Legislature(1999 - 2000)
12/08/1999 09:00 AM Senate PRI
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
COMMISSION ON PRIVATIZATION AND DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Anchorage, Alaska
December 8, 1999
9:00 a.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Ward, Co-Chair
Representative Cowdery, Co-Chair
Senator Adams
Mike Harper, President, Kuskokwim Corporation (via teleconference)
Tom Fink, Former Mayor of Anchorage
Emil Notti
Kathryn Thomas, Former Chair of Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
George Wuerch, Alaska Municipal League
Bill Allen, Former Mayor of Fairbanks (via teleconference)
Don Valesko, Business Manager of Public Employees Local 71
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Brice
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Discussion and adoption of recommendations.
PREVIOUS ACTION
See Commission on Privatization minutes dated 7/20/99, 8/16/99,
9/20/99, 10/28/99, 11/4/99, 11/10/99, 11/18/99, 11/24/99, 11/30/99,
12/1/99 and 12/7/99.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-24, SIDE A
CO-CHAIR WARD called the Commission on Privatization and Delivery
of Government Services meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. Members
present at the call to order were Representative Cowdery, Senators
Ward and Adams, and Commissioners Fink, Notti, Valesko and Thomas.
CO-CHAIR WARD announced that Commissioner Wuerch will be 40 minutes
late, Commissioner Allen should be arriving at the Fairbanks
Legislative Information Office in ten minutes and Commissioner
Harper will be joining the committee via phone from Aniak. He
noted that Representative Brice will not be present at today's
meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
FORMER GOVERNOR BILL SHEFFIELD, Chief Executive Officer of the
Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC), made the following comments to
the Commission.
ARRC provides a good example of how state entities that operate as
private businesses can save the state money. ARRC is already
privatized with state ownership of all shares of the corporation.
ARRC is a self sustaining, self performing asset that does not
require ongoing operation or capital state subsidies other than the
$22.7 million needed for its purchase and the $10 million used for
start-up money. ARRC employees do not participate in the state
retirement and benefits system and they are not on the state
payroll. In this best case scenario, the state owns a valuable
transportation corridor equaling 36,000 acres of land; about 60
acres per rail mile. Alaska does not have an excess of railroad
land; when a railroad was built across the western United States
many years ago, states received about 7,000 acres per rail mile.
ARRC is the only full-service railroad in the nation operating both
freight and passenger services.
Under state ownership, the state has the ability to expand the rail
line system with federal government assistance for resource
development. Under private ownership, these grants would not be
available for capital programs and upgrades. Privatization would
jeopardize ARRC's ability to use federal grant money and, to a
certain extent, money would have to be returned to the federal
government.
The subcommittee's report on privatizing ARRC begs answers to
several questions. Why sell a performing asset in an important
transportation corridor and, in the process, endanger important
user groups and businesses that serve Alaskans? Putting ARRC
through the process of seeking potential buyers will bring much
uncertainty to its operations and capital developments and will
inhibit business. It is better to have employees worry about
serving customers than losing their jobs. If ARRC customers become
concerned about its longevity, they will question the stability of
their long term contracts. They may become less likely to invest
capital to expand their operations if they cannot depend on ARRC
for reliable transportation. According to Jeff Cook of Williams
Energy, "The uncertainty regarding ownership of the Alaska Railroad
could have been a real factor in our decision to invest $60 million
for our refinery expansion and the discussions today certainly have
an impact on our future decisions."
MR. SHEFFIELD repeated that federal grants will become jeopardized
and non-existent. An RFP process will cost ARRC between $500,000
to $1 million to implement, plus employee time. ARRC does not have
a large staff available to solicit proposals for one year, as the
subcommittee recommended it do.
No one has really defined the intent behind privatization of ARRC
and the consequences of private ownership. Public support to keep
ARRC as a state asset is high. Its sale could result in non-Alaska
control of a valuable transportation corridor. Stipulations will
have to be placed on companies bidding for ARRC. He questioned
whether potential buyers will be required to continue passenger
service on the Hurricane Turn whistle stop or shuttle service to
Whittier and what the state will gain or lose by selling ARRC. He
pointed out the subcommittee never looked at those questions to
determine whether selling ARRC is in the best interest of all
Alaskans.
MR. SHEFFIELD offered to answer questions and informed
Commissioners that Mr. Binkley was also present to answer
questions.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY commented that Mr. Sheffield's statement - to get
the railroad built through the West, a lot of land went along with
it - is a true statement but that was then and not now. Most of
the railroad sales that have taken place in recent years are bought
for the transportation deeds. It is his understanding that when
Mr. Denny Washington was interested in buying the Alaska Railroad,
he was not interested in the land. He pointed out that the
subcommittee recommended requesting proposals for the Alaska
Railroad to see if anyone is interested in buying it. He
emphasized the railroad will not shut down and employees will
probably retain their jobs with a new employer, plus the state
could invest the money from the sale in the Permanent Fund.
MR. JOHNE BINKLEY, Alaska Railroad Corporation, informed
Commissioners that an issue that came to light in a discussion with
Representative James yesterday and with Senator Murkowski is their
joint effort to expand the Alaska Railroad as far East from
existing lines as Fairbanks, North Pole, and Eielsen to link up
with the Canadian railway system. Such an expansion would provide
access to the lower 48 states. Both Senator Murkowski and
Representative James are concerned that legislative action could
jeopardize their ability to secure funds from Congress to implement
this plan. He noted that the Alaska Railroad corridor between the
ice-free tidewater ports of Seward and Whittier, and north through
municipalities, Native corporation lands, state and national parks
and private lands is a unique and valuable transportation corridor.
He stated that selling that transportation corridor is analogous
to selling the Yukon River.
MR. SHEFFIELD asked for permission to respond to Co-Chair Cowdery's
remark.
CO-CHAIR WARD said yes, but clarified that any further dialog about
the ARRC would be among Commission members.
MR. SHEFFIELD told Co-Chair Cowdery that ARRC is doing a lot of
work to improve the asset of the railroad, and it has many capital
improvements planned over the next three to four years. ARRC
cannot continue to work on those improvements if the Legislature
intends to privatize it. Many resolutions in opposition to
privatizing ARRC have been passed around the state, including a
resolution passed three days ago by the Alaska State Chamber of
Commerce. Changes to ARRC will affect tourism, coal shipments,
fuel supply delivery, gravel hauls, passengers and other freight.
50 percent of ARRC's net profit is derived from real estate that
ARRC has leased. No railroad will survive and pay taxes without
land to supplement its diet, and no other railroad will be able to
provide the service that ARRC provides to Alaskans now.
CO-CHAIR WARD thanked Mr. Sheffield and noted that Commissioner
Harper is participating via teleconference from Aniak and
Commissioner Allen is participating via teleconference from
Fairbanks.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS clarified that the only resolution discussed by
the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce was whether ARRC should be
placed under the Executive Branch. Privatization of ARRC is still
fully covered as a position of the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
under its blanket resolution that supports viewing ways to
privatize delivery of government services.
MR. SHEFFIELD said he was not aware of that.
CO-CHAIR WARD thanked Mr. Sheffield and Mr. Binkley for their
comments.
APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES
CO-CHAIR WARD announced that no previous minutes are available for
approval at this time but they will be available at the December 13
meeting.
OLD BUSINESS
MR. PIGNALBERI informed commission members that the University of
Alaska response to Items I through X of the report outline has not
been received yet.
NEW BUSINESS
CO-CHAIR COWDERY asked Commissioner Thomas to speak to the
legislative proposal she brought forward the previous day.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS said the recommendation that she put together
and placed before the commission was intended to be a broad-based
recommendation to encompass several problems that she encountered
with the subcommittees when developing recommendations for the
departments. She found that the subcommittees lacked the
management tools to be able to identify the costs of activities and
to identify the management cost of performing activities. As a
result, she reviewed reports of several privatization efforts that
have come to the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce. She drafted a
recommendation from the Commission to the Legislature for action to
enable the commission to start compiling the information it needs
to make evaluations in the future, and to provide for a body to
make recommendations and decisions for the commission. She
believes this recommendation will provide an opportunity for the
commission to put state budgets in a format that will not only
provide the cost of an activity but will also allow for
accountability to the citizens of Alaska. Another concern
expressed by the subcommittees was the way some costs are being
attributed to different functions. The establishment of an
independent audit committee to respond to a Commission charged with
reviewing the costs of every government activity and service would
probably fill the gap and ensure that costs are properly accounted
for. She pointed out that although the document she distributed to
Commissioners is three pages long, some of the text consists of an
explanation of why these separate components are so important to
the Commission in establishing the costs of government. She asked
Commissioners to consider supporting the formation of an Alaskan
Operational Government Commission.
CO-CHAIR WARD asked Commissioners Harper and Allen if they had
copies of Commissioner Thomas' proposal. Both answered
affirmatively.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY maintained that over 300 people have volunteered
in this effort, over 150 subcommittee meetings have been held, and
a tremendous amount of work has been involved. He thought the
creation of a commission to carry this effort forward, similar to
commissions in Minnesota and Arkansas, is in order. He said he has
had no thoughts on the make-up of such a commission at this point.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY acknowledged that the state is looking at a $500
million budget shortfall, and that Alaska needs to look at what
services can be eliminated or improved. He stated his strong
support for Commissioner Thomas' proposal.
COMMISSIONER FINK said, in his opinion, the legislative proposal is
too long and he thinks it should be added to the appendix of the
executive summary in "bullet" form. He cautioned that people will
not read a long document.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS shortened the proposal to ask Commissioners to
draft a proposal to the Legislature, recommending it establish by
statute an Alaska Operational Government Commission authorized to
recommend, audit and update an operational plan to: identify
service costs; establish a cost-based accounting system - a
"popular" budget; create an independent government audit committee;
and hire staff. She also moved that the Commission ask that all of
its subcommittee reports be reviewed by the new commission to
provide it with a mechanism to use to go forward.
MR. PIGNALBERI repeated the motion for Commissioners.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY moved to adopt the proposal. COMMISSIONER THOMAS
seconded the motion.
COMMISSIONER ALLEN moved to amend the motion to insert, before the
word "audit," the words "performance and financial."
There being no objection to Commissioner Allen's amendment, CO-
CHAIR WARD announced the motion carried.
COMMISSIONER VALESKO moved to amend the legislative proposal to
request that funding be included so that the new commission can
operate properly.
CO-CHAIR WARD objected for the reason that he believes the
Legislature has the ability to appropriate money once it has
determined the criteria, and that the funding issue should be a
legislative prerogative.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY also objected, and said he does not believe that
future legislatures can be bound to fund the commission.
COMMISSIONER VALESKO said he is not proposing that this Commission
bind another legislature; he is proposing that if this Commission
is going to ask the legislature to enact a statute, it also ask
that the appropriate funds be provided by the legislature so that
it can perform the job it was asked to do. He pointed out that if
the Commission recommends to the legislature that it enact a law
but says that no cost is attached, it will be creating a paper
tiger.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS indicated that she has reviewed many
privatization reports from around the country, and in all fairness
to Commissioner Valesko's membership, part of her concern is
providing an activity-based cost system so that employees can step
to the plate and manage competition in a fair manner. She
cautioned that no commission will ever know what level of
management is being charged to each activity unless the budget
system is revised. She pointed out that:
One thing that became very evident as I researched this over
the last few months is that, in most cases, by starting to
identify the costs and re-evaluating where management
positions and money is going to be spent - or being spent -
that those savings started helping fund efforts like this. So
I can understand your concern but I think that we would find
within a very short time we would have a more extensive
management tool to handle our budget and to identify our
costs, and this is the only way I know that your employees are
going to have -- or your members are going to have an
opportunity to participate very fully in the process.
COMMISSIONER FINK contended that the proposal is too elaborate. He
noted he could buy the idea of a continuing commission for
privatization and he believes the proposal would work for private
industry but, because it involves government, it will just set up a
new bureaucracy. He cautioned that governments and bureaucracies
grow and protect themselves and each other. He said he prefers the
formation of a short term commission next year or would support the
continuation of the existing commission, but he does not favor
establishing a permanent commission.
COMMISSIONER ALLEN commended Commissioner Thomas on the work she
has done and stated he believes she is on the right track. He
suggested that CO-CHAIR WARD appoint three to five people to look
at this proposal in more depth.
CO-CHAIR WARD interjected to clarify that an amendment to include a
funding mechanism in the proposal is on the table at this time.
COMMISSIONER HARPER also commended Commissioner Thomas for her
efforts but stated he believes recommending the creation of another
bureaucracy is not the right message to send. He was excited about
participating on the Commission because he saw it as an opportunity
for private citizens to volunteer to give their best shot at this
effort and then to leave.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY stated his support for the continuation of the
Commission. He pointed out that other states have used a similar
approach and that their commissions are operating in their fifth
and sixth years. He added that when the legislation to create the
Commission on Privatization was enacted, the legislature realized
that the Commission would not have enough time to do all of the
work that it was charged with. He repeated his support for
continuing the existence of the Commission and, regarding funding,
he does not feel it is fair to his or Co-Chair Ward's staff to be
expected to do all of the work.
COMMISSIONER VALESKO clarified that his amendment was that the
Commission recommend that a request for the proper funding be
submitted to the legislature. He maintained that he speaks for all
members of the AFL-CIO and said:
In general I believe, when you put it out there to
competition, you give my -- if you want to speak to my
members a chance to compete, we've been there before. We've
gone to competition on the Haul Road and came in $2 million
cheaper than the private sector on a $7 million bid for
maintaining the Haul Road. I know we can compete. I know
what my members can do. They are experienced. They have the
ability out there to do it so when we looked at it in that
context, as far as what this committee is recommending, it is
recommending that we go forward with the Commission, I believe
we've got to be up front and also say recommend that the
legislature appropriate the necessary money to do so.
CO-CHAIR WARD informed Commissioners a motion to amend the proposal
is before the Commission. He announced the Commission would take
an at-ease for ten minutes to work on revised language.
SENATOR ADAMS said he believes, from listening to comments made by
Commissioners, the original motion will fail. He maintained that
the legislature acts as the Alaska Operational Governance
Commission. He pointed out that legislative finance committee
members take care of the budget and that a legislative audit agency
already exists. He stated the Commission is going in the wrong
direction.
CO-CHAIR WARD said he does not disagree with Senator Adams that the
original motion will fail as is which is the reason Commissioner
Thomas asked for a ten minute recess.
The Commission took an at-ease.
CO-CHAIR WARD called the Commission back to order and noted
Commissioners Allen and Harper were on-line.
COMMISSIONER VALESKO withdrew his amendment to the recommendation
put forth by Commissioner Thomas.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY withdrew his motion to adopt Commissioner Thomas'
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS moved to adopt a revised recommendation that
reads:
The legislature shall consider an ongoing effort on the
delivery of government services in the most cost effective
manner with consideration for providing the public and private
sectors with a means to participate and provide the
information in her previous recommendation in the appendix.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY seconded the motion.
COMMISSIONER FINK asked that the motion be re-read.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS read:
The Legislature consider an ongoing effort on the delivery of
government services in the most effective and cost efficient
manner with consideration for providing the public and private
sectors with a method to have available the information in the
appendix.
SENATOR ADAMS expressed concern about selling this proposal to the
legislature. He suggested extending the termination date of the
existing Commission for three months so that Commissioners can
participate in Juneau and determine whether the establishment of a
new Commission is a viable option.
CO-CHAIR WARD asked if Senator Adams is proposing his suggestion as
an amendment.
SENATOR ADAMS said he is not, he just wanted to see how other
Commissioners feel about the idea.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY expressed support for Senator Adams' suggestion
because he believes the most effective sales people of this idea
are the current Commissioners.
SENATOR ADAMS said his thought is that if Commissioners are
concerned about an extension, he would like to see them lobby
legislators for its continuation. He pointed out the Commission
expires at the end of December.
TAPE 99-24, SIDE B
COMMISSIONER THOMAS remarked that she does not want to see a
disjointed effort made toward the privatization effort every one or
two years. She does not believe that will serve the state well and
she would like to see something that will transcend different
election cycles so that the Commission can provide some good
information. She noted that she does not have a personal problem
with continuing the current Commission but she would hate to see
the current effort come to a screeching halt with no way for the
effort to go forward, and then have the effort move in a different
direction at a later time. She pointed out the State of Alaska has
seen many such efforts that did not tie together and resulted in
volumes of material being printed and sitting idle on bookshelves.
CO-CHAIR WARD asserted that Commissioner Thomas' motion will put
those concerns squarely before the legislature for its
consideration. He pointed out that the presiding officers of the
legislature can extend the existing Commission on January 10 if
they choose to go that route.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY said he understood the intent of Senator Adams'
suggestion to be to allow the current Commissioners to participate
in Juneau with their titles of "commissioner" rather than to allow
the Commission to carry on as it has been.
CO-CHAIR WARD replied that he concurs with that effort and he
expects many subcommittee members will participate in Juneau as
well.
COMMISSIONER ALLEN felt Commissioners were discussing two issues:
continuance and procedure. He thought Commissioner Thomas'
recommendation "hits the target" regarding procedure. He agreed
that if a different group picks up where this Commission left off,
at least a procedure will have been developed for that group to
follow. He suggested that both continuance and procedure be
addressed in the executive report.
COMMISSIONER VALESKO asked that the motion be reread.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS contended that Senator Adams' suggestion to
extend the Commission for three months would give members time to
deliberate future efforts.
SENATOR ADAMS said Commissioners are very close to making that
motion and he asked that Commissioner Thomas' motion be read one
more time.
ANNETTE DEAL, staff to Co-Chair Cowdery, read:
That the legislature consider ongoing efforts to the delivery
of government services in the most effective and cost
efficient manner with consideration for providing the public
and private citizens with a manner to have available
information in the appendix.
CO-CHAIR WARD asked if there is objection to the adoption of the
motion.
COMMISSIONER VALESKO said amendments may be forthcoming because the
motion brings the entire appendix into the record and there may be
parts of the appendix that all Commissioners do not agree should
be included.
COMMISSIONER FINK noted he plans to move one part of the appendix
that Commissioner Valesko does not like.
SENATOR ADAMS suggested that Commissioners accept the motion and
change the wording of the final report at a later date if problems
occur.
CO-CHAIR WARD stated the Commission has a conceptual motion before
it and asked if any Commissioner objects to its adoption.
COMMISSIONER FINK said the problem might be solved if Commissioner
Thomas' motion included the words "along the lines" of the
appendix.
CO-CHAIR WARD agreed.
COMMISSIONER VALESKO noted the part that is most bothersome to him
is the section that recommends opening up the Public Employees
Relations Act (PERA). He expressed concern that by agreeing to the
motion on the table he will later have to get the other
Commissioners to agree to remove that language.
COMMISSIONER FINK thought Commissioner Thomas was asking for
direction for the kind of information she wants and he has no
problem with that. He said he would not think Commissioner Valesko
would either, although he might object to part of it.
COMMISSIONER VALESKO clarified that he is concerned that by voting
in favor of the motion he will be voting to amend PERA and, if so,
he will have to vote against it.
CO-CHAIR WARD said no, Commissioner Valesko would be voting to
allow Commissioner Thomas' motion to be considered. CO-CHAIR WARD
announced that with no objection, the motion carried. CO-CHAIR
WARD noted the motion would be addressed at the next meeting.
SENATOR ADAMS moved to recommend that the legislature issue an RFP
for the purchase and operation of the ARRC. AN UNIDENTIFIED
COMMISSIONER seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion.
SENATOR ADAMS advised that he made the motion so that the
Commission can get the issue on or off of the table. He noted that
he is opposed to the sale of ARRC because he believes it is a
viable function of Alaska's development and because he is
interested in the Canadian link and the Seward and Anchorage
airport expansion. He also noted ARRC is able to receive federal
funds. SENATOR ADAMS commented that the Alaska State Chamber of
Commerce has opposed any legislative action or action by the
Administration that would diminish the ARRC's ability to continue
operating in its current way.
COMMISSIONER FINK said he favors the Commission going on record in
support of the sale of ARRC. He thought it will take several years
to sell ARRC and that the resolution produced by the subcommittee
was very good. He asked if Senator Adams' motion includes the
subcommittee's entire proposal of four recommendations.
SENATOR ADAMS answered yes.
COMMISSIONER FINK stated he does not object to the motion.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH spoke in opposition to the motion for the
reason that, for the short term, Alaska's congressional delegation
will be able to secure substantial federal funds for ARRC which
would be lost if ARRC were privately owned. In addition, Anchorage
is on the threshold of seeing major improvements that will benefit
all Alaskans, such as the airport and Ship Creek development.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY asked if, when the state bought ARRC, it was
supposed to consider it for privatization every five years.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH said it was originally.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY asked if the motion will recommend that an RFP be
issued to establish a value of ARRC. He repeated that if ARRC is
eventually sold, he will be a strong proponent of putting that
money into the Permanent Fund.
COMMISSIONER FINK stated, in response to Commissioner Wuerch's
comment, that the subcommittee's recommendation will take several
years to implement. For example, the land ARRC should give up will
have to be determined before it is sold. He pointed out the
subcommittee approached Mr. Washington, a prospective buyer, who
said he did not want to discuss the sale until a decision to sell
is made.
COMMISSIONER VALESKO said he believes the motion contains the first
recommendation of the ARRC subcommittee, and not recommendations 2,
3, and 4.
CO-CHAIR WARD clarified that Senator Adams wanted all four
recommendations on the table.
SENATOR ADAMS said he included all four recommendations because he
does not want to take a piecemeal approach.
COMMISSIONER FINK repeated that if the motion is passed by the
Commission and the legislature acts on it in January, it will take
at least two years to sell any land.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS informed Commission members that she attended
all meetings of the ARRC subcommittee and she brought two items to
Commissioners' attention. The subcommittee spent a lot of time
considering how much state liability is involved with ARRC and
whether ARRC assets are being maximized. The issue of selling land
to the leaseholders was also given a fair amount of consideration.
She asked Commissioner Wuerch to comment on the reason the
Municipality of Anchorage would not want that land as part of its
tax base. She also asked Senator Adams to consider removing
recommendation 4, regarding the vegetation control program, from
his motion because she believes that issue is of separate
importance.
SENATOR ADAMS maintained that he presented his motion as a package
and that Commissioner Thomas could make a separate motion regarding
recommendation 4 if she wished to do so.
COMMISSIONER NOTTI spoke in opposition to the motion because he
believes in the importance of extending the railroad into Canada as
the residents of the Yukon River need freight rate reductions. He
noted he would hate to see federal money get "stopped up" by
uncertainty.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH explained, in response to Commissioner Thomas'
question, that the Municipality of Anchorage has struggled for the
past 15 years to attract private sector sponsorship for
developments in the Ship Creek area and it would be beneficial to
have some investment there that would provide a tax base. He has
come to the conclusion it is not possible at this time. He would
like to see development happen under public ownership of ARRC and,
at a future date, sell the improved property to provide for a tax
base. Second, he has been frustrated that herbicides are not used
in this state, and in his travels around this country and others,
he believes ARRC is grossly underestimating the true impact of
contaminated ballast to Alaska's railroad system. He thinks ARRC's
estimate of the cost of not using herbicides is very conservative
but he felt the herbicide issue is a legislative one.
COMMISSIONER ALLEN stated this issue is important to the city of
Fairbanks and that he has taken a "hands off" approach toward the
issue of privatizing ARRC over the years. He indicated he plans to
oppose the motion for several reasons. Fishing for values in
determining what an asset is worth is an expensive ordeal for both
the seller and potential buyers, especially when there is no
definite plan to liquidate the asset. In addition, he agrees with
Mr. Sheffield that it is terribly demoralizing to ARRC employees to
have this question continue to surface every year. He repeated
that the railroad is very important to Fairbanks. Fairbanks has a
$10 to $15 billion project on the horizon with the construction of
the national missile defense system, and the extension of the
railroad from Ft. Greeley to Eielson Air Force Base is important to
that project. He agreed with Commissioner Notti that Alaskans need
more options for freight delivery, most certainly to the Interior.
An infrastructure is necessary for resource development and
getting products to market has hamstrung that development. He felt
ARRC is analogous to the Alaska Marine Highway System which he
believes should be kept in state ownership. He respectfully
requested Commissioners to oppose the motion.
COMMISSIONER HARPER called for the question.
CO-CHAIR WARD asked Co-Chair Cowdery to make one last comment.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY said the comments made imply that if ARRC was to
be sold, it would be torn up and cease to exist as a railroad which
he does not believe would be the case. He noted that any sale
contract could require that ARRC employees be retained or be given
the first right of refusal. He added that the RFP could stipulate
that if the purchaser ceases operations, ownership will revert to
the state. He repeated that approval of the motion will only
recommend to the legislature that it approve a request for
proposals.
CO-CHAIR WARD moved to amend the motion to replace the language to
read:
The Privatization Task Force recommends to the Legislature
that it consider placing the Alaska Railroad under the
Executive Budget Act.
COMMISSIONER FINK asked Co-Chair Ward to consider putting that
language forward as a separate motion as he will have to vote
against it but would have supported the original motion.
CO-CHAIR WARD explained that he was attempting to find some common
ground. He remarked that rather than recommend that an RFP be
issued, he thinks one year should be spent collecting information
to determine whether or not ARRC should be sold.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY seconded the motion.
SENATOR ADAMS commented that he believes ARRC is working well under
its current system. He would have agreed with its sale five years
ago, but now sees it as a viable engine of the state.
CO-CHAIR WARD clarified that his amendment replaces Senator Adams'
language to adopt the subcommittee's four recommendations with the
following language:
The Privatization Commission recommends to the legislature
that it consider placing the Alaska Railroad Corporation under
the Executive Budget Act.
The motion failed with Co-Chair Ward and Commissioners Notti and
Thomas voting "yea," and Senator Adams, Co-Chair Cowdery,
Commissioners Allen, Fink, Harper, Valesko and Wuerch voting "nay."
CO-CHAIR WARD asked Senator Adams to repeat his motion.
SENATOR ADAMS clarified that his motion is that the legislature
shall issue an RFP for the purchase or operating lease of the
Alaska Railroad and the other three items contained in the
subcommittee's report pertaining to the ARRC. [Those items are: 2)
the ARRC shall offer to sell land presently leased to leaseholders
to the leaseholders for fair market value; 3) the ARRC shall offer
to sell for fair market value all land that is non-essential to
railroad operations and is non-revenue generating; and 4) the ARRC
shall implement a vegetation control program including use of
herbicides.]
The motion failed with Co-Chairs Ward and Cowdery and Commissioners
Fink and Thomas voting "yea," and Senator Adams, Commissioners
Allen, Harper, Notti, Valesko and Wuerch voting "nay."
COMMISSIONER THOMAS asked Commissioners to consider adopting, as a
recommendation, the ARRC's fourth recommendation which read, "The
Alaska Railroad shall implement a vegetation control program
including use of herbicides." COMMISSIONER THOMAS explained that
this recommendation was very important to members of the
subcommittee.
AN UNIDENTIFIED COMMISSIONER seconded the motion.
SENATOR ADAMS objected.
COMMISSIONER ALLEN asked that ARRC staff educate Commissioners on
this issue as he does not feel knowledgeable enough to cast a vote.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS explained the subcommittee felt ARRC needs
public support and the support of the Commission to use herbicides
to control vegetation around the railbed.
CO-CHAIR WARD noted ARRC supports the herbicide recommendation.
COMMISSIONER VALESKO asked that ARRC officials verify their support
of this recommendation.
CO-CHAIR WARD said ARRC representatives expressed their support at
the subcommittee level.
COMMISSIONER HARPER called for the question.
The motion carried with Co-Chairs Ward and Cowdery and
Commissioners Allen, Fink, Harper, Notti, Thomas, Valesko, and
Wuerch voting "yea," and Senator Adams voting "nay."
CO-CHAIR COWDERY moved to place the Alaska Railroad Corporation
under the Executive Budget Act.
CO-CHAIR WARD noted that motion was previously defeated.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY said he thought Commissioners could make
individual recommendations, and he thought the previous motion was
a group recommendation.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH asked for a ruling of the Chair. He noted the
previous motion was supposed to have been substantive so by voting
against substitution, "we don't necessarily reach the conclusion we
voted against the idea." He said he would prefer to bring it back
to the table as a stand-alone motion.
CO-CHAIR WARD ruled that the motion can be placed before the
Commission again.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY maintained that placing ARRC under the Executive
Budget Act will reduce frustrations because ARRC's books will be
available for review which will allow verification of ARRC's plans
of future projects. He noted the Department of Transportation is
under the Executive Budget Act and was able to plan ahead and
secure funding for the airport expansion. He maintained there is
no reason the legislature should not be able to open up ARRC's
books to see, in detail, exactly where the money goes from the top
executive level to the lowest paid employees. He pointed out that
financial statements do not show that kind of detailed information
so he believes putting ARRC under the Executive Budget Act would
help it. He said he cannot see any downside to such a change.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH asked that the Commission be given some
background information on how the other state-owned corporations
operate, such as the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) and
the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), and
whether ARRC's operations differ.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY asked Senator Adams if AHFC and AIDEA fall under
the Executive Budget Act.
SENATOR ADAMS reminded Co-Chair Ward that a motion is on the table.
CO-CHAIR WARD asked for a roll call vote. The motion carried with
Commissioners Fink, Notti, Thomas, Wuerch, and Co-Chairs Ward and
Cowdery voting "yea," and Commissioners Allen, Harper, Valesko and
Senator Adams voting "nay."
CO-CHAIR WARD asked Commissioners if they have any recommendations
they would like the full Commission to consider.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH noted he reviewed the recommendations
considered by the Commission on the previous day. He emphasized
that he is concerned that one of his proposed recommendations did
not make the "short list," that being Recommendation 5 put forth by
the Department of Administration which relates to privatization of
the state telephone system. He pointed out that an interagency
billing process is used for that system whereby departments are
billed at the rate of about 25 cents per minute for long distance
telephone calls. He believes that the true cost of providing
government telephone and data transmission services have not been
correctly identified because the process is so amorphous that no
one has a good handle on what the real costs are. He indicated if
the state is able to put the system up for competitive bid, it
should know what the true costs are. He noted that with a rapidly
changing technical environment and deregulation of telephone
services throughout the nation, Alaska is trailing the nation in
privatizing telephone services. He reported that Anchorage and
Fairbanks have cost-free municipally owned telephone service and he
believes privatization of the state system is a move in the right
direction.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH moved to adopt Recommendation 5 of the
Department of Administration subcommittee's report. COMMISSIONER
FINK seconded the motion.
SENATOR ADAMS noted that he intended to offer a motion recommending
that the State of Alaska develop an overall plan in the area of
business-oriented technology with the intent of privatizing that
technology and improving efficiency and services to the public.
COMMISSIONER VALESKO asked if this recommendation is a duplication
of something that has already been done since the Department of
Administration has issued a request for proposals for its
communications system.
TAPE 99-25, SIDE A
COMMISSIONER FINK commented, "Mr. Adams' number one recommendation
- if it does mean to privatize that whole area, it seems like it's
much more broad than yours. I would like for it to cover all these
other things." He said that it is unclear to him whether Senator
Adams' motion recommends privatization or recommends that a study
be performed. He asked if the recommendation could be amended to
include all other areas of technology for privatization.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH said that is his intention as he believes that
will provide more incentive for the private sector to invest in
remote areas of the state, especially with the shift of
communication functions to the Internet. Currently, the private
sector only has a small portion of the market consisting of the
entertainment portion and some telephone service. The government
shelters a huge communications bill from the private sector.
Commissioner Wuerch agreed with Commissioner Fink that the entire
spectrum should be looked at, including radio and emergency panel
service.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH addressed the issue of whether an RFP has
already been issued and noted that all proposals could be refused.
(Indisc. - talking and paper shuffling).
COMMISSIONER VALESKO noted that he met with Commissioner Poe,
Department of Administration (DOA), on this item. He also noted
that Local 71 members who work for the state will be affected by
the fact that the RFP solicits a private entity to take over the
state communications system. To his understanding, the state is the
only provider that has "line of sight" communications between
Kodiak and the mainland. He informed the commission that "they"
are reviewing ways to make effective use of the state system before
it becomes devalued with more private sector communications
companies.
CO-CHAIR WARD asked if there was further discussion on the motion
to adopt Commissioner Wuerch's Recommendation 5.
COMMISSIONER VALESKO objected because he believes an RFP is already
being issued.
Therefore, Commissioner Wuerch's Recommendation 5 was adopted with
one dissenting vote.
CO-CHAIR WARD asked if Commissioners Notti, Allen, and Harper had
any recommendations to place before the commission. All three
commissioners indicated that they did not have anything to bring
before the commission at this time.
CO-CHAIR WARD asked if Commissioner Valesko had anything to bring
before the commission.
COMMISSIONER VALESKO asked if there would be time to bring items
before the commission at a later date.
CO-CHAIR WARD explained that with the full commission's permission,
he intends to complete the commission's business at the end of
business today. At that point, staff will be instructed to place
this information in a finalized document to be delivered to the
commissioners this Friday. The final report will be taken up on
December 13, 1999 and, if necessary, on December 14, 1999. He
specified that during the December 13 meeting, everything would
remain before the commission. Co-Chair Ward announced that now
would be the appropriate time to bring items before the commission.
COMMISSIONER VALESKO moved that the commission adopt his
Recommendation 2 which reads: "Any privatization efforts must
ensure that there is a substantial and guaranteed cost savings to
the state on an immediate and long-term basis."
COMMISSIONER FINK asked whether the language "substantial and
guaranteed" is necessary. He agreed that any privatization effort
must ensure cost savings.
COMMISSIONER VALESKO said that he would be willing to amend his
recommendation to read: "Any privatization efforts must ensure
that there is a cost savings to the state on an immediate and long-
term basis."
CO-CHAIR WARD asked if there was objection to the amendment to
Recommendation 2. There being no objection to the amendment, it
was adopted.
The motion to adopt Commissioner Valesko's Recommendation 2 as
amended was before the commission. There being no objection,
Recommendation 2 as amended was adopted.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY stated staff cannot develop a professional
document by Friday.
CO-CHAIR WARD commented that the commission will have follow-up
time. He said that he talked with the staff who realize that the
commission needs a draft by December 13, 1999.
SENATOR ADAMS noted that he submitted 11 items to the commission.
He then expressed the need for some portion of the report to
provide for accountability for privatization and gave
Recommendation 11 as an example. That recommendation states:
"It's imperative that the state functions that are privatized are
viewed regularly to ensure that they're at least as effective as
state-provided services." He pointed to the sex offender program
and the numerous parks around the state as examples of the need for
such a recommendation. He reiterated that there should be some
accountability included in the report in order to show that it has
merit.
COMMISSIONER FINK moved his Recommendation 4 which recommends the
legislature enact a statute that no labor contracts may be entered
into which place limits on privatization. He explained that
numerous subcommittee reports indicate that some labor contracts
prohibit some services from being privatized. Labor groups will
always want such a provision in the contract. Commissioner Fink
thought that a law should be passed to affect future contracts and
the renewal of contracts. The law should indicate that labor
contracts should not contain any language which would limit
privatization efforts.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY seconded Commissioner Fink's motion.
COMMISSIONER VALESKO informed the commission that the contracts he
is familiar with contain language requiring the state to do a cost-
efficiency study to illustrate that the work can be performed
cheaper using contract labor versus the state work force. He
acknowledged that the state is burdened with showing that it can
provide the work cheaper, but he felt that is a positive aspect.
Commissioner Valesko pointed out that attempts have been made to
include language in the contracts to require the state to pay the
same wages and benefits as the private sector. During many
administrations, the state has negotiated to exclude such language.
Local 71's current contract includes language that requires the
state to pay the wages for the work specified in the contract, plus
$2.55 in benefits. Such language provides a base for the worth of
the work. Placing limits on the right to negotiate the worth of
the work means that the private sector could pay minimum wage for
work. He stressed that he does not want to be part of a commission
that puts forth a recommendation, such as Commissioner Fink's
Recommendation 4, that would lower the standard of living of
Alaskans. Commissioner Valesko stated his opposition to
Commissioner Fink's Recommendation 4.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY said that he does not believe anyone wants to
lower the standard of living for anyone in the state and he does
not believe Commissioner Fink's Recommendation 4 would do that.
Co-Chair Cowdery informed the commission that when the Knowles'
Administration put the state printing function out to competitive
bid, the labor union sued the Administration. The Administration
had to pay for the bid and the cost of labor's lost wages because
that was a provision of the contract. Co-Chair Cowdery interpreted
Commissioner Fink's Recommendation 4 as the notion that the state
should not negotiate away its right to negotiate with the private
sector.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS informed the commission that she favors
Commissioner Fink's Recommendation 4. She pointed out that
discussing privatization does not necessarily mean that the work
will be awarded to a nonunion entity. Every union employee should
have the opportunity to get the job. Perhaps, the job would merely
move to another union representation. In the ideal world of
privatization, some of these functions could be moved to areas of
the state where there is not much of an economy. She questioned
why vehicle registrations have to be mailed to Anchorage, for
example. Privatization offers many opportunities to provide jobs
in other parts of the state which is why she hates to see such
limitations in labor contracts.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH spoke in favor of Commissioner Fink's
Recommendation 4. He pointed out that the adoption of Commissioner
Valesko's Recommendation 2 placed a limit on privatization efforts.
On the other hand, Commissioner Fink's Recommendation 4 says that
there will be no limits. He suggested amending Recommendation 4 by
replacing the phrase "which place limits on privatization" with
"which prohibits privatization."
COMMISSIONER FINK felt the difficulty with the word "prohibits" is
that many people would argue that something does not actually
prohibit privatization. Commissioner Fink said that he does not
see any conflict in his recommendation and Commissioner Valesko's
Recommendation 2. The labor contract is separate and does not
affect the concept of privatization.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH announced that he has been persuaded that the
language in Commissioner Fink's Recommendation 4 is adequate and he
supports the motion.
COMMISSIONER VALESKO pointed out that the language in Commissioner
Fink's Recommendation 4 does place a limit on privatization.
Commissioner Valesko's Recommendation 2, which specifies that the
state may not privatize work unless a savings can be illustrated,
also places a limit on privatization. Labor and management [with
Commissioner Fink's Recommendation 4] would not be able to discuss
that. He explained, "Under ... the NLRB rules and regulations and
the federal laws, contracts that are entered into, consistently
across this nation - labor and management have entered into
agreements that restrict or have some application to outsourcing
work." This is a level playing field in which labor and management
can discuss their concerns. When one specifies that one cannot
enter into labor contracts which address outsourcing, contracting
out, and privatization, a tremendous amount of unrest and
insecurity is created amongst employees. He explained that the
employees lose job security, which was gained through the
negotiated language. The public sector is left feeling that their
jobs are at risk each time the legislature meets. Commissioner
Valesko felt that production would decrease. He questioned why, if
these protections are included in the national labor laws, the
state would not include such protections in the state labor laws.
COMMISSIONER FINK pointed out that in private labor negotiations,
the management side is limited in what it can give because it must
make a profit. However, during government labor negotiations, a
government manager can agree to something and the taxpayer is stuck
with the bill. Commissioner Fink acknowledged that there are
limits on outsourcing in some nongovernment agreements. However,
it is done within the realm of the bottom line because management
represents its shareholders, who want to keep their jobs. That is
not the case in government, which is why it should not be allowed.
Upon a roll call vote, Commissioners Fink, Harper, Notti, Thomas,
Wuerch, Ward and Cowdery voted in favor of the adoption of
Commissioner Fink's Recommendation 4. Commissioners Allen, Valesko
and Adams voted against the adoption of Commissioner Fink's
Recommendation 4. Commissioner Brice was not present. Therefore,
the motion passed 7 yeas, 3 nays.
COMMISSIONER FINK moved that the committee adopt his Recommendation
5 which states: "Eliminate the Alaska product preferences, the
recyclable preference, and the food products preference." He
explained that the subcommittees that dealt with those preferences
all recommended that they be removed.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY seconded the motion.
SENATOR ADAMS informed the commission that he would be voting
against Commissioner Fink's Recommendation 5 because all of the
preference programs were established to help Alaska businesses.
COMMISSIONER FINK agreed with Senator Adams' assessment regarding
Alaska food products but did not believe that argument is true for
the recyclable preference which costs the state approximately 10
percent more for paper products.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH mentioned that as a past president of the
Alaska Chamber of Commerce, he struggled to get the Buy Alaska
program established therefore he is opposed to this recommendation.
Upon a roll call vote, Commissioners Fink and Cowdery voted in
favor of the adoption of Commissioner Fink's Recommendation 5 and
Commissioners Harper, Notti, Thomas, Valesko, Wuerch, Ward, Adams
and Allen voted against the adoption of Commissioner Fink's
Recommendation 5. Commissioner Brice was not present. The motion
to adopt Commissioner Fink's Recommendation 5 failed with a vote of
2-8.
COMMISSIONER FINK moved that the commission adopt his
Recommendation 6 which reads: "A process must be installed wherein
the legislature reviews and approves any court settlement or
dropping of an appeal by the Administration when the subject matter
is a state policy issue."
CO-CHAIR COWDERY seconded the motion.
COMMISSION FINK pointed out that the Hammond Administration settled
in the Hootch case, which cost the state a lot of money. He also
believes that dropping the subsistence appeal will cost the state
money as well. He commented that this occurs at the local
government level as well. Commissioner Fink acknowledged that
this recommendation will force discussion about what constitutes a
policy issue. He indicated that such tactics, in effect, result in
a law being passed without a law actually being passed.
Commissioner Fink clarified that he was suggesting that if a
lawsuit is filed, the chief administrator of any body could not
settle a policy issue without the legislature's approval.
Otherwise, the chief administrator would have to continue an appeal
until legislative approval is achieved. This does not take any
power from the courts.
SENATOR ADAMS pointed out that Commissioner Fink's Recommendation 6
is a policy question. He believed it will require a legal opinion
because of the balance of power issue between the executive and
judicial branches.
COMMISSIONER VALESKO informed the commission that he would be
voting against Commissioner Fink's Recommendation 6. He noted his
limited knowledge in this area but said he could foresee this issue
reaching into labor agreements and everything in state government.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS commented that although she is basically in
favor of what Commissioner Fink is trying to accomplish, it is
equivalent to the legislature laying odds as to whether the
legislature will win or lose. She also expressed concern about the
wording of Commissioner Fink's Recommendation 6. She suggested
that perhaps the words "a legal settlement" would be more
appropriate than "a court settlement."
COMMISSIONER FINK indicated that Commissioner Thomas' language may
be acceptable. He explained that this does not frustrate the
judicial branch from making its decisions, but rather it will
frustrate the Administration's decision to agree to something
before it goes to the highest court unless the agreement is
approved by the legislature. Recommendation 6 would also stop the
Administration from ending a case on appeal. Commissioner Fink
pointed out that Governor Knowles has agreed not to appeal the
decision that more money has to be spent on schools. Governor
Knowles only received the opinion of one judge as opposed to 60
legislators. That should not be able to happen.
COMMISSIONER NOTTI agreed with Commissioner Fink that some
decisions have been incorrect, as with subsistence. However, he
felt that the set up of a strong executive branch should be left as
such.
COMMISSIONER WUERCH found the idea appealing in many respects but
expressed concern that Recommendation 6 goes beyond the charter of
the commission.
Upon a roll call vote, Commissioners Ward, Cowdery and Fink voted
in favor of the adoption of Commissioner Fink's Recommendation 6
and Commissioners Notti, Thomas, Valesko, Wuerch, Adams, Allen and
Harper voted against it. Commissioner Brice was not in attendance.
Commissioner Fink's Recommendation 6 failed with a vote of 3-7.
COMMISSIONER FINK moved that the commission adopt his
Recommendation 9 which states: "Eliminate any government money to
public radio or TV, endowment for the arts, one percent to the
arts."
CO-CHAIR COWDERY seconded the motion. "I'd like to just point this
one percent for arts, in addition to the international airport -
that's a little over a million dollars that we have to spend out of
that money out there for the arts." Co-Chair Cowdery spoke in
favor of the motion.
COMMISSIONER FINK pointed out that way back when, kings and queens
funded the arts. Although such people do not have that kind of
money now, private people have spent money in this area.
Commissioner Fink stressed that some nonprofit foundations now have
close to a trillion dollars in assets. Such foundations have to
give out about five percent a year. He stated that these nonprofit
foundations will "take up the slack" if they are forced to.
Although the arts are an important part of society, the arts do not
have to be backed by government funds.
SENATOR ADAMS objected to Commissioner Fink's Recommendation 9,
specifically the portion speaking to public radio. He explained
that in Kotzebue, for example, public radio provides more than
entertainment; it also serves as a safety net and communications
link.
COMMISSIONER FINK mentioned that he supported the original public
radio and TV program in the legislature. However, he believes that
today the private sector will cover the entire state with radio and
television. He indicated that having a public broadcast available
reduces the incentive for private enterprise to enter this area.
COMMISSIONER VALESKO expressed opposition to Commissioner Fink's
Recommendation 9 because he believes it is appropriate to mandate a
certain percentage of funds to go towards the arts.
COMMISSIONER NOTTI commented that he could agree with the portion
of the recommendation dealing with the arts, but the remainder is
tied to public safety issues.
Upon a roll call vote, Commissioners Ward, Cowdery and Fink voted
in favor of the adoption of Commissioner Fink's Recommendation 9
and Commissioners Notti, Thomas, Valesko, Wuerch, Adams, Allen and
Harper voted against the adoption of Commissioner Fink's
Recommendation 9. Commissioner Brice was not in attendance.
Commissioner Fink's Recommendation 9 failed with a vote of 3-7.
COMMISSIONER FINK moved that the commission adopt his
recommendation to eliminate any government funding of power cost
equalization.
[The motion was not seconded.]
CO-CHAIR WARD pointed out that the commission was still under
Commissioner Comments and could accept suggestions from commission
members. The commission will not return to reconsiderations and
amendments until the commission has heard all commissioner
comments.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS expressed concern that there are some good
recommendations from the subcommittee reports that no one had the
opportunity to take up. She asked that the fact that some worthy
recommendations could not be addressed be acknowledged in the final
report.
CO-CHAIR WARD clarified that all subcommittee reports will be
highlighted in the final report.
TAPE 99-25, SIDE B
CO-CHAIR COWDERY mentioned that he has already had legislators
contact him regarding areas that have not been covered by the
commission.
CO-CHAIR WARD asked if any commissioner had more new items to
discuss. Co-Chair Ward noted that the commission would address old
items, reconsiderations, and amendments at the meeting scheduled
on December 13, 1999. He informed the commission that the staff
has been instructed to combine all the information into a draft
form, which will be provided to each commissioner before the end of
business Friday. The close-out process will begin during the
December 13, 1999 meeting. Co-Chair Ward asked if there were any
other comments.
COMMISSIONER VALESKO stated that he wanted to note his
Recommendation 3 which states: "Methods be developed to monitor
current and future privatization. Cost savings analysis must be
performed to determine if the state can, or has, provided the
service less expensively." He noted that his recommendation is
similar to Senator Adams' Recommendation 11.
CO-CHAIR WARD announced that he will be offering a recommendation
to move the legislature. He requested that Commissioner Valesko
submit his recommendation to Mr. Pignalberi to be placed on the
agenda for the December 13, 1999 meeting. He also asked other
commissioners to submit any recommendations to staff.
SENATOR ADAMS commented, "Sometimes we err in our judgement and we
have done it in a couple of areas." He hoped commissioners would
rescind some of their motions at the next meeting. He indicated
the commission packet should include a document regarding the
collections functions of the Department of Law, which he suggested
everyone review because there may be the need to rescind prior
action in this area. He said that the commission made an error in
placing ARRC under the Executive Budget Act. Senator Adams
believed the commission went against the judgement of the Alaska
State Chamber and its resolution 99-15. He noted that the
Fairbanks Chamber also had a resolution which he would bring for
review.
There being no further comments, the Commission on Privatization
and Delivery of Government Services adjourned at 11:43 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|