craft room owners are simply succeeding because they have the unfair advantage of not paying upward of $250,000 for a beverage dispensary license. These sneaky entrepreneurs have apparently discovered a loophole in the system whereby they can pay $3,000 for a brewery license to sell those three beers per day per customer after investing a half-million dollars or more in tanks, equipment, ingredients, payroll, construction and transportation costs. Were it not for the real world implications of such a transparent effort to pinch the profitability of another part of the industry he inhabits, Wool’s naked self-dealing would be laugh-out-loud comedy. Wool, as you may recall, was the lead sponsor of the bill that green lit the operation of ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft in Alaska during the 2017 half of this legislative session. At the time, and to this day, the one-time occupiers of a government-created and once-protected monopoly in the taxi business screamed to the high heavens to no avail that Uber and Lyft would enjoy unfair competitive advantages of less regulation while offering the same service and without the burden of purchasing the expensive and limited number of permits. The arguments by the taxi lobby aren’t much different than those being raised by the bar industry, but in an ultimate irony they held more water then than they do now. Unlike the craft tasting rooms versus bars, Uber and Lyft occupy the exact same space in the transportation industry as taxis do without the same cost of entry to the business. That didn’t mean much to Wool, who cited long waits for taxis as a reason for his support for the bill. No doubt his bottom line has benefitted over the past year since as a customer or two at his bar may have been more willing to have that last cocktail with the knowledge a ride home was just a click and a few minutes away. But now that his fellow industry travelers have an opening to stick it to competitors rather than pondering what may make a tasting room a more popular option for some customers and adjusting their business accordingly, Wool and Stutes are doing their bidding by attempting to slash crafters’ potential revenue by a third with no corresponding benefit to bar owners. Wool actually called the one-third reduction a “compromise,” which begs the question: a compromise from what? If customers are expressing a clear preference for local brews and spirits, perhaps the solution for bar owners would be to serve more of those options rather than further limiting the amounts available just feet from the tanks in a hamhanded attempt to force them into their businesses. What the bar owners are arguing would be like souvenir shops in Homer complaining that Salty Dawg is cutting into their hoodie sales, or Fred Meyer whining that farmers’ markets hurt its produce department. Hopefully House Finance will strip this amendment out of the bill, or it will get killed on the floor, but even if the bill is held until next session that would be a preferable alternative than to reward the worst of legislative tactics being plied by Stutes and Wool. Andrew Jensen can be reached at [email protected]

GUEST COMMENTARY: The deception of Stand for Salmon

The Alaska Chamber has long been an outspoken voice for pro-business policies that grow our economy and create economic opportunities for Alaskans. For several years, especially during the recent economic slump, we’ve advocated for a state fiscal plan that limits government spending and supports private sector growth. Our annual public opinion survey found that 60 percent of Alaskans rate the state’s economy as poor. It’s a shocking number, and an indicator of how pessimistic Alaskans are about their ability to work and make a living here. Alaska already has the unwanted distinction of having the highest unemployment rate in the country. Getting our economy and our state back on track requires some hard decisions and a vision for the future, but, in the short term, we have some serious obstacles right before us. Alarms now are sounding on an issue that few Alaskans are aware of. The Stand for Salmon ballot measure, a misguided attempt to improve salmon habitat protections, is slated to be on the November general election ballot. Alaskans will get to decide on this issue that chamber members believe to be among the most serious threats to our state economy in years. It only takes one read of the eight-page document to convince most Alaskans that this ballot measure is both un-Alaskan and unsound. Legal experts have analyzed the ballot measure’s language and are shocked by its breadth, complexity, vague undefined terms and its unstated presumptions. Alaska is already home to a world-class permitting system that allows responsible development and successful fish habitat management to co-exist. This ballot measure is a radical overhaul of a system that works, and it provides no additional benefit to the environment. But that isn’t surprising since neither Alaska businesses nor leaders were consulted in the drafting of the measure. Outside money and outside influence led to the creation of this measure and the result is a dumpster fire. It is unwieldy, unpredictable, and dangerous. The fish habitat measure ensures that our economy will continue to shrink, joblessness will grow, and our state will continue to see an out migration of people. Outside environmental groups and their wealthy outside benefactors are not the people who should be weighing in on policies in Alaska. These are people with a longstanding agenda, and they don’t care if they sabotage economic growth and jobs in their misguided mission to enforce extreme fish habitat regulations to the exclusion of everything else. These activists, whose single largest donor is a Boston billionaire, don’t live here, so why would they care if our current economic recession deepens? They would rather turn Alaska into one giant, inaccessible national park. When the leader of an Alaska Native corporation warns the public, “there will not be another significant project built in rural Alaska if this ballot measure passes,” that’s a serious matter. When the construction industry says that building or improving roads, bridges, and runways will become exorbitantly expensive or impossible if this measure passes, that should provoke a sustained outcry. When the president of the proposed Alaska LNG project says that passage of this ballot measure would make the gas line project “darn near impossible” to build, that should convince us to take action now. And, when all four leading candidates running for governor, including our current governor, are unified in stating their opposition to this measure, that must motivate us to band together to ensure its defeat in November. Alaskan voters need to get up to speed on this issue. Once they do, I believe they will firmly reject it. You can learn more about this misguided ballot measure at standforak.com. Curtis W. Thayer is lifelong Alaskan and serves as president and CEO of the Alaska Chamber

AJOC EDITORIAL: How much is enough?

Those responsible for recruiting teachers to Alaska have a funny way of going about it. In this issue we quote Gateway School District Superintendent Scott MacManus, who says Alaska is “not competitive” for pay and that its 401k system for teachers is “not seen favorably.” Given that public position you have to wonder what exactly is MacManus’ pitch to prospective teachers at job fairs if he thinks conditions are so horrible for teachers in Alaska. Alaska teachers on average make $67,433 per year according to 2016 data compiled by the National Education Association, which is about $10,000 more than the average wage for all occupations in the state and nearly $9,000 more than the national average for teachers. While teacher advocates complain about the state cost of living, they fail to note there are no state income, sales or property taxes. There is also a complaint that teachers aren’t eligible for Social Security. That stems from a decision that goes back to the 1950s when Alaska elected to create a pension system for public employees rather than opt in to the Social Security system. (Correction: Teachers in Alaska were covered in the territory under the Teacher Retirement System. After the Social Security Act was amended in 1950 to allow public employees to enroll, the territory expanded retirement benefits to all of its non-TRS employees by signing a Federal Social Security Agreement. This benefit for governmental employees was later offered by the territorial legislature to employees of political subdivisions across the State, excluding members of TRS, and the agreements continued after statehood in 1959. In 1978, the public employees opted to end their participation in Social Security with the agreement the state would develop an alternative plan. Source: State of Alaska Division of Retirment and Benefits) While it’s true teachers aren’t eligible for Social Security, they are also not subject to paying 6.2 percent of their income in the payroll tax, which increases their take home income by more than $4,100 per year for the average salary. The more than 3,000 teachers in the Anchorage School District, by far the largest in the state, pay nothing toward their health insurance premiums that are nearly $1,600 per month. With an 8 percent 401k match from the state, that adds up to an additional $5,400 benefit for the average salary each year. Financial planners advise saving 10 percent to 15 percent of income per year toward retirement; Alaska teachers are able to put away 16 percent of their income annually. In sum, teachers in Alaska earn more than the average worker, they pay less in taxes and health insurance premiums then the average worker, and they have a more generous 401k match than virtually any other worker. (Without knowing the details of every private company 401k program it’s impossible to say nobody else receives an 8 percent match, but it is safe to say those who do are exceedingly few in number.) But to hear MacManus and NEA Alaska President Tim Parker tell it, every state has a better pension system than Alaska because it is the only one that uses a 401k program instead of a defined benefit system. Teachers have been striking in states across the country, and a May 1 Associated Press article headline noted the reason: “High pension costs lurk behind US teacher push for more pay.” School districts around the nation including Alaska have racked up a half-trillion — yes, $500 billion — in pension liabilities. That means teachers’ wages are being frozen to pay down debts for current retirees and having their own future benefits cut. “I think what you see happening in the state and local and municipal sector is it has now become very, very clear how expensive defined benefit plans are. I think we’re headed for a big crisis across the country,” said Olivia Mitchell, executive director of the Pension Research Council at the University of Pennsylvania, according to the AP story. “Pensions are now becoming the tail that wags the government dog, if you will.” Three nonpartisan think tanks that have examined the issue — which don’t have a stake in Alaska teacher income — all grade the state 401k system as far better for new teachers than the pensions that are bankrupting other states. Alaska was one of only nine states that didn’t get an “F” from Bellweather Education Partners; the Urban Policy Institute gave Alaska a “B” for new teacher hires; and the National Center for Teacher Quality gave Alaska the only “A” grade in the country for creating a portable, 401k-style plan for new teachers in which they get to keep 100 percent of their retirement savings compared to the national average of 28 percent. According to NEA data, only two states and the District of Columbia spend more per student than Alaska and no state spends more as a percentage of total income than Alaska. That raises the question there doesn’t seem to be an answer to from those arguing for more pay and a generous defined benefit pension system: how much is enough? Andrew Jensen can be reached at [email protected]

GUEST COMMENTARY: Quintillion focused on a bright future for Alaska

Despite the disturbing circumstances that led to the recent arrest of the company’s former CEO, I am incredibly proud to be working for Quintillion and with its team. I have been in the telecommunications business for 35 years and have yet to see a team as dedicated to its mission as the one I lead today. The small team of women and men of Quintillion, together with our investors and partners, have remained focused on the job and our clients. As a result, we have built and now operate a world-class fiber optic network that is transforming communities, businesses, and lives in Alaska’s Arctic. I want to acknowledge that what is alleged to have occurred is appalling, and not representative of the way Quintillion or its people do business. Equally important to note is that Quintillion’s board of directors were the ones who discovered the wrongful activity, conducted a detailed and extensive internal investigation, voluntarily reported these findings to the U.S. Department of Justice, and were the first to notify Quintillion’s customers and lenders. Quintillion itself, along with its investors and lenders, were the victims of the charged conduct. We will continue to fully cooperate with the U.S. Department of Justice as they prosecute this matter. While all this transpired, we nevertheless still had an important job to do. Our management team focused on completing construction and providing commercial service to all of our clients and end users across our complete network. I am tremendously proud that our team responded aggressively to this challenge and diligently executed the plan to construct and operate a remarkable system, in a place where nothing like this had ever been done. Along with a new 500-mile terrestrial fiber system from Fairbanks to Deadhorse, Quintillion’s team built a 1,200-mile subsea fiber system, the first-ever submarine cable system in the North American Arctic, which, in fact, did go live on time on December 1, 2017, and has performed flawlessly for our customers ever since. That network has the ability to serve some 20,000 residents and businesses in the Alaska Native communities of Utqiaġvik, Point Hope, Wainwright, Kotzebue, and Nome — communities that have epitomized the term “digital divide.” The majority of these communities have been without reliable, affordable, high-speed broadband, or any kind of meaningful modern cell service. The Quintillion network is now providing access to high speed broadband capacity for telecommunication service providers at a significantly lower cost per megabit, providing dramatically improved quality of service over existing satellite and microwave options. Quintillion’s infrastructure is enabling isolated communities to connect to the outside world in a manner that is historic. From telemedicine to virtual classrooms and on-line training programs, these communities are starting to leverage our system to the benefit of their patients, students and consumers. One school has had its internet bill cut by two-thirds. Downloads are faster. Businesses are able to order supplies faster. One community has a public center offering free wi-fi and video conferencing. Entrepreneurs are selling their wares on-line. What is happening is truly transformative, and given we have only been in service for four months, this is only the beginning. Quintillion is seeing success in all of our markets, and we and our investors are confident that we will continue to deliver unique value to those who we serve, and we view our mission as greater than any individual parts. At Quintillion, our focus is on the future we can achieve for the benefit of many. Our management team and investors are fully engaged and committed, and we will remain steadfast and in pursuit of these goals until the job is completed. George Tronsrue III is the interim CEO of Quintillion Inc.

GUEST COMMENTARY: Pay now or pay later when it comes to education

Public education matters because a student’s opportunity to achieve matters. The Legislature has an opportunity to end years of continuing cuts to teachers, guidance and career counsellors, teacher training, end even courses. We’ve lost over 500 teachers, counsellors and education support staff in recent years. Bigger class sizes, demoralized teachers, and rolled back curriculum don’t increase academic achievement. Education should be more than crowd control. Adjusted for inflation, classroom funding for our public schools has fallen by $90 million since the 2014 legislative session. As a state we can do better than give students less than they need to reach their goals and dreams. We can plead austerity as a state, and the inability to come together to fix our deficit has been frustrating to me. But it is wrong to tell a parent of a 7-year-old that they can come back to second grade later, when the adults who represent them get their act together. We can do better than tell a student in Cordova that basic chemistry classes can’t be offered every year. That’s why I and Rep. Harriet Drummond have filed House Bill 339, to reverse the trend of disappearing school support. The bill has growing support in the Legislature, over a dozen co-sponsors, and would provide a needed, modest boost of $100 per student in school funding. That basically keeps schools even with the rate of inflation. As costs of supplies and health insurance and medical costs go up with inflation, flat or reduced school funding causes damage to our ability to deliver the education children and youth deserve. We can start to reverse these cuts now, or we can pay later. We’ll pay for more unemployment, lower graduation rates, fewer students who graduate ready for college or vocational education, and a weaker workforce. We’ll pay with more people on Medicaid, housing assistance and other expensive public benefits. I’d rather pay now to educate students, so they can stand proudly on their own, and so they can reach their dreams. Here are a few examples of what’s happening to public schools around the state. On the Kenai Peninsula many schools don’t have “frills” like music classes. A quality education includes courses and activities that excite and inspire students. In some Bristol Bay schools, grades are now being combined into single classrooms to save money. In the Lake Iliamna region, school has been cut by 20 days to avoid laying off teachers. In Kodiak the district lost 18 education positions last year, and they are on pace to lose 16 more next year with flat funding that again and again falls behind inflation. In Nome schools have lost 13 positions since 2015. Class sizes are going up from already excessive levels, from Juneau to Anchorage to Fairbanks. If a school doesn’t cut teachers, they cut courses, counselors, school days and teacher training. Right now, many students in rural Alaska take online courses that involve no teacher interaction. Taking courses with bland written materials students can read on a computer, without a teacher available for questions, is reading and not effective student learning. We can do better. I also think we should fund education “early”, so schools don’t have to warn teachers they might be laid off because of budget uncertainty. Our bipartisan House Majority coalition passed an early funding bill months ago, and our Republican colleagues on the Senate side seem willing to do the same. But early funding that doesn’t keep up with inflation will lead to another year of more layoffs and staff and curriculum cuts. I get the Legislature hasn’t fixed four years of the worst budget deficits in state history — and won’t use this column to point fingers at my colleagues on either side of the aisle. Soundbites, and big philosophical differences about whether oil companies and the wealthiest Alaskans are chipping in a fair share to help close the deficit aside, the biggest cause of our massive recent deficits has been a massive drop in oil prices. In a state very dependent on revenue from the oil we own in common, a drop from $120 per barrel oil (prices that brought in strong revenue), to prices of less than half that, cut more than half the revenue the state uses for basic services like schools, public safety, child protection, help for seniors, and safe roads. Deficits of $2.3 billion, or $2.7 billion if we ever adopt a needed construction project budget again to put people to work and maintain our roads, schools, energy projects and infrastructure, are too big for most to comprehend. And that’s after Republicans, Democrats and Independents have already cut $3.5 billion, or 40%, from the budget since 2013. It’s clear budget cuts alone aren’t enough to solve the deficit. And as we cut into our schools, our classrooms, our university and our ability to prepare students for success, we are just leaving a legacy of lost opportunity. I’ll keep trying to find compromise to solve the deficit, even though some say that can’t happen in an election year. But the answer to adult problems isn’t to create problems for children and youth who deserve a chance in this world. Rep. Les Gara is a Democratic legislator from Anchorage and is vice chair of the House Finance Committee.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Opinion