Staff

Dan Fagan

By Dan Fagan
Publisher 
The Alaska Standard 

Just about everyone agrees Governor Sean Parnell broke the law when he hired sitting legislator Gene Therriault. Despite the consensus, Therriault is refusing to resign and the governor seems to lack the courage to fire him.

What stands out to me is the deafening silence from legislators on the scandal. We had two legislators on the show yesterday. But Rep. Charisse Millett and Rep. Jay Ramras had two very different reactions to one of their former colleagues being illegally hired.

Click on the audio link below to hear the different reactions.  

Ramras on illegal hiring.mp3

Staff

By Anchorage Daily News

Former state Sen. Gene Therriault should follow former Rep. Nancy Dahlstrom's example and resign his position as Gov. Sean Parnell's special energy adviser. That's because Gov. Sean Parnell clearly violated the spirit -- and quite possibly the letter -- of a provision in the Alaska Constitution that prohibits the appointment of sitting legislators to other state jobs.

In both cases, the governor got around that provision with semantic technicalities -- hiring legislators for jobs that don't "exist" until after the lawmakers resigned. As we've said before, this is nonsense at best, contempt for the constitution at worst.

Yes, the governor had legal opinions that said he could do what he did. But Dan Sullivan, his own attorney general, took a longer look after critics like radio talk-show host Dan Fagan began criticizing the appointments. That led to a second, more carefully considered opinion, which found an "appreciable risk" that a court would find a violation of the law in the Dahlstrom appointment.

Click here to read the rest of the story.

Staff

By Daniel McDonald
Alaska Standard Contributor

The Alaska GOP Lt. Governor’s race is curious in that most people I talk to (other than those personally connected to Ramras or Treadwell) are still undecided. Everyone seems to be searching for the right distinction on which to vote.

Let me offer one: Alaska’s relations with a federal government that is increasingly threatening our livelihood as a state.

Friday on the Dan Fagan Radio Show, Jay Ramras said he wouldn’t fight the feds saying, “We’re not going to fight the feds, that is not what Lt. Governors do.” In one TV spot, Ramras criticized Treadwell’s “Mr. Obama, Fill Up This Pipeline” speech as a “sound bite.” Frankly, I think this is the clearest distinction between Ramras and Treadwell. Treadwell has made it clear that he will definitely use the office of Lt. Governor as a platform to fight federal policies which hurt Alaskans, while Ramras scoffs at the idea, thinking it a waste of his time.

In a recent KFQD interview, Jay rightly pointed out that the duties which the state constitution prescribes the Lt. Governor are quite thin: Run the Division of Elections and guard the state seal. Frankly, that isn’t a lot. The key question for each candidate seeking this post is, can you adequately perform those functions, and secondly, what do you plan to do with the other 23 hours of your day?

Treadwell will spend his time working on state-federal and Arctic issues that are key to Alaska’s economy. This comes naturally to him, seeing as how he has been a leader on these issues for 30 years. From his campaign ads and speeches, Treadwell has made it clear that he sees federal overreaching as Alaska’s greatest threat. He says he is ready to use the office of Lt. Governor with its electoral mandate from citizens and abundance of free time, as the perfect position from which to bolster Alaska’s defense. In the last few days, he has begun laying out the specifics; I look forward to reviewing them over the next few weeks.

It is not so clear what Ramras would do however. His campaign ads and speeches list numerous issues, but what exactly would he do as Lt. Governor as it relates to them? He doesn’t say. The only two things we know at this point is that he will lead trade missions abroad and actively NOT fight the feds. The trade missions promise is an interesting one because Treadwell clearly has vastly more experience and stature in the area of international business and diplomacy. He has something which seems to be quite rare among politicians of today, an actual record of achievement. I mean, come on, a company Treadwell helped found, currently watermarks the worlds currencies and Ramras, well, he owns a hotel. 

This brings us back to fighting the feds. Ramras has made himself clear; fighting the feds is not on the agenda. In fact, in one of his campaign ads, he says he would “let the lawyers fight the feds.” Did an Alaskan really say that? I can’t help but wonder what kind of a response that would draw from Ted Stevens or the late Wally Hickel, two men who spent their entire lives fighting for Alaska, a fight that doesn’t seem worth it to Ramras.       

Currently, the bloated federal agencies with their multitudes of unelected and overpaid bureaucrats have their collective boot on the neck of Alaska’s economic future. They are shutting down our state’s resource development one project at a time, one law suit at a time, one regulation at a time. We need all hands on deck, and that includes the Lt. Governor. Heck, even the janitor, maid, and garbage man too. We need everyone in this fight, and I for one would like a Lt. Governor who understands that.

 

Alex Gimarc

By Alex Gimarc
Alaska Standard Contributor 

As the race for the nominee for Republican Gubernatorial Candidate heats up, a few things fall out of the festivities.  First and foremost, is that labor unions statewide have determined that the Democrat Party candidate does not have a snowball’s chance in a Very Hot Place of getting elected.  As a result of that political calculus, they have gone all-in in support of Republican gubernatorial candidate Bill Walker which ought to present a problem to all conservatives in this state.

At the highest level of basic economic analysis, the unions – public employee and otherwise – have been among the largest impediments to fiscal responsibility in Alaska since statehood.  One needs to look no farther than the Begich Municipal union contracts slammed through his union-friendly Assembly on his way out the door to Washington DC in 2008 as an example.  If those 5-year contracts don’t exist, Mayor Sullivan doesn’t have $10 and $11 million dollar budget gaps in successive years to close.  The value added we citizens of Anchorage get out of those contracts is what?  Zip.  Zero.  Nada.

As this state is a Closed Shop state, people who choose not to be union members are by definition, unqualified by state law for tens to hundreds of thousands of jobs statewide in both the public and private sectors.  If we want to control costs, grow the economy, and empower entrepreneurs statewide to do things cheaper, better and smarter, this one-size-fits-all union stranglehold on jobs will need to be broken – which means that Right to Work is in our very near future.

On the Republican side of the campaign, we have three strong candidates – Incumbent Governor Sean Parnell, former Representative Ralph Samuels, and former Valdez Mayor Bill Walker.  The question is who to support. 

Governor Parnell spent most of the campaign ahead in the polls.  But recent revelations of sweetheart deals with former legislators have cast a pall on any notion of honesty and integrity.  As Governor Palin’s Second, Governor Parnell has been reluctant to move this state away from the horrendous ACES tax increase on oil companies on the North Slope, chasing them, their business, and their jobs out of state as soon as they can leave.  High taxes are no way to grow an economy.

Bill Walker has been running an aggressive and well funded campaign for Governor.  He is best described as a pro-life democrat, a description that I will leave to the reader to follow up upon.  I was most disturbed by his enthusiastic endorsement by Vince Beltrami and the Alaska AFL/CIO the end of June.  In response to that endorsement, I sent a moderately snarky e-mail to the campaign asking why this was a Good Thing and got the following in response three weeks later on Monday, July 26 at 8:53 PM:

Bill worked out of the Teamsters, Carpenters and Laborers unions to put himself through college during the building of the oil pipeline. Union, non union -- EVERYONE went to work during the construction of that project. It became very challenging to retain teachers, policman etc because they could triple their pay working on the pipeline. As governor, Bill intends to put everyone to work again to begin construction of the TransAlaska Gasline in three years, union and nonunion -- and knows we will once again face the challenge of retaining public employees. Our unions will play a vital role in this process. Bill has received the endorsement of the AFL-CIO and does support the unions who represent Alaska's working families.

Thank you for contacting the campaign,

Tessa Linderman

Bill Walker for Governor Campaign

All of which means that Bill Walker is all in for the largest boat anchor on economic growth here in Alaska – the unions.  This also means that he cannot be trusted to do anything that will proactively grow this economy, for it is impossible to grow it while carving of ever increasing slices of profits to mollify the unions that now enthusiastically support him.  Interestingly enough, the fact that the unions have stepped to the plate as strongly as they have for Bill Walker ought to tell every reader that they have determined neither Ethan Berkowitz or Hollis French has a chance of winning in November.

Finally, we have Ralph Samuels, who is running the classic small government, low taxes, high growth campaign for Governor.  He has been there and has done that and none of the Usual Suspects support him, which ought to be a very positive sign for conservatives statewide. 

Note that the next governor will have to affirmatively step up to the plate and take on the feds on a variety of issues.  Who do you think is up to the task?  Will Bill Walker do anything not approved by the democrat supporting Alaska unions?  Hardly.  Will Sean Parnell take on the feds in the legislature, in court and by Executive Order?  Perhaps; as he has done a bit of this already.  Will Ralph Samuels proactively do everything possible to move power illegally and unconstitutionally centralized in Washington DC back to Alaska?  Quite likely.  And that ought to make all the difference when we decide whom to support. 

As an aside, I rule out every single one of the democrat candidates for governor, as every single democrat elected nationally to congress in 2006 and 2008 voted for the unconstitutional power grabs of TARP II, the Stimulus of 2009, ObamaCare, and Financial Reform.  They will say whatever they need to say to get elected and then toe the Party Line once in office.  For proof of this assertion, one needs to look no farther than Mark Begich, who ran as a moderate and once in office has been a reliable Fedzilla vote ever since.  We saw what damage a democrat governor could do to this state with Tony Knowles (Katie John, anyone?).  Never, ever put one in office at any level again.

The choice for the new direction of this state is in our hands.  Do we want to wear the union label (Bill Walker)?  Return to same old, same old, with high taxes on wealth producers in this state (Sean Parnell) and insider deals for supporters? Or do we want to adopt a marketplace oriented approach to our future (Ralph Samuels)?  As always, the choice is ours. Choose wisely.

 

Dan Fagan

By Dan Fagan
Publisher
The Alaska Standard 

Desperate times call for desperate measures and it is clear Gene Therriault desperately wants to keep his bloated pension and not give up his illegal job.

The mainstream media played catch up yesterday with the story about a smoking gun document uncovered by activist Andree McLeod proving beyond the shadow of a doubt Gov. Sean Parnell broke the law when he hired sitting legislator Gene Therriault. 

Now that it has hit the fan for Parnell and Therriault you would think the two would play the scandal smarter. They are not.

The recently surfaced document shows Therriault’s job was created on September 1st and Therriault signed the document on the 12th. He quit his legislative job on the 13th.

But in a an interview with the Alaska Dispatch Therriault says I am wrong in claiming that he signed his new job papers on the Sept. 12, the day before he quit the Senate. It was actually four days after the resignation, Therriault said.

But as you can see by the document below Therriault clearly signs the document on the 12th. And not only that look at what it is he is signing.

New Employee:

I acknowledge that I am being appointed to an exempt/partially exempt position and understand the following: 1) I am not subject to bargaining unit (union) representation. 2) The majority of the provisions of the State Personnel Act and the Personnel Rules in the Alaska Administrative Code generally do not apply to my employment. 3) As an exempt/partially exempt employee of this department I will achieve “permanent” status as defined for the classified service.

And then right below this acknowledgment of being a new employee is the signature of one Gene Therriault, sitting legislator dated September 12th, a full day before he quits his elected post.

Therriault also told the Alaska Dispatch I was misinterpreting the document. He didn’t elaborate.

Some in the media obviously have not yet read this document because they are reporting this story as a he said she said deal. There is no controversy here. Parnell hired Therriault while he was a legislator with a job created while he was a legislator. End of story. They broke the law. The document ends any debate.

Based on Parnell’s previous behavior I am not surprised he is refusing to make this right and fire Therriault. Remember Parnell didn’t have the courage to fire Nancy Dahlstrom after Attorney General Daniel Sullivan found her hiring would not stand up in court. Dahlstrom did the right thing and resigned. Who knows if Parnell would have ever fired her?

Don’t count on Gene Therriault quitting anytime soon. His illegal job will end up sending more than a million bucks his way in added pension benefits if he can hang onto his job just a few more months.

The only way this injustice will be made right is if Attorney General Daniel Sullivan steps forward like he did with the Dahlstrom hiring and render a legal opinion.

Mr. Sullivan has promised to appear on my radio show and talk about the Dahlstrom hiring. He has yet to do so and is not returning my calls.

But with Sullivan’s resume and career accomplishments I have full confidence in our AG that he will step forward and do the right thing.

When it comes to our governor, not so much.

Mike Dingman

By Mike Dingman
Alaska Standard Contributor 

There is less than a month until the primary election here in the state of Alaska. If history is any indication we will see about a 20-25% turnout on August 24th.  Nobody seems to care to vote in these elections; however, if you try to reform the primary elections, everybody suddenly has an opinion. It is time to rethink how we handle the manner in which the parties choose their candidates.

Generally it would not be considered reasonable for outsiders to vote in elections for union board members, utility co-op board members, and home owners association board members; however, when it comes to the parties choosing the candidates that will carry their banner in the general elections, people become irate when those elections are closed to the members outside of that party.

Opponents would argue that the union board, utility co-op board and home owner’s association board are not government entities so that comparison is invalid. Quite to the contrary, those boards wield enormous power, being able to raise and lower rates on utilities, foreclose for non-payment of dues create rules and regulations and other actions that can have a serious impact on people’s lives.

Statewide, Alaskans have seen a fairly good turnout in the general elections. When there is a gubernatorial race we have seen a voter turnout of 60% or higher, without a gubernatorial race the turnout has still been consistently over 50%. Other states around the country generally peak below 50% and are seeing much lower turnout for their elections. However, in primary elections, Alaska peaked at 39% which likely was due to the excitement over Sarah Palin’s candidacy. Generally we see numbers in the low 30’s and even the low 20’s or teens.

Primary elections should simply be a mechanism for the parties to choose their candidates for the upcoming election. However, since government has taken up the task of administering these elections, the public has perceived them as something much more than what they are. The participation levels, however, are so low that to call this a participatory democracy when discussing primary elections is quite frankly – a joke.

Opponents of what they refer to as a “closed primary” claim that everybody should have the right to vote, even in an election that is geared towards allowing the parties to choose their candidates for the general election. They claim that the primary election is an election no different than the general election in terms of who should be allowed to vote. They point to primary races that will lead to a candidate running unopposed in the general election as a method of electing people to public office.

The truth is primary elections do not elect anybody to public office; they merely serve as a method to choose two candidates from the two parties to pit head to head in the general election. While it is true that candidates from one party may be running unopposed in the general, but not in the primary, the general election is still the mechanism that elects that candidate in public office. The fact that there is no contender in the general election is simply a failure of the opposing party.

It is time to empower the parties to choose their own candidates for statewide elections. The change that is needed is not simply closing the primaries to the members of the parties, but removing government from the process almost completely. Obviously, the division of elections will have to be involved in the process, but the party elections should be paid for and administered by the specific parties themselves.

This would accomplish a number of goals. With the parties running the elections, people will be more apt to ally themselves with a political party, which will make the parties stronger. In turn, the stronger parties can help to encourage more participation amongst their ranks. This new strong party system will encourage people to find a party that best suits their own ideology, which in turn, may very well strengthen many of the smaller political parties as well as the two large parties.

The more government gets involved with something, generally, the worse it becomes. There is no difference in the primary elections. If the parties were to run the primary elections and the members of the parties knew that they would be the ones to choose their candidates for the general election, we could significantly increase voter participation in the primary election and that enthusiasm would likely carry over to the general election and increase voter participation.

Our election system in this country is broken, there is no doubt. On a state level, we can effect change. While keeping governmental restrictions in place to ensure that federal and state election laws and protections are safeguarded, we can let the parties run their own elections, and pay the costs of the election. If the process increases voter turnout and strengthens the party system, which will in turn increase voter participation it will enhance our democracy rather than weaken it.

 

 

Staff

As constituents of yours, we were extremely disappointed to see that you were a co-sponsor of HB 193 – a bill that would increase the amount of money lobbyists could spend on food and beverage for legislators, their employees, their spouses –WITHOUT DISCLOSURE TO THE ALASKA PUBLIC OFFICES COMMISSION.  This seemed to be in direct contradiction to your many public statements about ethics, reform and restoring the public trust.

When we received your “Telephone Handy Dandy” in the mail, which had obviously been paid for with state funds, because it listed all of your legislative information, we tried to imagine what legislative purpose this served.  AS 24.60.030 clearly states:  (a)A legislator or legislative employee may not (2) use public funds, facilities, equipment, services, or another government asset or resource for a non-legislative purpose. . .

This apparent abuse caused us to review other materials related to your campaign and legislative work.  The results are not good.

Your June 2010 “Legislative Newsletter”, again, sent at state expense to constituents -  states “I have filed for a new term as your State Representative.”  This statement is clearly for the sole and exclusive benefit of you- again, a direct violation of the law.  AS 24.60.030-(J) says “a legislator is prohibited from sending any communication in the form of a newsletter to the legislator’s constituents that includes material that is clearly only for the private benefit of a legislator or a legislative employee;

May we refer  you to page 10 of the Legislative Standards of Conduct Handbook entitled Campaigning:  Use of Government Assets?

“A legislator or legislative employee may not use government assets for political fundraising or campaigning.” 

“Those covered by the ethics code should use caution when the line between campaigning and performing legislative duties becomes less than clear.”

Good words to live by Representative Lynn.

Sincerely,

Concerned Constituents of District 31

Dan Fagan

By Dan Fagan
Publisher
The Alaska Standard 

When Nancy Dahlstrom admitted to Glen Biegel and  I over the phone that the governor offered her a job while she was a legislator, that she quit her legislative post to take the state job created while she was a legislator and that she and the governor had been talking about the position for months, I knew at that moment she would have to resign. She did late in the afternoon on a Friday in an attempt to minimize media coverage.  

Now a new smoking gun document obtained by activist Andree McLeod reveals without dispute, question, or controversy, Governor Sean Parnell broke the law again when he hired Gene Therriault while he was still in the legislature.

The official document entitled State of Alaska Request for personnel action shows the Therriault hiring not only violated the state constitution but also broke Alaska law.

The constitution and state law prohibit a legislator from accepting a job created while they are in the legislature. They are required to wait a full year after their legislative term expires before they can work for the state if the job was created while they are in office.

Article 2, section 5 of the constitution and Alaska statute 24.05.0404 reads,

“During the term for which elected and for one year thereafter, no legislator may be nominated, elected, or appointed to any other office or position of profit which has been created, or the salary or emoluments of which have been increased, while he was a member.

The law could not be any clearer on the subject.

The document below reveals in direct violation of the law the Parnell administration created Therriault’s job on September 1st, a full 13 days before he left the legislature.

The document also shows Therriault accepts the job and signs the documents for the new position while still a legislator. He signed his new job papers on the 12th of September and he resigned his legislative position the next day on the 13th. 

 

You don’t have to be Perry Mason to figure this one out. This is as a clear violation of the law as you will find and the governor who is a lawyer knows it.

Parnell’s hiring of Therriault is a much clearer violation than his illegal hiring of Dahlstrom. At least when Parnell broke the law the second time with Dahlstrom he waited until after she quit to do the paperwork. With Therriault they were so sloppy they left no doubt this is a clear violation of the Alaska constitution and state law.

You’ll remember Gov. Parnell still did not ask Dahlstrom to resign even after his Attorney General Daniel Sullivan gave a legal opinion saying the hiring would not stand up in court. Dahlstrom did the right thing and resigned on her own.

But don’t expect Therriault to do that any time soon. Therriault is a tier one employee. He worked as a legislative staffer before he was elected to office.  His pension is based on his highest earning months. He earned $24,000 as a legislator and his new illegal job pays him $110,000. His illegal position could yield him an extra $4100 a month in pension benefits for the rest of his life.  With his legislative salary he was set to get a monthly pension check for approximately $1000. With his new illegal job he could get up to $5100 a month for the rest of his life if he can stay on the job just a few more months.

In this case Parnell will have to muster up the courage to fire Therriault. When it comes to courage Parnell doesn’t have much muster.

When the Dahlstrom story first broke AG Sullivan promised to come on my radio show and explain how she was hired in the first place. He’s been on vacation and we should see him on the broadcast this week. Sullivan did the right thing in refusing to go along and look the other way when Parnell illegally hired Dahlstrom. I suspect Sullivan will have no problem coming out and declaring the Therriault hiring an even clearer violation of law with the revelation of the smoking gun document. 

 

Alex Gimarc

By Alex Gimarc
Alaska Standard Contributor

Senator Lisa Murkowski appears to be well on her way to fending off Fairbanks Attorney Joe Miller in the race for her reelection to the US Senate.  The question before us as conservatives is whether or not we want Lisa Murkowski back in the US Senate; whether or not we can trust her to lead the repeal, defund, and disobey efforts intended to dismantle Fedzilla over the next six years.

Like it or not, the next decade is going to be critical for the very survival of this nation.  I do not believe the citizens are going to long tolerate an intrusive, nasty, expensive, ineffective, and overbearing unconstitutional government in Washington DC.  It will have to be starved of money.  Entire agencies will have to be defunded and closed down.  Tens of thousands of pages of rules and regulations will have to have their enforcement mechanisms defunded and then repealed.  Power now centralized in Washington DC will have to be returned to the many states – sooner rather than later.

The question we must answer for ourselves as conservatives is who do we think is up to the task?  Lisa Murkowski or Joe Miller?  At this point I don’t have a good answer and am troubled by both candidates.

I personally like Lisa Murkowski.  She is a fine lady who does listen to her constituents.  She has shown great kindness to my favorite son.  And she has served this state well since her elections to the Senate.  But she is not a small government lady. 

Her reaction to a call for repeal of ObamaCare was an observation we can’t repeal it unless we have something to replace it with.  She has since July changed that observation.  Given this gut reaction, can we trust her to defund everything in ObamaCare over the next two years of Obama in the WH?  Nobody knows.

Instead of fighting the notion of carbon dioxide regulation as a solution to manmade global warming, she proposed in 2007 to tweak cap and trade legislation in such a way as to put federal dollars into Alaskan utilities.  Playing along with the fraudulent notion of manmade global warming as a vehicle to pump more federal dollars into Alaska is not a solution.  This year, she led the fight to remove the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, which is a very Good Thing.  Can we trust her to lead the effort to defund the EPA over the next several years when they proceed with carbon dioxide regulation or any other unwarranted, illegal, and fraudulent regulations?  At this point, nobody knows.

Finally, she co-sponsored legislation with Jeff Bingaman (D, NM) in 2009 that proposed to regulate energy efficiency of appliances in our homes.  S 598 was an attempt to reach into our homes and inflict energy efficiency standards.  Given that Senator Murkowski is nominally a pro-choice kind of lady and the argument from that side of the political divide is they want to keep government out of our bedrooms, what possible justification can she have for reaching into our homes and telling us what sorts of light bulbs, refrigerators, washing machines or microwave ovens we can buy? 

On the other hand I don’t know Joe Miller at all and have never met him.  Dan Fagan took him to task for supporting the horrendous tax increase in ACES.  He says all the right conservative things, but is so far an unknown.

So I am in something of a quandary.  Who do we trust to defund and defenestrate Fedzilla? 

Lisa Murkowski?  I don’t think so, as her gut reactions seem to be to massage what exists in an attempt to mitigate the negative impacts on Alaska.  This will not get the feds out of our hair, nor will it decrease their power, authority or control over our day to day lives. 

Joe Miller?  Maybe, though he is an unknown.

The two advantages Lisa Murkowski has at this point are that she does know the game in Washington DC and has done well enough to become part of the leadership.  And my experience is that she also listens.

Whomever conservatives nominate in August will have to go to Washington DC and vote no for six solid years.  He or she will have to defund entire agencies, reject Marxist appointees, and repeal legislation and regulations.  They will have to proactively move power and responsibility from Fedzilla back to the many states.  And they will have to do it in the face of withering national press criticism.

Neither candidate has ever done such a thing in their life.  It is up to us to figure out which one is ready, willing and able to do so.  I hope we choose wisely.

Alex Gimarc

By Alex Gimarc 
Alaska Standard Contributor 

There is less than a month until the primary election here in the State of Alaska. If history is any indication we will see about a 20-25% turnout on August 24th.  Nobody seems to care to vote in these elections; however, if you try to reform the primary elections, everybody suddenly has an opinion. It is time to rethink how we handle the manner in which the parties choose their candidates.

Generally it would not be considered reasonable for outsiders to vote in elections for union board members, utility co-op board members, and home owners association board members; however, when it comes to the parties choosing the candidates that will carry their banner in the general elections, people become irate when those elections are closed to the members outside of that party.

Opponents would argue that the union board, utility co-op board and home owner’s association board are not government entities so that comparison is invalid. Quite to the contrary, those boards wield enormous power, being able to raise and lower rates on utilities, foreclose for non-payment of dues create rules and regulations and other actions that can have a serious impact on people’s lives.

Statewide, Alaskans have seen a fairly good turnout in the general elections. When there is a gubernatorial race we have seen a voter turnout of 60% or higher, without a gubernatorial race the turnout has still been consistently over 50%. Other states around the country generally peak below 50% and are seeing much lower turnout for their elections. However, in primary elections, Alaska peaked at 39% which likely was due to the excitement over Sarah Palin’s candidacy. Generally we see numbers in the low 30’s and even the low 20’s or teens.

Primary elections should simply be a mechanism for the parties to choose their candidates for the upcoming election. However, since government has taken up the task of administering these elections, the public has perceived them as something much more than what they are. The participation levels, however, are so low that to call this a participatory democracy when discussing primary elections is quite frankly – a joke.

Opponents of what they refer to as a “closed primary” claim that everybody should have the right to vote, even in an election that is geared towards allowing the parties to choose their candidates for the general election. They claim that the primary election is an election no different than the general election in terms of who should be allowed to vote. They point to primary races that will lead to a candidate running unopposed in the general election as a method of electing people to public office.

The truth is primary elections do not elect anybody to public office; they merely serve as a method to choose two candidates from the two parties to pit head to head in the general election. While it is true that candidates from one party may be running unopposed in the general, but not in the primary, the general election is still the mechanism that elects that candidate in public office. The fact that there is no contender in the general election is simply a failure of the opposing party.

It is time to empower the parties to choose their own candidates for statewide elections. The change that is needed is not simply closing the primaries to the members of the parties, but removing government from the process almost completely. Obviously, the division of elections will have to be involved in the process, but the party elections should be paid for and administered by the specific parties themselves.

This would accomplish a number of goals. With the parties running the elections, people will be more apt to ally themselves with a political party, which will make the parties stronger. In turn, the stronger parties can help to encourage more participation amongst their ranks. This new strong party system will encourage people to find a party that best suits their own ideology, which in turn, may very well strengthen many of the smaller political parties as well as the two large parties.

The more government gets involved with something, generally, the worse it becomes. There is no difference in the primary elections. If the parties were to run the primary elections and the members of the parties knew that they would be the ones to choose their candidates for the general election, we could significantly increase voter participation in the primary election and that enthusiasm would likely carry over to the general election and increase voter participation.

Our election system in this country is broken, there is no doubt. On a state level, we can effect change. While keeping governmental restrictions in place to ensure that federal and state election laws and protections are safeguarded, we can let the parties run their own elections, and pay the costs of the election. If the process increases voter turnout and strengthens the party system, which will in turn increase voter participation it will enhance our democracy rather than weaken it.

 

 

Dan Fagan

By Dan Fagan
Publisher
The Alaska Standard

Confused over why Gene Therriault is still on the job and yet Nancy Dahlstrom resigned. Both were sitting legislators when they were hired meaning Gov. Sean Parnell broke the law when he offered them their jobs. Dahlstrom did the right thing and resigned once Parnell’s attorney general came out with a legal opinion calling the hiring illegal.

So why is Therriault still on the job? Why has he refused to resign as Dahlstrom has? The answer to that question is easy. Follow the money.

Therriault must be aware his new six-figure job will drastically change his state pension plan. Therriault is a tier one state employee. He’s started working for the state back in 1981 as a legislative assistant. He’s been in the legislature since 1990.

When Parnell illegally offered Therriault a job last summer paying him $110,000, it meant a considerable raise for him. Therriault was only paid $24,000 as a legislator.

But the real story is not the big fat raise Therriault got with his job Parnell broke the law to give him. The real story is what Therriault’s new job will do for his pension.

If Therriault retired from the legislature last summer instead of being illegally hired by Parnell, he would have received a state pension check the rest of his life for approximately $1000.

But with his new illegal position, Therriault’s monthly pension check will be much larger if he can stay on the job for another nine months. The state bases pension checks on the highest earning months.

If Therriault can keep his illegal job through April 31st, 2011, his monthly pension check that he will receive for the rest of his life will go from $1000 a month to $5,100 a month.

Every month for the rest of his life, Gene Therriault will get an extra $4,100 a month in the mail thanks to the illegal job Sean Parnell gave him.

Therriault’s illegal job will send an extra $52,000 a year of state money directly into his back account every year for the rest of his life. If Parnell had not illegally given Therriault the job, he would have only received $12,000 a year for the rest of his life.

Parnell’s illegal hiring of Therriault will mean a pension of $62,000 a year for as long as he lives.

The average Alaskan earns $42,000 a year but they actually have to go to work. Therriault will get $62,000 a year for the rest of his life because he knows the governor. It’s good to know the governor.

If Therriault lives another 30 years this illegal job his buddy Parnell gave him will mean an extra $1,500,000 of state money deposited directly into Gene Therriault’s bank account. 

Why is Gene Therriault refusing to quit his illegal job? Maybe the million and half bucks has something to do with it.

You may wonder why Parnell hasn’t demanded Therriault resign. Remember Parnell didn’t force Dahlstrom to quit. She did the right thing on her own.

It’s no secret Parnell could use Therriault’s popularity in Fairbanks to help with his re-election bid. Parnell even sent Therriault to fill in for him once during a Fairbanks debate.

Is Parnell so desperate to get reelected he is willing to spend a million and a half dollars on Therriault?

Where’s state Attorney General Dan Sullivan? Why hasn’t he spoken out on this scandal?

Why the silence from legislators? Maybe they hope Parnell will send a million and half their way.

And lastly where’s the media on this? If a governor illegally giving a legislator a job worth a million and half extra dollars isn’t a story than I don’t know what is.

You say Dan this kind of pension padding goes on all the time. Maybe. But in this particular case it is illegal. Does that matter anymore?

 

Staff

By Paulette Simpson

I view it as my public duty to explain part of the paragraph penned by former Gov. Palin in her endorsement of Joe Miller for Alaska’s U.S. Senate seat.

Said Sarah: "... (Miller) has fought alongside me and others to help clean up the Republican Party here in Alaska by bringing in new leadership, new ideas, and commitment to putting government back on the side of the people, not any political machine."

There is only one accurate translation of Gov. Palin’s reference to her comradeship with Joe Miller fighting alongside her and this is it: Our former governor refers to March 2008 when Miller awkwardly attempted an unsuccessful, banana republic-like coup at the Republican Party state convention in Anchorage.

Click here to read the rest of the story. 

Staff

Fiscal Policy: Many voters are looking forward to 2011, hoping a new Congress will put the country back on the right track. But unless something's done soon, the new year will also come with a raft of tax hikes — including a return of the death tax — that will be real killers.

Through the end of this year, the federal estate tax rate is zero — thanks to the package of broad-based tax cuts that President Bush pushed through to get the economy going earlier in the decade.

But as of midnight Dec. 31, the death tax returns — at a rate of 55% on estates of $1 million or more. The effect this will have on hospital life-support systems is already a matter of conjecture.

Resurrection of the death tax, however, isn't the only tax problem that will be ushered in Jan. 1. Many other cuts from the Bush administration are set to disappear and a new set of taxes will materialize. And it's not just the rich who will pay.

Click here to read the rest of the story. 

 

Dan Fagan

By Dan Fagan
Publisher
The Alaska Standard 

There is a phrase making its way around these days that I am not very fond of but in this case it applies perfectly. The phrase goes, “ It is what it is.”

The Alaska Conservative Patriots Group withdrawing its support for Lt. Gov. candidate Mead Treadwell is what it is. It speaks volumes about what really drives the Conservative Patriots Group.

The doorway to the organization’s endorsement begins with a very simple question. What say you about Lisa Murkowski? Fail that test and you are out, no matter your record, positions, or character. Answer the question wrongly and it doesn’t matter who your opponent is, no endorsement for you!

We saw this with gubernatorial candidate Ralph Samuels. Samuels is clearly the most conservative man running for Alaska governor. Bill Walker is a shill for big labor and just adores ACES, the state’s job killing tax regime. And then there is Sean Parnell with his ten percent increase in the state’s operating budget, illegally hiring lawmakers, lying about cutting 33 million he didn’t cut, spending five times more for a crime lab than he should have, and his absolute love affair with ACES and AGIA.

Any group working to elect conservatives would be shouting from the rooftops, Ralph Samuels for governor! But not the Conservative Patriots Group. Samuels failed the “what say you about Lisa” test.

The group now has pulled its endorsement of Mead Treadwell because he dared to give Murkowski a campaign contribution before her Republican opponent Joe Miller entered the race. Imagine that, trying to get a Republican incumbent elected. Treadwell the communist!

The beauty of all this is the pulling of the Treadwell endorsement was sparked by perennial candidate Eddie Burke. Burke believes he should have gotten the endorsement of the Conservative Patriots Group.

Of course if the group endorsed Burke it would have instantly become irrelevant. Bending to pressure by Burke to reverse the Treadwell endorsement means the group is now on the brink of irrelevancy. 

If the Conservative Patriot’s Group wants to be nothing more than a get Joe Miller elected organization and launch an all out jihad on Lisa Murkowski than it has every right to. But the group should state this on its website so Alaskans understand this is a one issue organization.

The group's website describes itself this way,

CPG is a nonpartisan, grass roots independent advocacy organization that is committed to electing conservative candidates, advancing conservative ideas, promoting traditional American values, advocating responsible resource development and supporting a strong military.

What it should say is,

CPG is a nonpartisan, grass roots independent advocacy organization that is committed to electing Joe Miller, advancing Joe Miller, promoting Joe Miller, advocating for Joe Miller. Any Lisa lovers need not apply. 

Larry Wood

By Larry Wood 
Alaska Standard Contributor 

AGIA was pronounced as DOA by Parnell himself with respect to any expected success of the Open Season.  Parnell’s refusal to answer rival Bill Walker’s FOIA request for disclosure of the Open Season is proof that Parnell is playing a delaying game without any expectation of success. 

Against AGIA is the reality of the shale gas developments in Canada and the U.S.   The Outside gas reserves are estimated  to be enough for a 150 year supply of natural gas.  The fact of the lack of any permitting to show in the 3 years since the passage of AGIA belie his current assertions that AGIA is alive and well. 

AGIA, like Conoco/BP’s Denali project, takes our gas and gas liquids to Canada, thereby benefitting Canada, not Alaska. 

Is Parnell acting in the best interests of Alaska by pushing AGIA?

Parnell’s second problem is his contempt for the law with the growing controversy over his appointments of Nancy Dahlstrom and Gene Therriault as his Military Advisor and Oil and Gas Advisor, respectively. 

This situation would not be so remarkable were it not for the fact that both Dahlstrom and Therriault were sitting legislators at the time of the creation of the positions to which they were appointed.  As ‘advisors’ their appointments did not have to be approved by the Legislature.  The problem for Parnell arises with the fact that both appointments were in violation of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Alaska:

“Section 2.5 - Disqualifications.

No legislator may hold any other office or position of profit under the United States or the State. During the term for which elected and for one year thereafter, no legislator may be nominated, elected, or appointed to any other office or position of profit which has been created, or the salary or emoluments of which have been increased, while he was a member. . . .”

There was little comment about former Sen. Gene Therriault’s appointment, except by yours truly and a few others.  With the second appointment of Rep. Nancy Dahlstrom, the pundits and the press finally figured out that our governor was ignoring the law. 

Is our Governor above the law? 

Another indication of the contempt that his governor and his appointees have for the law is the conduct of Gov. Parnell’s MG Katkus in requiring a subordinate to appear in uniform to testify to the House Military and Veterans Affairs Committee in support of Katkus’ appointment as Commissioner DMVA and Adjutant General.  This act was unprecedented, and constituted a blatant act of undue influence.  This situation was akin to Gene Therriault filling in for the Governor at a campaign function in Fairbanks earlier this summer.  Both situations constitute at the very least undue influence on the part of the Governor and by Katkus as Parnell’s appointee.

Parnell’s third problem is the contradiction to any claim that he is working to resolve the Cook Inlet gas supply crisis.

Parnell’s Oil and Gas Division refuses to timely renew expired Cook Inlet oil and gas leases to exploration and development companies.  This failure by Parnell’s Oil and Gas Division is incredible in the face of the alleged purpose of the bullet line. 

Is Governor Parnell playing politics with a critical gas supply issue to the detriment of Alaska’s largest population segment?

Parnell’s fourth problem that is indefensible and, perhaps, the least recognized by the media, is Gov. Parnell’s decision to virtually eliminate the Alaska State Defense Force as a viable emergency response asset under DMVA.   In 2006, many of the Army National Guard assets were called to federal active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo, leaving the ASDF to perform disaster response.  ASDF was called to State Active Duty three times in 2006.

How is reducing the State’s ability to respond to a disaster a showing of leadership?

Are we voters going to let Governor Sean Parnell’s open contempt for the law and his failure in leadership stand?

Staff

By Greg Johnson
Frontiersman

WASILLA — Walgreens bills itself as “the pharmacy America trusts,” but that doesn’t include the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.

Members of the trade workers union have been demonstrating against the pharmacy chain over claims Walgreens fails to meet local area labor standards when constructing its buildings. Drivers on the Parks Highway near the Wasilla outlet may have noticed over the past month people displaying a large sign proclaiming “Shame on Walgreens.”

The demonstration is manned by members of the Alaska Regional Council of Carpenters, which is affiliated with the union. Although the sign also proclaims a “labor dispute,” it’s aimed at Walgreens corporate construction practices and not at employees of the local store, said Arylis Scates, director of organizing for the council. 

“Walgreens started off as a great company doing everything correctly,” he said. “They were meeting standards in most areas and doing things above the board.”

Click here to read the rest of the story. 

Alex Gimarc

By Alex Gimarc 
Alaska Standard Contributor 

One of the axioms of political life is that any organization that is not explicitly conservative will invariably drift leftward.  Some do it quicker than others. 

The latest example of this is Trout Unlimited, ostensibly an organization set up to enhance fishing opportunities nationwide.  They have a national office and a number of local chapters, 12 of which are here in Alaska.  They have been quite busy mucking around in the lives of Alaskans – and not all for the positive.

The first event was their participation in the Alaska Board of Fisheries banning felt-soled wading boots starting in 2011.  These are boots that maintain traction pretty well on rocky streams (the Russian River on the Kenai is one example).  They don’t do so well on Cook Inlet mud.  Cost for a pair is in the $100 – 200 range.  The rationale given for pushing this ban is that felt-soled boots will carry mud and other particulate matter from one stream to another, transmitting disease and other organic matter from stream to stream.  There is a problem in the Rocky Mountain States with a disease called Whirling Disease that kills trout in streams.  The ban on felt-soled boots is intended to help contain spread of that disease.  The problem with this is that anything that is not well cleaned will carry mud and other organic matter from one stream to another, spreading stuff far and wide. 

So far, so good, right?  Well not so fast.  Whirling disease is very hard to detect before the fish are infected.  And ADF&G biologist have found the parasite in Ship Creek, but are not sure whether or not it has always been resident, how it responds to cold water, or anything else.  At this stage, they are gathering more information and being careful – which is a prudent approach.

Local fly shops, which get to listen to customer complaints about having to buy new wading boots, are not so charitable to Trout Unlimited.  One pointed out that the Simms Fishing Products, a manufacturer of high end fishing gear has donated money to Trout Unlimited and blames the ban on that money trail.

Trout Unlimited has also been recently busy on the local airways, running a number of anti-Pebble Mine ads on radio.  The latest ads are professionally done and effective.  And there have been a lot of them.  So who is funding them and how much money has been spent?

Non profits like Trout Unlimited are required to make their tax returns – IRS Form 990 – available upon request.  The latest one I was able to find was their 2007 return.  It did contain a list of donors.  But that list was numbered , without names or addresses of their donors,; effectively hiding their donors from prying eyes. 

Tuesday, I sent along the following request to their national office.  I received a single response from their National Press Secretary handing me off to someone here in Alaska, who I have yet to hear from. 

I am researching for an article on your ad buy and have a few questions:

 

1.      How much money has Trout Unlimited spent opposing Pebble over the last two years?

2.       Are you getting any donations from either Bob Gilliam (Alaska) or the Renewable Resources Coalition (Alaska)?

3.      If so, how much money have one or both donated?

4.      Request a copy of your most recent IRS Form 990.  I have a copy of your 2007 Form 990.

5.      Request a list of your contributors on Schedule B in your Form 990.  They are listed numerically, with no name or address.  

The article will also discuss Trout Unlimited’s participation in a ban on felt soled wading boots here in Alaska from the Alaska Fish Board this year.  I have the following questions for that topic:

6.       Have you received any donations from the Simms Fishing Products of Bozeman MT over the last 3 years? 

7.       If so, how much?

I want to make sure that I have the facts before I submit the article.  Your assistance would be most appreciated.  Should you choose not to assist, I will write about that also.  Either way, I do look forward to hearing from you.  Thank you for your time.  Cheers –

So far, the silence has been deafening.  I do not expect a response.

What is the moral of this story?  It is to ALWAYS follow the money.  Trout Unlimited has been mucking around in Alaska for the last year, making changes and trying to make changes to the way we do things.  They need to step up to the plate and let every Alaskan know both the dollar amount and who has donated money for their wading boot initiative and their anti-Pebble ads.  I would like to see if Simms and / or Bob Gilliam are donors.  We don’t want large corporations or NIMBYs hiding behind their non-profit curtain.

If neither has a hand in what Trout Unlimited is currently doing, I will write a retraction.  But I don’t expect to have to do so.

Dan Fagan

Staff

By Michael Barone

One of the interesting things about the Obama administration is the strange dominance of labor unions. Yes, Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders do owe the unions something: Unions gave $400 million to Democrats in the 2008 campaign cycle, and they expect to get something in return.

What they haven't gotten out of the Democratic Congress is the thing they wanted most -- the card check bill that would effectively abolish the secret ballot in unionization elections. Unions now represent only 7 percent of private-sector workers, the lowest percentage since the early 1930s. Union leaders believe that with card check they could vastly increase their dues income.

But the unions have gotten lots of other things, as Peyton R. Miller reports in The Weekly Standard. Obama has appointed as head of the National Labor Relations Board a former union lawyer who once wrote that the NLRB could institute something very much like card check without congressional action.

Click here to read the rest of the story.