Legislature(2021 - 2022)
03/15/2022 05:00 PM House LEGISLATIVE BUDGET & AUDIT
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation Investigation | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND AUDIT COMMITTEE
March 15, 2022
5:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Natasha von Imhof, Chair
Representative Chris Tuck, Vice Chair
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Lora Reinbold
Senator Bert Stedman
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Neal Foster
Representative James Kaufman
Representative Dan Ortiz (alternate)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Click Bishop (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
ALASKA PERMANENT FUND CORPORATION INVESTIGATION
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
CHRISTOPHER SLOTTEE, Attorney at Law
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented information and answered
questions during the hearing on the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation Investigation.
HOWARD TRICKEY, Attorney at Law
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented information and answered
questions during the hearing on the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation Investigation.
MEGAN WALLACE, Attorney at Law
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation Investigation.
ACTION NARRATIVE
5:03:57 PM
CHAIR NATASHA VON IMHOF called the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee meeting to order at [5:03] p.m. Representatives Tuck
Foster, Spohnholz, Josephson, Kaufman, and Ortiz and Senators
Stedman, Micciche, Reinbold, and von Imhof were present at the
call to order.
^Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation Investigation
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation Investigation
5:04:59 PM
CHAIR VON IMHOF announced that the only order of business would
be discussion pertaining to the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation Investigation.
CHAIR VON IMHOF made an opening statement, as follows:
We are holding this meeting today to discuss the March
1, [2022], letter from the Department of Law,
regarding this committee's investigation into the
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation Board's procedures
surrounding the termination of former executive
director Angela Rodell and to discuss our next steps.
To recap, this committee does have statutory authority
and responsibility to look into matters of any state
agency or department that contributes to the fiscal,
economic, and social well-being of the state and its
citizens. The fund now contributes nearly 65 percent
towards total annual state revenue, so it clearly
falls within that category.
The committee's goal with this investigation is to
ensure that the fund stays politically independent
from both legislative and executive influence and
political agendas.
CHAIR VON IMHOF noted the following people were available during
the meeting: lead attorney Howard Trickey, via teleconference,
and attorney Chris Slottee, present in the room - both from the
committee's outside counsel, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC; and
Megan Wallace, Director, and Emily Nauman, Deputy Director -
both from Legislative Legal Services. She explained that based
on the letter from the Department of Law, it is important for
the discussion to be on the public record; however, the
committee could transition to an executive session if questions
and discussion veer into matters of a more confidential nature.
CHAIR VON IMHOF invited Mr. Slottee and Ms. Wallace to the
testifiers' table to discuss the March 1 Department of Law
letter e-mailed to the outside counsel, then to relate their
research and response to that letter, and finally to answer any
questions the committee may have. She requested that committee
members hold their questions until after the initial review and
the response to the Department of Law letter.
5:07:22 PM
CHRISTOPHER SLOTTEE, Attorney at Law, Schwabe, Williamson &
Wyatt PC, referred to the letter from the Department of Law
(DOL) [included in the committee packet, entitled "3.1.22 DOL to
Outside Counsel to LBA.pdf"]. In the letter, DOL took the
position that the investigation of the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation (APFC) was outside the statutory authority of the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee on the grounds that the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee's authority to conduct
investigations or to oversee the corporation was limited to the
corporation's investment policies and practices.
5:08:05 PM
MR. SLOTTEE, in response to Representative Tuck, said the state
has cited AS 24.20.156, 201, and 206 to argue the limitations of
the scope of the committee's authority to the investment
practices. He stated that the view of his firm is that the
interpretation of those statutes by DOL is overly narrow. He
explained that the statute specifically addresses that one of
the purposes of the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee is to
include monitoring and reporting on the performance of the
agencies of the state that have investment functions. He stated
that the function of the committee was not limited to the
investment functions of those agencies, and that the statute
further directed the committee to provide for an annual
operational, post-audit performance evaluation and that the
committee has the power to make recommendations to the
legislature and to agencies of the state performing lending or
investment functions concerning the structure and operating
practices of the agencies. He added that statute further states
that the committee's purpose is to make recommendations, where
appropriate, for changes in the policies to the agencies or
changes in legislation to the legislature and refers
specifically to the structures and operating practices of the
agencies. Mr. Slottee stated the view of his firm is that the
statute confirms the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee's
authority to provide oversight of the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation's practices and operations, including investment
policies, as well as non-investment operations, which he
characterized as an important aspect of proper functioning of
the corporation.
MR. SLOTTEE then explained that the DOL letter asserted that
there was a potential substantive violation of due process
specifically due to Chair von Imhof's disclosure that she had a
friendship with Ms. Rodell, which could, in some manner, taint
the actions taken by the committee. He stated his firm's view
that there exists no basis in law for that assertion and offered
that a "mere friendship" is not a conflict of interest that
would invalidate the committee's authority, in particular due to
the unanimous committee action to approve the investigation.
MR. SLOTTEE stated that the final approach taken in the letter
from DOL was that the committee had violated Uniform Rules of
the legislature when it entered into executive session to
discuss the retention of an outside law firm and the initiation
of the investigation, and that that violation would in some way
invalidate the committee's authority. He stated that it was his
firm's view the law is clear that the legislature is the entity
that should govern the actions of the committee regarding
determination of a violation of rules rather than an outside
entity, such as an executive agency to try to enforce the
legislature's internal rules. He stated that there was no
violation of Uniform Rules, as there was no objection to [enter
into] executive session, which was followed by a unanimous vote
following the executive session. He introduced Mr. Trickey, a
partner in his law firm and lead counsel on the investigation,
to address the committee.
5:12:15 PM
HOWARD TRICKEY, Attorney at Law, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC,
stated that some of the arguments put forth in the DOL letter
pertaining to interviews bear similarity to arguments put forth
in a prior investigation. He added that the Alaska Supreme
Court has ruled on sufficiently similar matters regarding [the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee's] statutory authority to
conduct investigations to inform itself whether to adopt
amendments to law or recommendations to agencies to modify their
policies and practices.
5:13:19 PM
MEGAN WALLACE, Attorney at Law, Legislative Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, offered that she had no
substantively different comments to those made by Mr. Slottee,
and said she would remain available to answer questions in a
non-partisan capacity specifically to procedural claims put
forth by DOL. She stated that, in concurrence with the view
stated by Mr. Slottee that the committee's action in approving
and authorizing the investigation are consistent with the
Uniform Rules adopted by the legislature. She referred to the
minutes from the January 27, 2022, meeting which provide details
of the motions that were made, the lack of objection to enter
into executive session, and the recorded votes of members
authorizing the investigation.
5:15:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to the letter's reference to a
proposal to hire an independent person, preferably a retired
judge, to review the issues. He observed that the state
appeared to take the position that the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee's action be grounded in law. He asked, "Is
their proposal, to the extent it's fully fleshed out - and I
would submit it's not - is that grounded in any law that you
know of?"
MR. TRICKEY answered no and postulated that it had been proposed
by a "compromise measure" to appoint someone more independent to
conduct the investigation. He stated that most retired judges
are not equipped to thoroughly investigate the matter.
5:17:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON suggested that it was obvious that
there did not exist any requirement to negotiate arrangements
related to the investigation. He stated that courts "like to
have parties reach consensus when they can," but suggested that
DOL's proposal [of a retired judge] could be dismissed in the
first instance, to which Mr. Trickey confirmed that it can.
5:17:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ referred to Uniform Rule 22(b)(1-3)
governing open and executive sessions, which the legislature
routinely operates within and has for decades. The language in
Uniform Rule 22(b)(1-3) read as follows:
(b) A legislative body may call an executive
session at which members of the general public may be
excluded for the following reasons:
(1) discussion of matters, the immediate
knowledge of which would adversely affect the finances
of a government unit;
(2) discussion of subjects that tend to
prejudice the reputation and character of a person;
(3) discussion of a matter that may, by law, be
required to be confidential;
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked whether there had occurred
anything "out of the ordinary" regarding the executive session
which took place on January 17, 2022.
5:19 :09 PM
MS. WALLACE opined that there had not occurred anything out of
the ordinary in the manner in which the committee entered into
executive session [on January 17, 2022]. She stated that the
DOL letter specifically contended that the chair unilaterally
decided that the committee enter into executive session and that
no vote was taken. She referred to the minutes of the meeting
which reflected the motion made by Representative Tuck to enter
into executive session, and no objection was raised, and she
said that is consistent with the practice and procedure to allow
a motion to stand without a vote. She stated that it is a
matter for the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee to
determine whether the reasons for entering into executive
session are sufficient, and a member may object for further
discussion.
5:20:51 PM
CHAIR VON IMHOF stated that a motion is carried when no
objection is raised and is [equivalent] to a unanimous vote in
favor of the motion. She asked Ms. Wallace for her thoughts on
the idea of conducting a roll call vote even when no objection
to a motion is raised.
MS. WALLACE stated her opinion that there did not exist a
substantive difference in those two approaches. She advised
that it is a policy decision, and that any member may request a
roll call vote on a motion; however, she noted that past
practice and Mason's Manual allow for motions to carry when no
objection has been raised.
5:21:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to passages in Mason's Manual, Rule
62, that advises that the practice of seconding a motion is old
and no longer necessary.
5:23:12 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked for discussion to distinguish between a
vote in which no one objects, which is unanimous, and "some of
the requirements we have for legislation where a vote is
required."
5:23:43 PM
MS. WALLACE, offering the example of motions given on the [House
or Senate] floor, explained that "main motions," such as the
passage of a bill, resolution, or amendment are taken by a roll
call vote of the body. She stated that procedural motions are
often agreed to by unanimous consent. She stated that part of
implementation of parliamentary rules or the legislature's rules
is based on how they have historically been implemented by the
body which uses the rules. She stated that the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee and Legislative Council are long-
standing, permanent interim committees of the legislature and
have each developed its own policies or procedures concerning
the manner in which it authorizes certain actions. She stated
her understanding that it had been a long-standing practice of
the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee not to take a roll
call vote on motions when there had been no objection, such as
the motion to go into executive session. To the question [from
Representative Spohnholz] regarding anything out of the ordinary
happening, she said it would come as no surprise that no roll
call vote was taken [to enter into executive session] because
there is no historical practice of voting when no objection is
made to a motion.
5:25:24 PM
CHAIR VON IMHOF pointed out that the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee's counsel is saying the committee's procedures
are correct.
5:25:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that there may exist confusion
between procedure in Mason's Manual and Robert's Rules of Order,
the second of which may require a second to a motion. She
expressed that legislative standing and special committees
routinely conduct business by unanimous consent and without a
roll call vote.
5:27:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON directed attention to the second-to-
last page of the letter from DOL, in which the state wrote that
if not resolved, this issue and others have potential to trigger
extensive litigation. He then asked, "Was this preemptive or
was there an effort to engage the investigation with, for
example, a subpoena deposition?"
5:28:07 PM
MR. SLOTTEE answered that after his firm was retained by the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, Mr. Tricky sent a letter
to Chris Poag of APFC requesting the opportunity to interview
members of the Board of Trustees and several members of the
personnel of APFC. The response was that APFC was being
represented by DOL, and Mr. Tricky was referred to the attorney
general. He said his firm sent a letter to an attorney with DOL
who was handling this matter, which resulted in the letter from
DOL now being discussed. In summary, he highlighted that the
letter was the response received when asking for voluntary
interviews.
5:29:01 PM
CHAIR VON IMHOF invited Mr. Slottee to discuss "the next steps
with this committee beyond today."
MR. SLOTTEE responded as follows:
The first step is we will respond in writing to the
Department of Law. We're going to make the point a
little more detailed, but broadly speaking that the
... Legislative Budget and Audit Committee is charged
with reviewing and making recommendations regarding
the structure and operating practices of the Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation, which necessarily includes
the process followed by the board of trustees in
evaluating executive directors and, in this case,
terminating Ms. Rodell as executive director.
We will respond to their claim that the Budget and
Audit Committee is engaging in some type of unfair and
prejudicial investigation by pointing out that the
Budget and Audit Committee as a whole authorized this
investigation and authorized the retention of
Schwawbe, Williamson & Wyatt [PC]. We will make the
point that our client is the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee, which has directed us to conduct a
fair, independent, objective, and unbiased
investigation into the processes adopted and followed
by the Board of Trustees in its evaluation of the
executive director of the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation, and including the termination of Ms.
Rodell's employment.
We will make the point that there's no logical or
legal basis to claim that an investigation that was
approved by the committee as a whole is somehow
legally invalid because one member of the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee was open and honest with
the public and disclosed an unrelated personal
connection with Ms. Rodell.
And finally, we will respond that the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee both did not violate any of
the Uniform Rules regarding going into executive
session and that ultimately that is not the Department
of Law's place to try to police the legislature or its
committees' internal processes.
In that letter, we will again invite the Board of
Trustees and individual ... employees of the Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation to voluntarily sit down for
an interview; they can have their counsel present.
... We will ... give that opportunity. If they
respond and say that they will not do so, then we will
proceed to subpoena those individuals who refuse to
sit down for a voluntarily interview.
... Then we will move forward with our investigation,
gathering our facts and coming to an impartial and
objective, evidence-based report.
5:31:21 PM
CHAIR VON IMHOF indicated the names of the individuals asked to
interview are on a list that would be distributed to committee
members. She opined that if they have nothing to hide, these
individuals ought to come forward. She echoed Mr. Slottee's
statement that those who do not come forward voluntarily would
be subpoenaed. She proposed that the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee vote on a motion today to provide its outside
counsel the necessary tools to move forward with the
investigation.
5:32:17 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 5:32 p.m. to hand out the
aforementioned list.
5:32:37 PM
CHAIR VON IMHOF read the list for the record. [The names she
stated are provided in an upcoming motion made by Representative
Tuck.]
5:33:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked for confirmation that the list
would not prejudice the right of the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee to subpoena additional people at a later date.
CHAIR VON IMHOF confirmed Representative Josephson was correct
that the present list is not an exhaustive one.
5:34:08 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE inquired whether the letter highlights that the
desire is not to subpoena unless necessary.
5:34:46 PM
MR. SLOTTEE answered that his firm's initial letter had made
clear the desire not to have to resort to subpoenas, and the
subsequent letter to DOL would make the same statement. He
noted the efficiency factor of having people come forward
voluntarily and reiterated the last resort nature of issuing
subpoenas. In response to a follow-up question from Senator
Micciche, he confirmed that the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee has the specific statutory authority to issue
subpoenas for depositions; therefore, his firm does not believe
anyone served a subpoena regarding this matter has the right to
refuse to comply, although he allowed that that does not
guarantee what the person subpoenaed will actually do.
5:36:35 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked what recourse there would be if someone
gave a voluntary interview but withheld information or answered
dishonestly.
MR. SLOTTEE replied that a voluntary interview is not taken
under oath. His firm will evaluate credibility by comparing
statements made by other witnesses. He indicated that it is the
view of his firm that the information given in response to being
issued a subpoena is information given under oath; the person
would have to testify under penalty of perjury.
5:38:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN opined that the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee should "put out a little bit more visibility
about what this process will look like." He asked for an
explanation of the structure of this process.
CHAIR VON IMHOF reviewed that the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee has hired a third-party custodian; the keeper of the
information is Mr. Slottee and his team, which will assemble all
the data and report to the committee at some point in the
future.
5:39:19 PM
MR. SLOTTEE offered details, emphasizing that the interviews
would be private and noting that background material would be
included in a report. He said a subpoena would be for a private
deposition.
5:40:08 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE remarked on "a strange section" of the letter
that refers to the McCarthy hearings of the '50s and points to
Section 7 of the United States Constitution, which refers to
"fair and just treatment". He asked whether Mr. Slottee finds
anything unfair and unjust in the process being followed by the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee.
5:41:15 PM
MR. SLOTTEE answered no. He said he does not believe any of the
efforts that have been taken by his firm are inappropriate. He
said DOL has suggested that his firm has made some type of
threat to members of APFC to be terminated or suffer adverse
employment action for failing to cooperate, but nothing like
that has happened. He said his firm simply cited statute that
says employees of the state must comply with members of the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee in its investigations.
SENATOR MICCICHE surmised that "the purpose of the paragraph is
to paint a picture that doesn't exist." He stated his
assumption that the interviews would be conducted in a
respectful manner.
MR. SLOTTEE concurred, adding that his firm is "conducting a
fair, independent, and unbiased investigation into the policies
and practices of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation Board of
Trustees and nothing more."
5:43:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK made a motion as follows:
I move that under Alaska Statute 24.20.201(a)(2), the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee issue subpoenas
to the following members as part of its investigation
into the processes adopted and followed by the Board
of Trustees of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
in its evaluation of the executive director of the
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, including the Board
of Trustees' termination of Angela Rodell as executive
director of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation by
the Board of Trustees of the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation.
Those subpoenas would be issued to the trustees:
Craig Richards, Chair; Lucinda Mahoney; [William]
"Bill" ... Moran; Steve Rieger; Corri Feige; [and]
Ethan Schutt.
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation management: Valerie
Mertz, Marcus Frampton, Chad Brown, and Paulyn
Swanson.
And then Department of Revenue legislative liaison to
... Commissioner Mahoney, Genevieve Wojtusik.
Also for documents requested but still outlined,
records custodian for the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation, for the production of records to be
determined by outside counsel, [and] records
custodians for executive agencies of the State of
Alaska for the production of records to be determined
by outside counsel.
CHAIR VON IMHOF asked if there was any objection.
5:44:41 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 5:44 p.m. to 5:46 p.m.
5:46:05 PM
CHAIR VON IMHOF noted that there had been a motion and that
Senator Micciche had a comment to make.
5:46:20 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE pointed out that the motion stated that
subpoenas will be issued, and as he hopes that will not be
necessary, he recommended a change from "shall" to "may" to
allow subpoenas to be issued if the hoped for cooperation is not
attained.
5:47:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN said he strongly agrees with Senator
Micciche. He opined that "we came in a little strong on the
first interview"; therefore, he suggested the need "to leave a
little pressure relief valve." He indicated he liked [the idea
to switch from "shall" to "may"].
5:47:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK reminded everyone that at a previous
meeting, the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee had given
the chair authority [to request those who did not willingly give
interviews to be subpoenaed]. He added, "As a matter of
formality, we thought that it would be proper to go ahead and
name the names." He talked about not wanting to subpoena people
but ensuring the subpoena process is available and granted. He
expressed a desire to remove his original motion and restate a
motion.
CHAIR VON IMHOF asked for the input of Ms. Wallace regarding the
switch from "shall" to "may."
5:48:46 PM
MS. WALLACE suggested that either the motion could be withdrawn
or amended - whichever the committee feels would be clearer for
the public.
5:49:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked whether changing from "shall" to
"may" would require secondary action by the committee in order
to issue subpoenas or whether the attorneys would still have the
authority to issue subpoenas on behalf of the Legislative Budget
and Audit Committee.
5:49:38 PM
MS. WALLACE illuminated that the motion made authorizes the
issuance of the subpoenas, and it takes a separate action to
serve those subpoenas on the witnesses to compel their
attendance. She clarified, "The action of authorizing the
subpoenas does not bind the committee or the investigator to
actually hand those over to the witnesses that you've listed
unless the investigator determines that that's necessary. And I
certainly would yield to Mr. Slottee or Mr. Tricky if they have
a different view of that."
5:50:34 PM
MR. TRICKEY responded, "No, I would agree with that."
5:50:39 PM
CHAIR VON IMHOF said the motion would be restated. She said
that with the word "may," the motion allows a two-step process.
She reviewed that the committee would sign subpoenas today, and
Mr. Tricky, Mr. Slottee, and their team may or may not serve the
subpoenas depending on the response of those on the list. She
further reviewed that the committee does not have to reconvene
in order to give the firm permission to serve the subpoenas
because "the motion today covers that." She asked Ms. Wallace,
"Can you please confirm?"
5:51:19 PM
MS. WALLACE clarified that her statement was to the original
motion. She asked Representative Tuck to confirm the exact
verbiage of the original motion, in particular whether it used
the word "shall" or "will" before "authorize."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered that the motion did not state
"shall," "may," or "will"; rather, he had moved that "the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee issue subpoenas."
MS. WALLACE responded that the motion that was stated for the
committee to issue subpoenas grants the explicit authorization
from the committee to issue and serve subpoenas to the witnesses
that have been identified. She suggested the word "authorizing"
could be used in place of "issuing." She concluded that the
committee wants to take official action to authorize the use of
subpoenas in the investigation, and she clarified that the
authorization of subpoenas today does not compel that they will
automatically be used unless necessary.
5:53:11 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE asked for confirmation that the word "may"
would not change that outcome; the committee would be "providing
the authorization but they [the subpoenas] may or may not be
issued."
5:53:29 PM
MS. WALLACE requested a brief at-ease.
5:53:38 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 5:53 p.m. to 5:56 p.m.
5:55:50 PM
CHAIR VON IMHOF recapped that the conversation taking place
addresses whether the motion is clear in its intent "to provide
the flexibility and option for the counsel to use the subpoenas
or not and allow them to make that judgement call." She asked
Mr. Slottee to comment.
MR. SLOTTEE, in response, reiterated the process of eliciting
voluntary interviews and following up with subpoenas if
unsuccessful.
CHAIR VON IMHOF further reviewed that the committee was creating
the motion to have the subpoenas passed and signed today in
order to hand them over to counsel to use at its discretion.
She asked if that is correct.
MR. SLOTTEE answered, "Madam Chair, that is my understanding,
yes."
5:57:02 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE expressed the need for restating the original
motion, which he said he would support. He emphasized that this
is a big step and serious issue, and he is hoping that subpoenas
will not have to be issued.
5:57:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said she thinks it has been made clear
there is consensus that voluntary participation is ideal but
that the subpoena authority is in place, if subpoenas are
needed, in order to conduct a timely investigation.
5:58:33 PM
CHAIR VON IMHOF asked Representative Tuck to "repeat the motion
in its entirety."
5:58:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK made the motion as follows:
I move that under Alaska Statutes 24.20.201(a)(2), the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee issue subpoenas
to the following persons as part of its investigation
into the processes adopted and followed by the Board
of Trustees of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
in its evaluation of the executive director of the
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, including the Board
of Trustees' termination of Angela Rodell as executive
director of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation by
the Board of Trustees of the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation.
We have the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
trustees: Craig Richards, Chair; Lucinda Mahoney,
[Vice Chair]; [William] "Bill" ... Moran; Steve
Rieger; Corri Feige; and Ethan Schutt.
The Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation management:
Valerie Mertz, the CEO and Acting Executive Director;
Marcus Frampton, the Chief Investment Officer; Chad
Brown, Human Resources; Paulyn Swanson, the
Communications Manager; and then the Department of
Revenue legislative liaison to ... Commissioner
Mahoney, Genevieve Wojtusik.
Also for documents requested but still outlined, the
records custodian for the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation, for the production of records to be
determined by outside counsel, [and] records ...
custodians for executive agencies of the ... State of
Alaska for the production of records to be determined
by outside counsel.
6:00:16 PM
CHAIR VON IMHOF asked if there was any objection. [No objection
was stated.] There being no objection, she announced the motion
had passed unanimously. She asked Senator Micciche, as Senate
President; Representative Stutes, as Speaker of the House; and
Representative Tuck, as Vice Chair of the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee to remain in the room to sign the subpoenas.
She thanked those who had taken part during the meeting.
6:00:52 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee meeting was adjourned at
6:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 3 15 22 LBA Agenda final.pdf |
JBUD 3/15/2022 5:00:00 PM |
Agenda final |
| 3.1.22 DOL to Outside Counsel to LBA.pdf |
JBUD 3/15/2022 5:00:00 PM |
DOL Schwabe LBA Letter 3.1.22 |