Author: alaskaadmin

While many school districts across Alaska are facing severe budget shortfalls, several bills to provide a sustained increase to education funding appear to have stalled in the Legislature. But a bill to add nearly $82 million one-time funding and education policy changes is moving forward with bipartisan support. 

On Monday, the Senate Education Committee introduced a revised version of House Bill 28, that adds one-time funds for energy relief, transportation, reading and vocational training, to a bill that would establish a loan forgiveness program for Alaska teachers. It also includes a variety of policy changes related to home school programs and others. 

Chair Sen. Löki Tobin, D-Anchorage, described it as a “mini-bus” bill on Wednesday, saying the new omnibus bill includes specific education funding to areas sought by the governor and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. 

“We heard that there is a deep concern about education reform still being left on the table, and so in those discussions we focused the new version of House Bill 28 on codifying some of the best practices that we know are going to improve education outcomes across the state,” Tobin said.

The underlying bill establishes a new three-year student loan forgiveness program to incentivize teachers to stay in Alaska. It’s focused on teachers specializing in special education, English as a second language, science, technology, engineering and math. It would provide up to $15,000 to pay off student loans for those who go out of state and return to work in Alaska. The House passed the bill last May.

“We need to incentivize teachers to stay here,” said Rep. Andi Story, D-Juneau, who sponsored the bill. “We’ve had such tremendous turnover, and we’ve got this tremendous shortage. And so I think the bill will help.”

The bill moved to the Senate this year, and education committee members tagged on a variety of items on Apr. 21. According to data provided by Tobin’s office, it contains an additional $21.8 million for reading proficiency grants, $9.7 million for career and technical education, $7.3 million for transportation, and $43 million to offset rising energy costs for school districts.

“We do not want to divert operating costs, dollars that should be in the classroom, to just keeping the lights on and buildings warm,” Tobin said.

Meanwhile many Alaska school districts are in the midst of budget negotiations and grappling with cuts to staff and programs to address large budget shortfalls.

Districts have announced at least eleven potential school closures to date in Anchorage, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the Kenai Peninsula Borough and Ketchikan. 

Tobin said at a Senate Majority caucus news conference on Wednesday the goal of the education policy bill is to garner enough support on both sides of the aisle to be able to override a potential veto by the governor. 

“It is obviously the hope for all of us that we will continue to increase stable and predictable funding for our schools and ensure that they have the resources they need,” she said. “However, at the end of the day, our goal is to get dollars into the classroom and to get support into our schools, and I will work diligently to do that with the number of people that I can guarantee will be there to get that bill across the finish line.”

Gov. Mike Dunleavy has been a staunch opponent of increasing funding for schools, saying that education policy changes are needed to improve student outcomes. Last year, he issued three vetoes of additional funding for K-12 schools sustained through the state’s funding formula, the base student allocation, and the last was narrowly overridden by the Legislature last summer. 

This year, legislators introduced bills to again provide a sustained increase per student funding statewide. Rep. Rebecca Himschoot, I-Sitka, introduced a bill to add $158 million to boost the per student formula, but so far it hasn’t moved out of the House Education Committee. 

Earlier in the session, Tobin introduced a bill that would add nearly $100 million in education funding. A portion of that money would go to per student funding through the BSA, and additional reading proficiency grants and transportation funding. But her bill proposed policy changes to enact reporting and testing requirements for homeschool programs that drew public criticism from homeschool proponents, so the Senate Education Committee stripped the provision and held the bill.   

The new draft Senate bill also institutes more reporting requirements from school districts to the state on their homeschool programs, including how many students are enrolled by grade, where they live across the state and how their annual allotment is spent, among others. 

The draft bill would commission a state audit to evaluate Alaska’s funding for schools, and make recommendations for changes or for alternative methods of education funding. There is no cost estimate yet for the study, or the entire bill. 

Tobin said the funding adequacy study is a top priority of the joint Task Force on Education Funding. “We know that our foundation formula needs some reform, and it also needs some additional attention on particular components that have changed significantly in the last few years, the pandemic really showcased that,” she said. 

Story said she supports the changes to the bill. “There’s some really good things that got put in there,” she said. “It’s the end of the session, lots of things are happening, so we’ll just see. But I’m hoping good things happen for teachers and families and for our kids to get more attention next year.”

The draft “mini-bus” bill was approved by the Senate Education Committee and now moves to the Senate Finance Committee for consideration. 

Meanwhile, senators are debating the draft operating budget for next year that includes up to $100 million in additional funding for schools, but only if oil prices remain high. The House passed a draft operating budget with nearly $158 million in one-time funding for K-12 schools earlier this month. 

A select group of lawmakers from both chambers will negotiate and reconcile a compromise between the two budget bills — and a final allocation for Alaska schools next year —  in a conference committee in the last days of the legislative session, by May 20. 

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

The Federal Bureau of Investigation released a report Thursday that showed Alaskans lost nearly $40 million in cyber crime in 2025.

Special Agent in Charge Matthew Schlegel of the FBI Anchorage Field Office said it is the highest financial loss ever reported in Alaska for such crimes. 

“Behind these numbers are real people – Alaskan families who lost hard-earned savings, retirement funds, and financial security,” he said in a news release.

Americans lost nearly $21 billion in cyber crimes in 2025, according to the FBI Internet Crime Report issued by the Internet Crime Complaint Center.

Alaskans reported the 2025 losses in 3,202 complaints to the Internet Crime Complaint Center, making it the highest financial losses ever reported in Alaska in one year. Losses went up by $13.6 million since 2024.

The FBI encouraged people to identify red flags of a potential scam to protect themselves from cyber threats and crime.

“To combat this ever-evolving threat, it has never been more important for residents and businesses to be diligent with cybersecurity, electronic interactions, and safeguarding personal and financial information,” Schlegel said.

The greatest losses in Alaska were from investments-related fraud, confidence or romance fraud, compromised business emails and tech support scans. Approximately 482 Alaskans lost more than $18 million to cryptocurrency crimes.

According to the report, 20% of Alaskans who reported losses from internet crimes were 60-years-old and older who lost $16.2 million.

President Donald Trump issued an executive order on March 6 directing officials to develop a plan to prevent, disrupt, investigate and dismantle Transnational Criminal Organizations in order to stop cyber-enabled criminal activity.

“Cybercrime, fraud, and predatory schemes are draining American families of their life savings, stealing the benefits of years of work, and destroying the lives of our youth,” Trump wrote in the order.

The post Internet crimes on the rise in Alaska, FBI report shows appeared first on Chilkat Valley News.

As an economist who has spent more than three decades quantifying Alaska’s resource-based industries, I have seen how our state’s abundant wildlife supports jobs in rural Alaska, brings in new dollars from non-resident visitors and helps fund conservation. 

A piece of legislation billed as a technical cleanup has hidden costs for Alaska’s wildlife economy. House Bill 321 cleared the House Resources Committee and is now headed to the House Finance Committee. The title reads “An Act relating to state refuges, sanctuaries, and fish and game critical habitat areas; relating to the hunting of brown bear.” The bill renames management areas and updates boundaries. Its most important change is a permanent statutory ban on brown bear hunting in prime habitat between the McNeil River Wildlife Sanctuary and Katmai National Park/Preserve, plus adjacent zones toward the Kamishak River and Cape Douglas.

As the bill reaches the Finance Committee, Alaskans need a clear look at its fiscal impact. The Department of Fish and Game’s official fiscal note shows only a one-time $45,300 General Fund cost for signage and boundary mapping, zero ongoing costs and no changes in revenue. That note is incomplete. It ignores the loss of hunting-license and tag revenue that will result from the permanent ban on brown-bear hunting in the McNeil-Katmai corridor. 

Guided non-resident hunters already supply 30 percent of all hunting license and tag revenue statewide even though they represent just 3 percent of licenses issued. A conservative loss of 20-50 guided brown-bear hunts in the affected zone would mean $25,000-$62,000 less in direct Fish & Game Fund revenue each year, plus the broader loss in general-fund tax collections from reduced economic activity. The fiscal note says nothing about these opportunity costs.

The bill also raises larger questions about wildlife management. It favors concentrated bear-viewing operators while shifting costs onto guides, rural communities, resident hunters and the wider economy. It replaces flexible, science-based rules from the Board of Game and ADF&G with rigid statutory mandates.

Alaska’s wildlife economy is large. The most comprehensive statewide study, which uses 2011 data, showed spending on hunting and wildlife viewing reached $3.4 billion and supported $4.1 billion in total economic output, more than 27,000 jobs and $1.4 billion in labor income. More recent data on guided big-game hunting — much of it brown-bear-focused — shows the sector generated $91.8 million in statewide economic output in 2019, supported 1,890 jobs, and produced $40.8 million in labor income. Guided non-resident hunters and their companions spent $62.4 million directly, most of it flowing through rural Alaska businesses.

Brown bears are a key part of that economy. In 2019, guided hunters bought 1,414 brown/grizzly bear tags — 32 percent of all guided tags and 44 percent of $3.2 million guided tag revenue. Non-residents paid an average of $1,237 each in licenses and tags. A typical guided brown-bear hunt costs $10,000-$30,000 or more in package fees.

Bear viewing in Southcentral Alaska, centered on McNeil River, Katmai, and Lake Clark, generated an estimated $34.5 million in sales in 2017 (reported in 2019 dollars). That supported roughly 490 jobs and $17.3 million in labor income in the region. Viewing is already protected by existing rules, lotteries and federal overlays. Guided hunting, by contrast, spreads money across rural Alaska.

The brown-bear prohibition in the McNeil-Katmai corridor is the bill’s core economic problem. Alaska has about 30,000 brown bears — 98 percent of the U.S. total — and ADF&G manages for sustained yield. Harvest in the relevant game management units is modest and biologically sustainable. The bill cites no population decline or scientific need; it simply locks out hunting to favor viewing.

A conservative estimate shows the cost. If the ban eliminates 20-50 guided brown-bear hunts a year in the zone, direct spending drops by $500,000-$1.25 million annually. Using standard multipliers from the McDowell Group models, total economic output falls by $800,000-$2 million, supporting 15-40 fewer jobs and $300,000-$800,000 less in labor income every year. Lost license and tag revenue further reduces the self-funding for ADF&G conservation.

These losses are real. They mean paychecks for guides and support workers in places like King Salmon, Homer and remote lodges. They mean fewer new dollars entering the economy. Hunters show high willingness to pay through market prices; viewing access is rationed by lotteries. Without a cost-benefit analysis showing that viewing gains outweigh hunting losses, the bill allocates a public resource inefficiently.

HB 321 also replaces adaptive management with inflexible statutes. The Board of Game can adjust seasons and bag limits as populations and conditions change. A legislative ban is hard to reverse. The fiscal note is small — $45,300 one-time — but the private-sector costs are real and unmeasured.

This is classic concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. A small group of bear-viewing businesses gains statutory protection. The costs fall on guides, resident hunters, rural economies and taxpayers. Alaska’s strength is that we offer world-class hunting and viewing together. Restricting one use threatens the whole wildlife economy.

Alaska cannot treat sustainable hunting and wildlife viewing as mutually exclusive. Multiple-use management has worked for decades because it maximizes total welfare. HB 321 should have a full, independent economic impact study from ADF&G or the University of Alaska before the Finance Committee acts. Our wildlife resources are too important to rural jobs and conservation funding to move forward without it.

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

President Donald Trump’s executive order on mail voting would shatter decades of U.S. Postal Service independence intended to shield it from partisan politics, postal experts and attorneys say.

Postal experts said Trump ordering the postmaster general to take any action — let alone on a matter as sensitive as elections — violates guardrails in federal law against presidential control of the mail. Multiple people with deep knowledge of Postal Service history said they couldn’t recall a similar order in the agency’s modern era.

“For the president to direct the postmaster general to do anything, including handling these ballots, is contrary to the statutes, contrary to law,” said James Campbell Jr., an attorney in the Washington, D.C., area who consults on postal law.

The order, signed March 31, attracted swift condemnation as an unconstitutional attempt by Trump to control state-run elections. If it stands, the directive would also represent a White House power grab over the Postal Service, which remains a key part of American life and business.

Trump’s order directs the postmaster general, who acts as the Postal Service’s CEO, to set out rules that would require states to notify the Postal Service if they intend to send ballots through the mail during federal elections. States that want to use the mail would be required to provide lists of mail voters to the Postal Service, which would be prohibited from delivering ballots to individuals not on a list.

A Board of Governors leads the Postal Service, and holds the power to hire and fire the postmaster general. No more than five of the nine governors may belong to the same political party. 

While presidents nominate the governors and the Senate confirms them, they serve seven-year terms. The length, in theory, insulates them from political pressure.

S. David Fineman, a Philadelphia attorney nominated to the Board of Governors by President Bill Clinton who served as its chairman from 2003 to 2005, said he had never heard of the White House or a president directing the postmaster general to take certain actions. He called the executive order highly unusual.

“The postmaster general serves at the pleasure of the board,” Fineman said.

The board currently has only four members, all appointed by President Joe Biden, and five vacancies. Trump has sent four nominations to the U.S. Senate this year. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has not scheduled confirmation hearings for the nominees.

Cash-strapped service

Trump has expressed interest in having more control over the mail. 

Last year, he floated the possibility of merging the Postal Service with the Commerce Department, a move that would require approval by Congress. The Washington Post reported in February 2025 that Trump was expected to try to fire the Board of Governors and take control of the Postal Service.

The Trump administration takes a dim view of independent agencies. Many allies of the president subscribe to the unitary executive theory, the idea that the U.S. Constitution grants the president full power over the entirety of the executive branch — meaning Congress cannot constitutionally create agencies that exist outside of White House control.

Trump has moved to assert authority over a number of independent and quasi-independent agencies since taking office, most notably the Federal Reserve. The Department of Justice is investigating cost overruns on a Federal Reserve construction project, widely seen as a pretext to target Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve chairman whose interest rate policy has angered Trump.

The Postal Service is under tremendous financial pressure — potentially making it more vulnerable to proposals to bring it under White House control. Mail volume peaked in 2006 at 213 billion pieces that year. The Postal Service today handles 109 billion pieces annually.

The current postmaster general, David Steiner, told a U.S. House committee last month that the Postal Service will run out of cash within a year without changes to its prices and operations. The Postal Service is generally funded through stamps and other forms of user revenue, not by tax dollars.

Steiner emphasized the independent nature of the Postal Service throughout his prepared testimony. He has laid out a number of options to improve the Postal Service’s financial stability, including changes to pension funding and raising its borrowing limit from $15 billion, a level that’s remained unchanged since 1992.

“It is important to remember that we face these challenges as a self-financed, independent establishment of the Executive Branch,” Steiner wrote.

Congress approved sweeping legislation in 1970 reorganizing the U.S. Post Office Department into the U.S. Postal Service, an independent corporation. Before that, the postmaster general was a Cabinet-level position nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Trump’s order marks “a dramatic shift away from the intent of the 1970 legislation to insulate the Postal Service from interference,” Joseph M. Adelman, a history professor at Framingham State University in Massachusetts who has researched mail history, said.

Election security

The White House didn’t directly answer States Newsroom’s questions about Trump’s views on the independence of the Postal Service or the legal justification for the executive order.

“Election integrity has always been a top priority for President Trump, and the American people sent him back to the White House because they overwhelmingly supported his commonsense election integrity agenda,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement.

“The President will do everything in his power to lawfully defend the safety and security of American elections and to ensure that only American citizens are voting in them.”

Jackson also called on Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would require voters to prove their citizenship when registering. 

The Postal Service didn’t answer questions about how it plans to respond to the order. A USPS spokesperson said only that the Postal Service was reviewing it. 

Lawsuits

Steiner has indicated he’s awaiting a court decision on how to proceed. 

“If a court says that’s not what the law means, we’ll follow that,” Steiner told The New York Times after the executive order was signed. “And so from our perspective, we don’t get involved in policy or law, we just follow the law.”

The order on mail ballots faces at least five lawsuits. The Democratic National Committee, top Democrats in Congress and Democratic state officials have all sued. The legal challenges emphasize the Postal Service’s independence in federal law.

The lawsuit filed by the DNC, top Democratic lawmakers and other Democratic campaign groups, asserts the Postal Service is structured to operate independently of partisan politics. The complaint calls the Postal Service “indispensable” to voting by mail, noting that it delivered more than 222 million pieces of ballot mail in 2024, including nearly 100 million general election ballots.

A dozen Republican state attorneys general filed motions in court this week seeking to defend the executive order from the Democratic legal challenges. The motions call the order an example of cooperative federalism to provide states with optional resources to help protect their elections.

The GOP officials argue the Democrats lack standing to challenge the Postal Service provisions of the order and that their objections are premature because the Postal Service hasn’t finalized any new rules on mail ballots.

The order “simply directs” the Postal Service “to initiate rulemaking—it does not regulate the States directly and it does not directly inhibit anyone’s voting rights,” a court filing by the state attorneys general says.

The states involved in the Republican-led defense of the order include Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas.

Vote-by-mail 

Mail-in voting surged in 2020’s general election amid the COVID-19 pandemic, when 43% of voters cast their votes by mail. The percentage of voters mailing their ballots has fallen from that peak but remains above pre-pandemic levels. About 30% of voters cast mail ballots in 2024, according to data gathered by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

During the 2024 election, 584,463 mail ballots returned by voters were rejected by election officials — 1.2% of returned mail ballots. About 18% of those ballots were rejected because they didn’t arrive on time.

American Postal Workers Union President Jonathan Smith said in a statement that the Postal Service doesn’t block mailers from sending letters or refuse to deliver letters because of the identity of the sender. Postal workers take extraordinary measures to ensure ballots reach their destinations promptly and securely, he said.

“Postal workers take the sanctity of the mail seriously, and every process and policy of the Postal Service ensures that mail is accepted, processed, and delivered, no matter who sent it or where it is going,” Smith said.

On Monday, more than 100 U.S. House Democrats sent a letter to Trump demanding he refrain from future actions that undermine the Postal Service’s independence and calling on him to rescind the executive order. The letter says the order sets “a dangerous precedent for political interference” in postal service operations.

Senate Democrats followed up with a letter to Steiner and the USPS Board of Governors on Tuesday, urging the Postal Service to not implement the order. The letter, signed by 37 senators, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, calls the Postal Service’s independence a “hallmark” of its operations.

“The Postal Service doesn’t care which politicians you may support,” Sen. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat, said on the Senate floor last week. “Its only priority is to deliver the mail to every community in the country.”

“The president is now trying to corrupt this mission,” Peters, the top Democrat on the Senate committee that oversees USPS, said. “If the president is successful in forcing the Postal Service to play a role in running elections, he will completely erode the trust of this storied institution.” 

The post How Trump’s order on mail ballots threatens Postal Service independence appeared first on Chilkat Valley News.