Tag: ketchikan

By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon

In a historic vote, Alaska lawmakers rejected Stephen Cox as the state’s new attorney general by a 29-31 vote that saw Cox become just the second cabinet appointment in state history to fail confirmation.

Thirty-one votes were needed for confirmation as the 40-person state House and 20-person state Senate met jointly Thursday to vote on 75 nominations for state boards, commissions and the governor’s cabinet.

Speaking in the Capitol on Thursday, opponents said they viewed Cox as a Republican ideologue who favored party-supported policies at the expense of Alaskans. In particular, opponents pointed to Cox’s support for a lawsuit that could end birthright citizenship and his failure to support the state’s absentee voting program.

The Legislature’s rejection is likely to have limited long-term effects. Immediately after the vote, Dunleavy announced he had named Cox as “Counsel to the Governor,” a position he will take immediately.

“Stephen Cox has a strong understanding of Alaska law and the challenges facing our state,” Dunleavy said in a written statement. “His experience, professionalism, and commitment to public service make him a valuable asset as Counsel to the Governor. I look forward to working with Stephen as we continue advancing policies that strengthen Alaska’s economy, uphold the rule of law, and serve the people of our state.”

Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage and chair of the House Judiciary Committee, opposed Cox as attorney general but supports the new role. 

“I think it makes perfect sense,” Gray said. “I think that’s actually a perfect fit. I think Stephen Cox would make an excellent attorney to the governor because they have a lot of alignment and similar priorities.”

The new position was created specifically for Cox within the Office of the Governor.

“The governor has those choices,” said Sen. Matt Claman, D-Anchorage and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “That’s within his power.”

Dunleavy also named Deputy Attorney General Cori Mills as the acting head of the Department of Law.

Dunleavy may designate a permanent replacement who can serve until he is replaced by a new governor in December.

State law prohibits the governor from reappointing Cox as attorney general.

The governor’s other cabinet appointees, including officials in charge of natural resources, the environment and the treasury, received wide support and were confirmed by near-unanimous votes.

Legislators have not rejected a cabinet appointment since 2009, when the Legislature failed to confirm then-Gov. Sarah Palin’s choice of Wayne Anthony Ross to become attorney general.

Speaking Thursday, Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage, criticized Cox’s decision to hire an out-of-state attorney with no experience in Alaska as the state’s first Solicitor General.

Following that hire, Cox led the Department of Law in joining Alaska in more than 100 friend-of-the-court briefs on national cases. In some of those cases, Gray said, the briefs were contrary to Alaska law and Alaskans’ interests.

“I believe that Stephen Cox would make probably a good attorney general in a state, just not in our state. He is not the right choice for Alaska,” said Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage and chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

Sen. Lӧki Tobin, D-Anchorage, was particularly critical of Cox’s signature on a letter supporting President Donald Trump’s attempt to eliminate birthright citizenship in the United States.

“That stance threatens my rights. It threatens your rights,” she said, speaking to Senate President Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak. “It threatens every Alaskan’s rights.”

Rep. Kevin McCabe, R-Big Lake, appeared to offer a rebuttal to that argument, noting that in general, “attorneys are mercenaries.”

“Somebody’s their boss, whether you’re paying them or whether the governor or the executive hires them. So I suspect that a lot of what we are talking about here is not some rogue attorney general off on his own. I think that he’s had directions that have been provided to him. He’s doing a certain number of things that his boss is telling him to do,” he said.

Sen. Forrest Dunbar, D-Anchorage, responded to that argument. He said the case against birthright citizenship isn’t just wrong on a moral basis, it’s wrong on a factual basis, and it was unethical for the state to back it.

“We should not have signed on to it, and a qualified attorney should not have signed on to it. I don’t know if the governor pressured the Attorney General to sign on to it, or if he did it voluntarily. It actually doesn’t matter to an ethical attorney,” Dunbar said. “An attorney being asked to make those spurious arguments and sign on to an amicus brief that would repeal birthright citizenship should have resigned rather than go forward with that argument.”

Legislators rejected only two other appointments. 

Hannah Mielke was turned down for a public seat on the Alaska State Medical Board.

Mielke is an 18-year-old who graduated from high school last year and currently works as an office assistant for Dunleavy.

Opponents said she was unqualified to supervise the state’s doctors and medical professionals. Supporters noted she would be the only female member of the board and significantly younger than other members.

“Frankly, I think a fresh perspective would be good,” said Rep. Mike Prax, R-North Pole. “It really doesn’t matter if you’re 20 or 69, soon to be 70.”

Rep. Sarah Vance, R-Homer, said a large number of young women are skeptical of the medical industry, and Mielke’s perspective could be useful.

Mielke’s nomination failed 13-47.

Lawmakers also turned down Crystal Herring for a seat on the State Board of Professional Counselors. Tobin, speaking in opposition, said her appointment may not follow state law, which requires the appointment go to someone involved in mental health treatment. Herring just provides transportation, she said.

Other objections were raised over the conduct of a COVID-19 pandemic emergency clinic she ran under a contract with the city of Anchorage while donating financially to then-Mayor Dave Bronson.

Her nomination was rejected 28-32.

By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon

A late amendment to a bill nearing final passage in the Alaska Capitol would exempt some Alaska Native village corporations from public financial disclosures required by state law.

On Monday afternoon, the Alaska Senate’s labor and commerce committee voted to amend House Bill 126 with a new section that reduces and caps the number of Native corporations required to share information annually with the Alaska Division of Banking and Securities. 

Sen. Jesse Bjorkman, R-Nikiski and chair of the labor and commerce committee, declined to answer questions when asked Tuesday about the change. 

In Monday’s committee hearing, Bjorkman said, “I think members of the media might be interested in information therein, but at the end of the day, I don’t know that information is their business because it happens within the confines of a Native corporation.”

State law currently requires corporations with at least 500 shareholders and $1 million in assets to provide financial documents to the state, which treats them as public records. 

Because Native corporations are exempted from federal disclosure requirements, existing state law provides the only free public avenue for non-shareholders to inspect their work. 

Of the state’s 200-plus Native corporations, 59 are currently required to file reports with the division, and the number is growing over time because shareholders are splitting their shares and passing them to their descendants, pushing more corporations over the 500-shareholder limit.

The new definition would limit disclosures to corporations with 500 shareholders when they were created, regardless of how many they currently have. 

That change would exempt at least seven village corporations — the division isn’t sure of the exact number and is reviewing another 30. None of the 12 regional corporations would be affected by the change because each had more than 500 shareholders when they were created. 

Shareholders of each exempted corporation would still have access to financial information, but members of the public would not.

Curtis McQueen, executive director of the Alaska Native Village Corporation Association, is supporting the change and wrote to the committee, saying that the modification brings state law back to its original intent.

“The amendment will exempt, as was originally intended, smaller village corporations from the filing requirements. This amendment will allow their staff and leadership to focus their time and energy on improving the health of their communities and providing benefits to their shareholders, not filling out forms and complying with the complex requirements of the division of banking and securities,” he said.

Attorney Christopher Slottee, representing the Village Corporation Association, testified separately, writing that no other private corporation in the state is subject to the same reporting requirements as Alaska Native corporations.

“It means that an ANC’s non-Native competitor in the same federal contracting market … faces no public disclosure obligation, while the ANC must publicly expose the financial details that inform its pricing, overhead structure, profit margins, and executive compensation to the exact same competitors,” he wrote. 

The original bill was from Rep. Neal Foster, D-Nome. On Monday, members of the labor and commerce committee asked a Foster aide if he was open to the change.

“It’s not core to what the bill itself does, but we are not opposed to it,” the aide said. 

Alaska has more than 200 village corporations and 12 regional corporations, which were created as part of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971.

Since that act, many of these corporations — legally distinct from tribes, which are sovereign governments — have become a powerful force in Alaska, holding vast swaths of land and employing tens of thousands of Alaskans.

Many corporations have also become important nationally because they receive preferential treatment under federal contracting rules. Under the 8(a) program — named for the relevant section of federal law — some Native corporations have become successful behemoths with more than a billion dollars in annual revenue. 

Most had humble beginnings, with just a few hundred initial shareholders. Federal law prohibits those shares from being publicly traded or sold, so Native corporations are not required to file documents with the federal Securities and Exchange Commission, as publicly traded corporations are.

On Monday, Sen. Forrest Dunbar, D-Anchorage, proposed an amendment with a different exemption criteria, but members of the committee rejected that proposal. 

After Monday’s action, members of the committee voted to advance the bill to the Senate Rules Committee, the last stop before a vote of the full Senate. 

Because the bill has already passed the House, Senate approval would trigger a single up-or-down vote in the House, which would be asked to agree or disagree with the change.

What are Native corporations required to disclose?

In the state-operated portal, you can find copies of all documents that qualifying Alaska Native corporations are required to disclose. As described by attorney Christopher Slottee, these include:

• Named individual compensation — the total compensation of each of the five most highly compensated persons of the corporation and its subsidiaries, identified by name, including all deferred compensation, pension, and retirement plan contributions (3 AAC 08.345(b)(2));
• Full audited consolidated financial statements — including balance sheet, income statement, statement of cash flows, and all footnotes (3 AAC 08.365);
• Management’s Discussion and Analysis — a narrative analysis of financial condition, results of operations by segment, liquidity, and capital resources that reveals the internal financial architecture of the business (3 AAC 08.365);
• Related-party transaction details — descriptions of all financial transactions exceeding $20,000 involving directors, executive officers, their family members, or entities in which they hold interests (3 AAC 08.345(b)(3)); and
• A full description of the corporation’s business operations and subsidiary structure — including the principal products, services, markets, and significant subsidiaries through which operations are conducted (3 AAC 08.365).

By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon

New statewide polling shows Alaskans have near-record negative views of the state’s economy, with opinions more pessimistic than they were during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic emergency.

Those views, which mirror national trends, were published this week by Alaska Survey Research and analyst Ivan Moore.

On a scale of 0-100, Alaskans give the state economy a score of 42.6, two-tenths of a point above a record low recorded in fall 2023.

Moore has been asking Alaskans the same six economic questions regularly since spring 2010.

“I wish that we were living up right now to the old adage that how the economy goes in the United States, we do the reverse,” he said on Thursday when asked about the results.

The survey’s score peaked in 2014, when Alaska oil prices were near record highs, government spending was up and the Permanent Fund dividend was large.

When oil prices plunged in 2014 and 2015, so did public opinion. Opinions rebounded in late 2017 and early 2018 but tumbled again during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency, then fell again when inflation spiked after the emergency ended.

“In the 3.5 years since, even though Covid is reasonably a thing of the past, and the inflation rate is back to normal, the index has not recovered,” Moore wrote in his latest analysis. “Alaskans are as pessimistic about economic conditions in Alaska today as they were in the depths of the worst winter Covid months.”

Speaking by phone, he said that “even though the inflation rate is back to normal, it doesn’t mean that things aren’t still shockingly expensive. The war in Iran is creating uncertainty. The price of gas has gone through the roof.”

National surveys report similar findings. Last month, the University of Michigan — which measures American consumer sentiment monthly — reported results on par with 2022, when opinions were at their lowest in decades.

Moore isn’t the only person who’s finding low opinions among Alaskans about the economy.

At Dittman Research, Matt Larkin regularly polls state residents on behalf of the Alaska Chamber of Commerce and other clients.

“I’ve been doing this 15 years,” Larkin said. “In my opinion, I’ve not seen the economic concern worse than it is now.”

This year’s survey, conducted in March, found 60% of respondents saying Alaska’s economy was either pretty bad or “not too good.”

That was an increase of eight percentage points from 2025.

Two-thirds of respondents said the state of Alaska is on the wrong track, continuing a streak that began in March 2016. The last time more Alaskans said the state was headed in the right direction than the wrong direction was in January 2015. 

Larkin also said that his survey found that many Alaskans were likely to believe that even if economic conditions improve, the improvements would not benefit them personally.

While both Moore and Larkin said their polls are a good barometer to check on public opinion, they also said that the results may be an indicator for this fall’s election campaigns.

“It strikes me that, with all the political races this year, I think the candidates that can best understand and appear to be offering real solutions are going to likely do well in that environment,” Larkin said.

“I think that’s the challenge for all these campaigns: How do they speak to a voter base that’s very, very down right now about the economic prospects for their personal lives, but also the state in general?”