Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
03/31/2021 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| Consideration of Governor's Appointees: Regulatory Commission of Alaska: Keith Kurber and Robert Pickett | |
| Consideration of Governor's Appointees: Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority Board of Trustees: Rhonda Boyles, Brent Fisher, Anita Halterman, Annette Gwalthney-jones | |
| Consideration of Governor's Appointees: Treg Taylor, Attorney General, Department of Law | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 31, 2021
1:34 p.m.
1:34:52 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Merrick called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Sara Rasmussen
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Keith Kurber, Governor Appointee, Regulatory Commission of
Alaska; Robert Pickett, Governor's Appointee, Regulatory
Commission of Alaska; Rhonda Boyles, Governor's Appointee,
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority; Brent Fisher,
Governor's Appointee, Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority;
Annette Gwalthney-Jones, Governor's Appointee, Alaska
Mental Health Trust Authority; Anita Halterman, Governor's
Appointee, Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority; Treg
Taylor, Governor's Appointee, Attorney General; Barry
Jackson, Self, Anchorage; Andree McLeod, Alaska Public
Interest Research Group, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
CONSIDERATION OF GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES:
REGULATORY COMMISSION OF ALASKA:
KEITH KURBER
ROBERT PICKETT
ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH TRUST AUTHORITY BOARD OF
TRUSTEES:
RHONDA BOYLES
BRENT FISHER
ANITA HALTERMAN
ANNETTE GWALTHNEY-JONES
ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
TREG TAYLOR
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the meeting agenda.
^CONSIDERATION OF GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES: REGULATORY
COMMISSION OF ALASKA: KEITH KURBER and ROBERT PICKETT
1:35:50 PM
KEITH KURBER, GOVERNOR APPOINTEE, REGULATORY COMMISSION OF
ALASKA (via teleconference), introduced himself. He shared
details about his personal background. He provided details
about his job history including 30 years of U.S. Army
service. He retired as a colonel as a special forces
officer in 2011. He shared additional details about his
service in the military. He had also worked in public
safety as a police and fire officer at the Fairbanks
airport. His education included a Bachelor of Science from
the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Additionally, he
had a Master's in organizational leadership and a Doctor of
Ministry. He elaborated that he had graduated from a
variety of military training courses including the Alaska
State Trooper Academy and others.
Mr. Kurber shared that he had spent his life with a view
towards a service ethos, which had been heavily instilled
by his parents. He relayed that service as a commissioner
on the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) allowed him to
use the combination of training and life experience he had
compiled to serve his state again. He believed his personal
and professional life had uniquely prepared him to serve in
the position, as it had required him to analyze complex
issues and make critical decisions often under time
pressure. Additionally, he came from Fairbanks and had been
told by another commissioner how valuable his perspective
from Fairbanks would be on the RCA. He added that he had
also lived in Mat-Su and traveled extensively in rural
Alaska as a result of his National Guard service. He
thanked the committee for its consideration.
1:38:59 PM
Co-Chair Merrick recognized that Representative Carpenter
had joined the meeting. She thanked Mr. Kurber for his
remarks.
Representative Edgmon thanked Mr. Kurber for his service to
the country. He asked Mr. Kurber about his experience
relative to serving on the RCA. He referenced a specific
example relative to the Bradner Lake power situation, which
had numerous entanglements in terms of investments. He
observed that Mr. Kurber did not appear to have utility or
engineering experience or anything specifically showing he
was qualified other than a broader viewpoint of being on
the RCA. He asked Mr. Kurber if he knew anything about the
Bradner Lake situation and the issue of getting access to
the rest of the state. He asked Mr. Kurber how he would
deal with the situation as an RCA member.
Mr. Kurber answered by speaking to educational experience
in addition to the statutory requirement in AS 42.04
requesting a law or engineering degree. The statute gave an
alternate ability to serve on the commission if a person
had five years of experience in a variety of fields
including public administration. He believed his 30 years
of military and 6 years of public safety experience met the
threshold. He had served on the commission for 31 days and
had not yet encountered the Bradley Lake subject. He would
get back to the committee after studying the issue.
1:41:59 PM
Representative LeBon thanked Mr. Kurber for accepting the
appointment and he complimented the appointee on his
outstanding resume. He shared that he had gotten to know
Mr. Kurber over the past several years as a bank customer
and candidate for state House. He believed his appointment
was serving Alaska well.
Representative Rasmussen appreciated time the past fall
hearing from Mr. Kurber. She believed he would be an
excellent addition to the RCA.
Representative Josephson thanked Mr. Kurber for his service
to the country. He stated that the commission was entrusted
with regulating monopolies providing essential service to
Alaskans. He stated that during the legislative hearings
the previous year on SB 123, the legislature charged the
RCA with bringing an Electric Reliability Organization
(ERO) into being to serve residents of the state on the
Railbelt. He stated that the RCA was currently holding
technical sessions and public meetings to craft regulations
to implement SB 123. He continued that one of the reasons
the RCA asked the legislature to consider creating an ERO
was to prevent redundant capital spending by utilities and
the continuing siloing, which the RCA referred to as the
Balkanization of the state's power sources. He reported
that during the hearings it had been said there could be as
much as $1.5 billion in debt assumption taken on due to
redundancies. He furthered that the uncontrolled and
unplanned spending resulted in increased rates for
Alaskans. He asked what aspects of SB 123 Mr. Kubler
believed were critical for reigning in the spending.
Additionally, he asked what regulations Mr. Kurber was
supporting to ensure Alaska's utilities did not launch a
second spending spree.
1:44:36 PM
Mr. Kurber answered that his experience with the process
amounted to participation in several public meetings to
date. He stated there was a weightiness to the
responsibility. He elaborated that the legislature crafted
clear and important legislation in the form of SB 123,
especially given the truncated session the previous year
due to the pandemic. He expressed that he had been involved
in several of the public sessions to date. He provided
assurance that in his experience, there had been a robust
conversation about getting the issue right. He believed
there was a high sense of sobriety concerning getting the
regulation right for ratepayers and to have an organization
that could care for the infrastructure of the state
electrical system.
1:46:26 PM
Representative Josephson referenced the catastrophe that
had taken place in Texas in February. He remarked that the
state had compared its own effort in the ERO to the
Electrical Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). He stated
that the Texas governor had somehow concluded that
renewable energy was to blame for the problem. He asked if
Mr. Kurber believed renewable energy was a safe or unsafe
investment in Alaska.
Mr. Kurber believed it was a time in history where it was
necessary to utilize every possible capacity available. He
had witnessed in his own life and short time on the
commission that there was no shortage of demand for
electric power. He remarked there were a variety of
renewable sources including hydro power, which the state
was very fortunate to have in abundance for the capacity or
capability, which had been mentioned by Representative
Edgmon related to the Bradley Lake project. He highlighted
solar and wind as renewable energy sources as well. He
stated that the kind of situation that had occurred in
Texas may not be as likely to happen in Alaska due to its
geographic location and the fact that it was prepared for
demanding weather scenarios. He stated that renewables were
already being used in Alaska and clearly could be of use
going forward as a source of power generation.
1:48:50 PM
Representative Carpenter thanked Mr. Kurber for his
service. He asked where the state should focus in regard to
being more energy reliant [independence]. He asked about
Mr. Kurber's background in working with others,
particularly in decision making.
Mr. Kurber answered the second part of the question first.
He shared that coming from a military background much of
his decision making process involved receiving input from
staff/personnel and making decisions based on that input in
addition to professional experiences. Based on his
experience with RCA thus far, the staff had shown
themselves to be a diligent and earnest people, which had
allowed him to gain the information he needed to make
decisions. He was part of a commission of five other people
and the goal was for the commissioners to do their studies
and homework and show up for their decision making process
called adjudications; or rule making procedures, which was
more of a semi-legislative function. He asked
Representative Carpenter to restate his first question.
Representative Carpenter asked what Alaska could do to
increase its energy independence.
Mr. Kurber responded that energy had a broad spectrum
including wind, solar, oil, natural gas, and coal. He
believed SB 123 and RCA's efforts to craft regulations to
implement the bill was part of the process. He referenced
severe weather events in Texas and Oklahoma. He shared that
he had read a news report about a town in Florida with a
poisoned water supply. He remarked there were a whole host
of issues that needed preparing for. He stated it was his
sense that the legislature took seriously the necessity to
implement an organization that could monitor efforts to
secure critical infrastructure and ensure the state was
accessing all measures of power generation to help the rate
payers of Alaska to have their energy met in a cost
efficient manner.
1:53:12 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz thanked Mr. Kurber for his service to the
country. He stated that broadband access was an issue in
Alaska, particularly in rural areas. He remarked on the
fact that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled broadband
utilities could be regulated by entities such as the RCA.
He asked what proposals Mr. Kurber would propose to
regulate utilities and protect Alaskan consumers.
Mr. Kurber shared that he had personally experienced the
issue in engaging with people in his district the past
fall. Based on his understanding, he believed the
legislature may take the lead and the RCA would respond to
the direction. He found it interesting that there was much
less in telecommunications the RCA was involved with
because of the deregulation of cell phones. He had not been
aware until Vice-Chair Ortiz mentioned it that broadband
had been deemed a public utility. He stated that if it was
the case, it come under the purview of the RCA. He would
have to take time to consider the question.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked what experience Mr. Kurber had
working with statute and complex technical dockets.
Mr. Kurber replied that his primary introduction to
statutes came from his involvement in law enforcement as an
airport police and fire officer. He stated he had to be
aware of the statutes as they were performing perhaps one
of the most extreme responsibilities in our society, which
was depriving people of their liberty as a result of
violating the statutes. He had been involved in
regulations, particularly the UCMJ [Uniform Code of
Military Justice] in terms of administering military
justice. He stated that in terms of the technical docket,
he was only 31 days in. He was grateful for his education
and because it had the impetus in engineering, science, and
math it allowed him to develop the questions he hoped he
could obtain the answers to in order to make a wise and
prudent decision as part of the commission.
1:56:28 PM
Representative Wool thanked Mr. Kurber for his service. He
noted that regionality had come up with regard to RCA
commission seats. He remarked that there were people in
Fairbanks who thought it was great to have someone from
Fairbanks on the commission. He noted he had not been
familiar with regionality within the RCA. He asked if Mr.
Kurber's position was one of the few outside the
Southcentral region. He asked if there were other people
from rural Alaska or Southeast recently on the commission.
Mr. Kurber responded that he had heard from Commissioner
[Robert] Pickett, the current RCA chair from Mat-Su, that
he may have been one of the first people outside the
Anchorage area. He did not have historical knowledge on the
issue. He shared that he was from Fairbanks. He added that
Mr. [Stephen] McAlpine had told him he always told people
he was from Valdez, although he had lived in Anchorage for
several decades. He was very grateful for the opportunity
to live in various areas in the state, including Southeast
while attending the trooper academy. Additionally, he had
traveled through rural Alaska as a member of the National
Guard. He believed the other remaining commissioners were
from the Anchorage area based on his conversations with
Chair Pickett.
Representative Wool asked what unique problems Fairbanks
had that were different from South Central and other areas
on the Railbelt. He asked what issues were important to Mr.
Kurber.
Mr. Kurber answered that he had taken a crash course in
electric critical infrastructure. He stated that a large
number of electric users lived in Mat-Su and the Anchorage
area. He shared that when he had moved to the Mat-Su in
2004, the population had been about 60,000. He had always
been proud to say he was from the second largest borough in
Alaska. He elaborated that since 2004, the Mat-Su Borough
had surpassed Fairbanks in size. He stated that the
intertie was critical infrastructure. He had gleaned from
his studies of the dockets and filings in support of
building a regulatory framework or the implementation of SB
123, suggested the legislature was aware of the importance
of safeguarding and implementing organizations to help
maintain the integrity of the electrical grid.
2:00:36 PM
Representative Wool stated that SB 123 had been the final
product of many bills that had been introduced dealing with
the Balkanization of the state's power grid. He noted that
the Railbelt Reliability Council (RRC) had come out of SB
123. He asked if Mr. Kurber was familiar with the concept
of an ISO or USO, which had been included in previous
bills.
Mr. Kurber answered that he did not have an answer at the
time.
Representative Wool explained that ISO and USO stood for
Independent System Operator and Unified System Operator,
respectively. He detailed that with an ISO and USO there
would be an independent entity running the grid that
controlled electrical flow within the grid for the best
economic results. He clarified that an independent group
would determine where the electricity came from and where
it went. He relayed that a lot of the legislation came
immediately prior to SB 123. He asked if Mr. Kurber was
familiar with the concepts of wheeling charges or
pancaking.
2:02:26 PM
AT EASE
2:03:20 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick noted the audio connection with Mr. Kurber
had disconnected.
Mr. Kurber had regained his connection to the meeting.
Representative Wool reiterated his statement about ISOs and
USOs. He asked if Mr. Kurber was familiar with wheeling
charges or pancaking.
Mr. Kurber replied that he was not familiar with the
concepts.
Representative Wool believed Mr. Kurber would become
familiar with the concepts as they important in the power
transmission sector. He referenced Mr. Kurber's Bachelor of
Sciences degree from the U.S. Military Academy in 1981. He
asked for verification Mr. Kurber did not have a major
associated with the degree.
Mr. Kurber agreed and explained that at the time of his
degree, West Point did not grant majors. He added that the
school now granted majors and his son had received his
degree 30 years after his own. He shared that for over 150
years, West Point had a very proscribed curriculum. He
detailed that if a person was admitted with a four-year
college degree, they were required to take the classes
given to them. He explained the goal was to produce what at
the time was considered a liberal arts curriculum. In
addition to the natural sciences, the program had been
heavily weighted to applied sciences including engineering
and math. He shared that 75 out of 148.5 credits in his
degree were in math, science, or engineering. He noted he
had 19 credits in math, which he believed would equate to a
minor.
Representative Wool asked if Mr. Kurber had any classes in
electricity and magnetism or electron current analysis.
Mr. Kurber answered that he had taken two semesters of
college level physics as a sophomore. Additionally, he had
taken a 4.5 credit class his junior year on electrical
engineering. He shared a mnemonic used to remember
electrical engineering concepts. He was grateful for his
exposure to electrical engineering that helped him
understand concepts such as load and demand.
2:07:07 PM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony on the appointment
of Mr. Kurber to the RCA. Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public
testimony. She thanked Mr. Kurber for his public service.
2:07:49 PM
Co-Chair Merrick welcomed Mr. Robert Pickett to the meeting
and noted he had served on the RCA since 2008.
ROBERT PICKETT, GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEE, REGULATORY COMMISSION
OF ALASKA (via teleconference), shared that he had been a
commissioner since 2008 and was the current chair of the
RCA. He provided information on his background. He was born
and raised in Boise, Idaho and graduated from the
University of Idaho in 1973. After graduation he moved to
Washington D.C. to serve as the legislative director of the
National Student Lobby, which focused on higher education
financial issues.
Mr. Pickett had moved to Alaska in 1975 to pay off his
student loans. He shared that he had lived in the Mat-Su
Borough since 1985 and had been fortunate to work in all
areas of the state. He elaborated that he had been a
surveyor for the U.S. Forest Service in the Sitka ranger
district. He had worked for the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, Division of Highways
during the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System
(TAPS) in the Valdez, Copper River Valley. He had been an
independent contractor in the real estate industry in
Southcentral. Additionally, for 21 years he had worked for
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) in many roles
throughout the state. He had served as an RCA commissioner
for the past 14 years and as chair for 8 of the years. He
thanked the committee for its consideration.
Representative Rasmussen asked Mr. Pickett to highlight
some of the accomplishments the commission had taken under
his leadership and tenure.
Mr. Pickett answered that when he came on as commissioner
in 2008 the commission had not approved a natural gas sales
agreement for any of the utilities in Southcentral Alaska.
He relayed that at the time, the commission had just come
out of an emergency proceeding for Fairbanks natural gas
and the dire prospect of running out of natural gas within
four to five days. He shared that during his first couple
of years, the commission had gotten the immediate contracts
underway. He was on the commission when Hilcorp had
replaced the legacy companies in Cook Inlet that had wanted
out of the state. He noted the transition had its
challenges and associated with the transition, the RCA had
worked cooperatively with the legislature to certificate
Cook Inlet natural gas storage as a utility, which had been
helpful for Enstar and the major electric generation
utilities in Southcentral.
Mr. Pickett shared that he had seen the Balkanization in
2015. He reported there had been what he characterized as
insane fights between the Railbelt utilities and
unnecessary litigation expenses. He detailed that
individual investment decisions totaled a minimum of $1.5
billion. He explained that the way Alaska statutes were
written, when a coop made that kind of investment, as long
as it was presumed to be prudent, the debt service would go
into rates automatically and there was not much the RCA
could say about it. He shared there had been a prudence
case involving Anchorage Municipal Light and Power (ML&P)
that had been frustrating, but it had helped set the stage
for the acquisition of the ML&P assets by Chugach Electric.
He noted the fairly substantial proceeding had concluded
the past year.
Mr. Pickett informed the committee that in 2014, the
legislature had directed the RCA to evaluate all possible
structures for the Railbelt electric system because it had
tired of hearing conflicting stories from the utilities.
The commission had taken a year to develop five findings
and five recommendations. He detailed that the underlying
belief had been rather than a top down direction to the
utilities, it made more sense to give a voluntary effort as
the starting point. The RCA had given the report to the
legislature in 2015 and over a three and a half to four
year period, a variety of examinations of USOs, ISOs, and
TRANSCOs [transmission companies] were run aground. He
explained that SB 123 had come up with a slightly scaled
back and doable approach. The commission had been directed
by the legislature to oversee a process to create an
electric reliability organization, integrated resource
planning, and reliability standards because Alaska was not
subject to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
or the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC). He remarked that as seen in the catastrophe in
Texas, total voluntarism and lack of standards could have
bad results. He concluded the outline of his activities
throughout his time on the RCA.
2:14:52 PM
Representative Wool asked if Mr. Pickett foresaw an ISO or
USO in charge of the Railbelt grid.
Mr. Pickett answered that it was not totally off the table.
He shared that the USO concept had been examined in depth.
One of the challenges was the small market in Alaska.
Additionally, Alaska was not considered a restructured
state in terms of market structure, meaning the state had
vertically integrated utilities with the majority being
coops, which added another level of governance. He could
envision a TRANSCO emerging, assuming the ERO [electric
reliability organization] looked at the issue once it got
its feet on the ground. He explained that one of the
current challenges with transmission assets crossing a
number of different CPCNs [Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity] or service areas of the
individual utilities was that there was institutional
mechanism in place to allocate cost at present. He stated
it was not possible to completely rule out the USO, but it
was unlikely to happen in the near future.
Representative LeBon thanked Mr. Pickett for his past
service to the commission. He asked if there was a future
in some type of connective between Copper Valley Electrical
Utility and Golden Valley Electrical Association up the
Richardson Highway. He asked if it was an important step in
the system's long-term reliability.
Mr. Pickett answered that it could have an impact on
reliability, particularly for the Copper River area and in
the southern parts of Golden Valley with Fort Greely. He
stated it would be a matter of economics and how the work
would be paid for.
2:17:22 PM
Representative LeBon agreed it was an economics question.
He asked if Mr. Pickett had ever heard of any discussions
that may have taken place with the U.S. Army regarding
connectivity. He asked if there was any potential avenue
for support from the federal government via the Army.
Mr. Pickett answered that he would like to think the
federal government could perhaps consider it; however, he
was not a mind reader when it came to operation of the
federal government.
Vice-Chair Ortiz stated that having access to affordable
broadband capabilities continued to be an issue,
particularly in rural Alaska. He explained that the
situation had ramifications for education, business, basic
communication and other. He asked what proposals Mr.
Pickett would put forward to regulate utilities and protect
Alaskan consumers now that the [U.S.] Supreme Court had
ruled that broad band utilities could be regulated by
utilities such as the RCA.
Mr. Pickett answered that telecommunications and broadband
in particular had been a very challenging arena for the
RCA. He elaborated that the legislature passed a telecom
deregulation bill several years earlier. He believed at
that time, broadband expansion had been driven by Federal
Communications Commission dollars and special grants. He
explained that in rural Alaska it was very difficult to
make projects pencil out. He explained that the commission
had direct authority over one component called the Alaska
Universal Service Fund (AUSF), which was up for a sunset
review starting later in the summer. He elaborated that if
it could be properly targeted, it could be a way to
encourage expansion of broadband in certain circumstances.
He shared that at the peak, the AUSF totaled $25 million to
$30 million. He expounded that the AUSF was funded through
a tax on landline and some cellular bills. He stated the
funding source would need to be looked at. He had been
frustrated with the AUSF program in the past because there
had not been the ability for the commission to get into
focus on particular things or on fundamental
accountability. He reported the areas would be focused on
during the sunset review process.
2:20:39 PM
Representative Johnson referenced Mr. Pickett's training in
cybersecurity. She asked for an overview of some of the
cyber vulnerabilities that existed within the power grid
and any of the utilities.
Mr. Pickett answered that it had been a personal area of
great concern since a Ukrainian event in 2015. He shared
that he had become acquainted with two of the principal
U.S. investigators sent to the Ukraine. He detailed that
the RCA had brought one of the investigators to Anchorage
about three years back. He explained that at the time the
RCA did not have the time to direct the utilities to do
much of anything in the area, but on a voluntary basis it
had gotten the utilities to agree to participate in a
safeguard review with the Department of Homeland Security
and a component of FERC. He noted that although RCA was not
FERC jurisdictional, there had been concern largely because
of the Department of Defense exposure. He stated that
cybersecurity was a moving target, and it was a process
every utility and business had to see the ERO come into
existence to get on a cooperative basis, perhaps a security
operations center with electrical utilities and the local
gas company down the road. He explained it could allow for
the assessment of threats and understanding that threats
were not only a network issue, but an information
technology and operational technology issue. He thought it
seemed to be where the ball was dropped nation and
worldwide.
2:23:16 PM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED and CLOSED public testimony. She
thanked Mr. Pickett for his service. She moved to
appointees for the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority
(AMHTA) Board of Trustees. She stated that the board worked
to administer the trust established under the Alaska Mental
Health Enabling Act of 1956 and coordinate with other state
agencies involved in mental health service programs
throughout Alaska. The committee would first hear from Ms.
Rhonda Boyles who was first appointed to the board in April
2020.
^CONSIDERATION OF GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES: ALASKA MENTAL
HEALTH TRUST AUTHORITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES: RHONDA BOYLES,
BRENT FISHER, ANITA HALTERMAN, ANNETTE GWALTHNEY-JONES
2:23:49 PM
RHONDA BOYLES, GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEE, ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH
TRUST AUTHORITY (via teleconference), briefly highlighted
her professional background in business, nursing, politics,
and volunteering. She shared that she had lived in Interior
Alaska for 44 years. She relayed that three years back she
had brought her husband to Phoenix due to his diagnosis
with a very difficult form of dementia called diffuse Lewy
body. Her husband had passed away two years back and she
had returned to Alaska and purchased a townhouse in
Anchorage. She was proud of her 44 years of history in the
Interior.
Ms. Boyles shared that she had served as mayor of the
Fairbanks North Star Borough and had owned several Wendy's
restaurants. Subsequently she had worked for four years as
a nurse in the Pioneer Home where she had also learned the
needed stills to care for her husband. She had worked many
years for the late U.S. Senator Ted Stevens and current
U.S. Representative Don Young. She was retired and had been
serving one year as a trustee for the AMHTA Board of
Trustees. She reported that the role was the equivalent of
a part-time job. She shared that she was pleased to be able
to touch part of the state's population that was too large,
too underserved, and often very ill. She remarked that she
always felt she was drinking from a water hose during each
meeting. She stated that the work was fulfilling, and she
was extremely grateful for the opportunity.
Co-Chair Merrick expressed condolences for the loss of Ms.
Boyles' husband.
2:28:16 PM
Representative Josephson asked if Ms. Boyles was currently
on the board.
Ms. Boyles answered that she had been confirmed the past
year and had gotten caught up in the reconfirmation issue
because of the emergency declaration. She underscored she
was not whining about the need to go through the process
again.
Representative Josephson referenced Ms. Boyles' statement
that she had been confirmed. He asked for verification that
she had previously been interviewed by committees but there
had been no confirmation vote.
Ms. Boyles answered that technically there had been a vote,
which had been part of the emergency declaration when the
legislature adjourned. She believed there had been 90
appointees caught in the situation. She had gone through
four committee hearings in 2020 and the current hearing was
her third in 2021.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked what Ms. Boyles saw as some of the
biggest challenges facing AMHTA in terms of the ability to
fulfill its duties.
Ms. Boyles replied that the organization had an excellent
administrative staff. There were myriad boards and
commissions within AMHTA. She reported that COVID had been
the largest challenge in the past year. She explained it
was much more productive to sit in the room and listen to
reports in person. She elaborated it was more difficult
making decisions over Zoom. She detailed that the trust was
extremely active in its work. The board served many people
who were underserved, and the group was not getting any
smaller.
2:31:14 PM
Representative LeBon thanked Ms. Boyles for her service to
AMHTA. He shared that he had known Ms. Boyles for over 30
years through his banking days and she had served as
borough mayor when he had been on the school board. He
could not imagine anyone who was better qualified and
equipped to serve.
Representative Thompson shared that he had been mayor of
the City of Fairbanks when Ms. Boyles had served as mayor
of the North Star Borough. He had known Ms. Boyles for over
30 years and reported that she dedicated herself completely
to anything she took on. He believed she was an excellent
choice for the board.
Representative Josephson referenced the administration's
budget proposal to spend $16 million in AMHTA reserves -
not authorized by the board - to fund programs identified
by the administration. He highlighted that Mr. Mike Abbott
[Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Mental Health Trust
Authority] had testified a number of times that the
situation had never occurred previously. He did not know
whether the issue could result in a lawsuit. He asked if
Ms. Boyles had a position on the proposal to give up $16
million in reserves.
Ms. Boyles replied that she spoke as one member. She shared
that she had spent a significant amount of time on the
issue. She referenced a 1984 lawsuit where it had been
determined the state had breached its fiduciary
responsibilities and after 10 years of litigation the
courts had awarded the trust $200 million and 100 million
acres. She reported that at present the amount was $700
million. She stressed the extremely serious responsibility
trustees had in the administering of the trust. She
elaborated it had been clear to her when reading the
history of the lawsuit and talking with other long-serving
trust members, specifically Loraine Derr, the trustees had
an obligation to manage the cash and non-cash assets for
the benefit of existing and future beneficiaries. She
stated that regardless of what an attorney looked at, it
was specific that the trustees had been given a duty.
Ms. Boyles thought it was sad if the administration wanted
to take the money. She explained that the administration
could have presented a request to the board through the
normal process that would have allowed trustees to talk it
over and decide whether the request would benefit many
trustees or only a few. She explained that the board looked
at everything very carefully. She relayed that the
administrative request had been a surprise to all of the
board members, and she personally was saddened it had not
gone through the correct process. She stated that without
the correct process, the trustees may be compromised if the
board said yes or no.
2:36:25 PM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked Ms. Boyles for her willingness to
serve.
Ms. Boyles thanked the committee.
2:37:09 PM
Co-Chair Merrick welcomed Mr. Brent Fisher who had been
appointed to the AMHTA Board of Trustees in January 2021.
BRENT FISHER, GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEE, ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH
TRUST AUTHORITY (via teleconference), provided information
on his personal background. He was a veteran of the U.S.
Army Medical Service Corps and had started his military
career after college. He had a bachelor's degree from
Brigham Young University with a double major in
international relations and Portuguese in addition to a
Master's in Business Administration from the University of
Texas at Austin with specialties in international,
strategic, and healthcare management. He was board
certified in hospital and medical group management and had
been elected a fellow in the American College of Healthcare
Executives and the American College of Medical Practice
Executives.
Mr. Fisher shared that his career had been primarily
associated with healthcare; however, it included a wide
variety of associations including hospitals, large medical
groups, hospice care, engineering and manufacturing of
medical devices and pharmaceuticals, software development,
consulting, military medicine, and private equity and
startup ventures. He highlighted that his writings had been
published in journals, trade magazines, and newspapers. He
was a big believer in giving back to the community. He
reported that he had served on the board of directors of
several professional associations, civic, business, and
religious organizations. He was grateful for the
opportunity the governor had given him to serve as a
trustee for the AMHTA.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked Mr. Fisher for his service to the
country.
Representative Josephson stated that the administration had
a budget that required $16 million in three total
appropriations would be drawn from AMHTA reserves and spent
where it wished. He believed the appropriation would go to
the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API) for the FY 22
budget. He asked Mr. Fisher's position on the
administration using reserves on regular operating budget
functions.
Mr. Fisher answered that there had been significant
discussion on the issue by the board. He stated that the
1994 settlement had stipulated how the executive and
legislative branches should work with trustees and the
AMHTA. He discussed that the board had been set up
specifically as an independent group of trustees because of
abuses that took place before that time. He believed the
1994 settlement stipulations should be followed. He stated
there had been plenty of opportunity for the legislature
and executive branch to work collaboratively through that
process over the years. He believed they could continue to
do so. He shared his position that as an independent board
of trustees, their responsibility was to protect the trust
for current and future beneficiaries.
2:41:47 PM
Representative Rasmussen thanked Mr. Fisher for his
willingness to serve on AMHTA. She shared that she had
numerous discussions with Mr. Fisher over the past couple
of years and she believed his background was valuable. She
supported his appointment.
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked Mr. Fisher for his willingness to
serve.
2:42:47 PM
Co-Chair Merrick welcomed Ms. Annette Gwalthney-Jones who
had been appointed to the AMHTA Board of Trustees in
October 2020.
ANNETTE GWALTHNEY-JONES, GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEE, ALASKA
MENTAL HEALTH TRUST AUTHORITY (via teleconference),
provided information on her personal background. She
reported a key value given to her by her parents was giving
back to the community. She shared that she had more than 25
years of managerial experience and leadership in human
resources and social services. Her career background
included program work and development within many trust
beneficiary serving organizations in the Anchorage area
including The Arc of Anchorage, Salvation Army, Covenant
House, and other. She had a Master's in business
organizational management with dual emphasis in human
resources and information technology. She had two
undergraduate degrees in psychology and human services.
Ms. Gwalthney-Jones detailed that in 1992 she had become a
state and nationally certified emergency medical technician
and a certified instructor in basic lifesaving. She became
a part of the Alaska Professional Volunteers, a group of
first responders. She shared that she was a court appointed
special advocate volunteer. She had also been a foster
parent. She provided detail about her personal family life.
She elaborated that in 2002 her husband was deployed, and
she had been appointed as the key spouse of the 18th Air
Support Operations Group. She explained that the program
was an official Air Force family readiness program designed
to enhance readiness and personal and family resiliency.
The group served as a vital resource to support command
teams and Air Force families.
2:46:47 PM
Ms. Gwalthney-Jones continued to review her background. She
provided more detail about the program. She shared that she
had worked in a staff development position at the
University of North Carolina in Pembrooke. She and her
husband had moved to Nebraska where she had worked as a
human resources manager overseeing recruitment teams. Later
she had worked to help veterans transitioning from military
to civilian worlds. She and her husband had returned to
Alaska in 2014. She highlighted her additional work in
human resources and as a volunteer. She believed her work
in human resources and other would be valuable to the work
as a trustee. She began her appointment in September 2020.
She shared that she was committed to the time commitment
and would offer her skills to the board. She would work
with fellow trustees to improve the lives and circumstances
of beneficiaries. She highlighted her duty to care ethos
that was at the heart of all of her work. She would be
honored to continue her work on the board.
2:49:44 PM
Representative Josephson stated that the administration had
a budget that required $16 million and three total
appropriations would be drawn from AMHTA reserves. He asked
Ms. Gwalthney-Jones' opinion on using the reserves on the
budget. He asked if she believed the administration was
within its authority to do what it wanted.
Ms. Gwalthney-Jones answered in the negative. She shared
that her background was in human resources. She stated
human resources was about laws, compliance, processes, and
procedures. She firmly believed processes and procedures
were put in place for a good reason and needed to be
followed until changed. She stressed that if the policies
and procedures were disliked, it was necessary to go about
the appropriate path to change them. She remarked that
taking funding from AMHTA reserves was not the norm and
could be a slippery slope. She feared allowing the use of
the reserves under the proposed method would set an
unhealthy precedent. She emphasized that trustees had a
fiduciary responsibility to protect and enhance the trust
assets in perpetuity for all beneficiaries. She stressed
that it was not the time to make any changes. She believed
there would be an increased need in the years to come due
to COVID.
2:52:00 PM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked Ms. Gwalthney-Jones for her
service.
2:52:37 PM
Co-Chair Merrick welcomed Ms. Anita Halterman who was
appointed to the AMHTA Board of Trustees in August 2019.
ANITA HALTERMAN, GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEE, ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH
TRUST AUTHORITY (via teleconference), provided information
on her background. She shared that she had been married for
over 36 and had raised their family in Alaska. She was
happy to be considered for renewal to her appointment to
the AMHTA Board of Trustees. She began serving on the board
in August of 2019 and served as chair of Audit and Risk
Committee and finance chair in 2020. She shared that she
had been anxiously awaiting her confirmation.
Ms. Halterman stated that her service on the board had
expanded her knowledge of the mental health needs, budget,
and many programs offered throughout Alaska. She enjoyed
giving back to her community and had learned new strategies
and funding opportunities that could help shape meaningful
reform for the state's mental health program. She
highlighted her brief tenure working for the legislature
during the 29th Alaska legislative session. She looked
forward to meeting with legislators she had not yet had the
opportunity to meet. She read from prepared remarks:
For those of you that don't know me, I first arrived
in Alaska in the 1980s after discharging from the
United States Army and I followed my husband who was
active duty and stationed at Fort Greely and Delta
Junction. We raised our eldest daughter there during
the first few years of her life and fell in love with
Alaska. While we watched the economy suffer, and had
to leave Alaska for a brief time, we came back as soon
as we were able, and we've lived in Eagle River for
over 26 years since moving back.
I earned my MBA from Wayland Baptist University in
Anchorage and I have an extensive background working
mainly within the Department of Health and Social
Services Medicaid program for both Iowa and Alaska.
Spending my last seven years working within the
Department of Health and Social Services Senior and
Disability Services program mediating administrative
appeals and serving as a program manager and a
supervisor. I also have experience working with child
support, the Department of Corrections, public safety
and public assistance programs.
I have worked for the State of Alaska for about 20
years. I have worked through welfare reform
initiatives in two states and helped kick off Alaska's
first food stamp reinvestment plan after the Alaska
Department of Health and Social Services program had
been sanctioned for high error rates in the 1990s. I
trained staff on regulations, program and policy in
the welfare offices in and throughout Alaska,
developing programs and reducing error rates.
I have devoted my life's work to working with
populations that are underserved and I find it
rewarding to improve the programs and systems that
they utilize in order to provide the provision of
services to the beneficiaries of those programs.
After leaving the Alaska Legislature, I started my own
consulting business, joining the ranks of the private
sector. I obtained licenses as an insurance producer
with lines of authority for accidents in Alaska,
health and life and with lines of authority for
Washington with life and disability. I also began
working with an information technology company in 2019
working as an account executive for a media production
company in 2020.
2:56:37 PM
Ms. Halterman continued reviewing her background with
prepared remarks:
Positioning risk management and human resource
solutions for businesses has given me a new
perspective about the healthcare needs for privately
insured individuals and it has expanded my
understanding of more global workforce issues that
Alaska faces as we move forward.
I very much hope to take my experiences and help
reform the program for the future so that we can
sustain them for our populations that need them most.
I look forward to continuing to work to improve the
lives of the trust beneficiaries as we work in
partnership with the Department of Health and Social
Services and other stakeholders, to build that
comprehensive mental health program that better meets
our trust beneficiaries' needs. I want to thank you
all for your consideration. I appreciate your support
and I look forward to working with all of you to
protect the trust and maximize the benefits to solve
Alaska's mental health problems.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked Ms. Halterman for her service.
Representative Josephson was impressed by Ms. Halterman's
resume. He stated that the administration had a budget that
required $16 million and three total appropriations would
be drawn from AMHTA reserves for FY 21 and FY 22. He asked
Ms. Halterman's opinion on using the reserves on the
budget.
Ms. Halterman answered that AMHTA had issued a letter on
January 26, and she stood behind the position expressed in
the letter. She pointed out that the issue raised an
awareness for the trust to increase its stakeholder
engagement and cooperation with stakeholders. She believed
the situation brought to light an awareness that the
trust's governance rules needed to be reviewed and there
needed to be a public process in order for everyone legally
responsible for trust beneficiaries to understand the
rights and responsibilities of the board.
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked Ms. Halterman for her service.
^CONSIDERATION OF GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES: TREG TAYLOR,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
2:59:34 PM
TREG TAYLOR, GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEE, ATTORNEY GENERAL (via
teleconference), introduced himself and was honored to be
considered for the position. He read from prepared remarks:
I grew up in southern Alberta, Canada. For several
years my family lived on the First Nations Blood
Indian Reservation, the largest First Nations
reservation in Canada, as both my parents were
schoolteachers in the reservation's school district.
We later moved to a small community next to the
reservation and my parents continued to teach. While I
never became conversant in Blackfoot language because
my Native friends only spoke English, my little
sister's first words and sentences were in Blackfoot.
I have fond memories of the reservation gatherings and
eating, dancing, and singing at the pow wows. I
learned a deep respect for their culture and
traditions. I was even given the name of Dirty
Moccasin because of my habit of running around covered
in dirt.
I have always been drawn to public service and growing
up my dream was to fly fighters for the U.S. Air
Force. I know that's somewhat of an odd dream for a
young Canadian kid, but my hero and my role model was
my grandfather, who had flown bombers in the U.S. Army
Air Corp during World War II. Coincidentally, he was
stationed twice in Anchorage after the war. Once doing
cold weather testing of the B-29 bomber and once in
his later work as an attorney for the U.S. State
Department.
My father was a boy when my grandpa was stationed in
Alaska. He has vivid memories of selling newspapers
along Forth Avenue and looking for fossils on
Government Hill. From my grandfather, I knew that to
live my dream I would need stellar grades and
excellence in my extracurricular activities. I went to
work. That dream kept me out of a lot of trouble
growing up. After my parents divorced, I moved to Iowa
with my mom during my middle school years and my first
year of high school. If finished high school in Utah
and applied to and was accepted to the United States
Air Force Academy. I was ecstatic. I was so close to
living my dream. My first year was predictably
difficult, although looking back some of the fondest
memories I have occurred during that first hard year.
Near the end of the academic year my class was finally
what we call recognized, meaning we were finally
treated as equals who deserved to be at the academy.
The second year was largely thought to be the hardest
academic year because you start your core required
courses.
The academy allows cadets after their second year to
serve religious missions. I opted to serve a mission
for my church along with 28 other cadets. I was
assigned to labor and serve in the Canary Islands,
which is a Spanish island about 40 miles off the coast
of Morocco. Like my time on the First Nations Blood
Indian reservation, during those two years on the
island, I learned to love a people and a culture
different than my own. I also found great joy in
serving others. Near the end of my mission, I
reapplied into the academy and was accepted back. They
sent me a one-page document that I needed to sign and
send in to accept my reappointment. I went to sign it
and couldn't. For two weeks I tried to sign that
document, I wanted so badly to return to the academy.
I absolutely loved my time there and I was so close to
living my dream of flying fighters and serving my
country.
3:03:37 PM
Mr. Taylor continued to read from prepared remarks:
It was a hard two weeks. I felt guilty because here I
was supposed to be serving the people of the Canary
Islands and all I could think about was this decision.
I couldn't sleep, I was miserable. One morning,
exhausted, I fell to my knees in frustratedly declared
to God, "Fine, I'll do what you want me to do." I
didn't know why, but I knew immediately what I was
supposed to do, and the academy was not part of that
plan. Within a few weeks of returning home, I found
out one very good reason why. That's when I met my
wife, Jodi. When we first met, I was very interested
in getting to know her better; however, she wasn't at
all interested in getting to know me. Twenty-two years
of marriage later I still strive each day to convince
her that she made a good choice. You'll have to ask
Jodi how I am doing. We now have six children. Five
girls, Quincy, London, Romy, Roxie, and Callie; and
one boy, Gage. Our oldest daughter is now married and
attending BYU. Her apartment just blocks from the
hospital where she was born while Jodi and I were in
our undergrad and our youngest is ten months old, cute
as a whistle and crawling around the house.
After we were married, Jodi and I worked several
summers in Alaska to put ourselves through school and
I had fallen in love with her home state. Near the end
of law school, I asked Jodi where she wanted me to
look for permanent work. She replied, "Anywhere but
Alaska." She had lived in Alaska her whole life and
wanted to experience something new. We identified a
few cities we'd like to live, and I earnestly began
looking for work; however, a few months later, nothing
seemed to be working out. We decided we needed to
expand my search to additional cities and made it a
matter of prayer. A few days later, I came home, and
she announced that she knew where I was supposed to
look. She explained that that whole day she couldn't
keep a certain song out of her head. She then sang,
"Eight stars of gold on a field of blue, Alaska's flag
may it mean to you." I couldn't have been happier.
As it was, we were already returning to Alaska a few
weeks later to attend her sister's wedding. At the
reception I met a gentleman who indicated that he
thought a firm he worked with might be looking for a
new attorney. I reached out to the firm the next day
and within two hours was sitting in an interview. They
offered me the position on the spot.
3:06:08 PM
Mr. Taylor continued to read from prepared remarks:
Jodi and Quincy stayed in Alaska while I returned for
finals and then drove up the Alcan in our Hyundai
Elantra that luckily fit everything Jodi and I owned.
At Delisio, Moran, Geraghty, and Zobel I primarily
worked with Mike Geraghty who eventually became this
state's attorney general. My practice largely
consisted of business litigation, defense. During my
time there we represented the state, the Municipality
of Anchorage, energy companies, and many other Alaska
businesses. About five years after beginning at
Delisio, I received a call from McKinley Capital
Management to see if I was interested in coming to
work in-house. That appealed to me as I'd played team
sports through college, and I wanted to work in more
of a team atmosphere with a common goal of growing and
strengthening a company. I always felt like I was a
hired gun at the law firm.
During my time at McKinley, we entered the Great
Recession and one of my primary responsibilities was
to help the company navigate the rapidly changing
investment management regulatory schemes throughout
the world.
I next accepted a position as senior corporate counsel
at ASRC Energy Services, where I acted as in-house
counsel for about eight oil and gas service companies.
During that time the price of oil plunged, and I
helped these companies through this very difficult
time. After about five years at ASRC Energy Services,
the governor asked me to serve as the deputy attorney
general over the Civil Division. I have now been with
the attorney general's office for a little over two
years.
My wife and I have made it a priority to be involved
in and to serve the community. We have had many
wonderful experiences as a family doing so, and as we
have served, we have become keenly aware of some of
the issues facing Alaska families. Highlights of what
I have learned include the following. Jodi and I
helped bring up the Living Legends, a Native American,
Polynesian, and Hispanic origin dance group, to the
Performing Arts Center, and provided a free concert to
local school children including students from the
Alaska Native Charter School and the Alaska Military
Youth Academy. The director of the youth academy later
told us that the event was very powerful for the
minority cadets and that some of them had expressed to
him that it was the first time that they had felt
proud of their minority heritage. That was a shocking
revelation for Jodi and me and is one area I intend to
address at every opportunity I have.
Another example of what I learned is after going
through it with our oldest daughter is the ACT prep
courses. ACT prep classes, due to cost, were outside
the realm of many Alaskan families. We helped organize
a free multi-day ACT prep camp with an emphasis on
inviting minority students including Alaska Natives.
It is amazing what a few extra points on the ACT can
do for opportunities and scholarships. What I learned
was that businesses, community organizations, and
individuals are ready and willing to help in an effort
to fill this and other needs in our community. For
example, when we asked an Alaska business to donate
one day's lunch they said no, they wanted to donate
all of the needed lunches.
Another time, we helped organize a food drive that
ended in a community event at the Shiloh Baptist
Church. One booth we helped with told the survivor
stories of many Alaskans who have been sexually
assaulted. Some of whom expressed that this was the
first time they had felt heard and validated. From
this experience I learned the importance of being
heard in the healing process for survivors of sex
crimes.
3:10:08 PM
Mr. Taylor continued to read from prepared remarks:
Finally, my wife and I also helped organize and
participate in a group made up of LGBT community
leaders and religious leaders from various
denominations to address several issues. For well over
a year, we met regularly to work on these issues. I
learned from this experience that individuals from
very different backgrounds and sometimes preconceived
notions can work together for a common good but that
it takes time and effort. But mostly, it takes
listening.
At the end of January when the governor asked if I'd
be willing to serve as the state's next attorney
general, my first thoughts turned to Alaska's
ignominious ranking as the worst state for sex crimes.
I think many of you have seen this slide presented by
the Criminal Division [copy not on file] that shows
that not only does Alaska have the highest rate of sex
crimes, our rate is almost double that of the next
state Arkansas. I see this slide in my mind every day
and I am determined to do everything within my power
to address this epidemic in our state. If I don't use
the full authority of this office to seek out and find
justice for victims of sex crimes, then I will have
failed to do my duty and failed the people of this
great state. I truly believe that until this scourge
is rooted out and our mothers, wives, sisters, and
children feel protected and safe, we are hobbled as a
state. I am under no illusions that this is an easy
problem to address, and I know that many efforts have
been made in the past and are ongoing, but I know that
I must try. If my attempts fail, I will keep going
back to the drawing board and I will try again. Jodi
constantly reminds our children to lift where they
stand, and they can make the world a better place. I
promise you, as the attorney general, I will lift
where I stand to make Alaska a better place for all
Alaskans. Thank you.
3:12:01 PM
Co-Chair Merrick thanked Mr. Taylor for his remarks.
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony.
3:12:26 PM
BARRY JACKSON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), shared
that he was a retired state employee and had served as a
procurement officer for over 30 years. He highlighted that
in 1988, the Alaska Supreme Court issued a judgement in the
case of McBirney and Associates v. the State of Alaska. He
quoted from the court ruling:
The result in this case turns on the conclusion that
McBirney's interaction with Governor Sheffield's
office clearly violated the principles of the
competitive bidding process. In this case, the process
was not conducted with as much fairness, certainty,
publicity, and absolute impartiality as any proceeding
requiring the exercise of quasi-judicial authority.
Mr. Jackson opposed Mr. Taylor's confirmation as attorney
general. He stated that in at least one instance, Mr.
Taylor had failed to properly investigate a no bid, sole
source contract between Clark Penney and the Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA). He
detailed that the procurement had been aimed at giving a
lucrative contract to a one month old company favored by
the current governor's office. He continued that when the
publicly reported improprieties stacked up and made it
unavoidable, the governor had promised a deep dive
investigation of the contract.
Mr. Jackson stated that Mr. Taylor had been given the
responsibility of conducting the investigation. He remarked
that after Mr. Taylor applied a year's worth of
investigation, he produced a two paragraph conclusion that
nothing was wrong. He stated that he had personally done
his own deep dive, which resulted in 64 pages of compelling
evidence there was a substantial and collaborative degree
of corruption between the governor's office, the Department
of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, and AIDEA.
He highlighted that Mr. Taylor had access to the best
investigative resources the state had, yet found nothing
wrong. He believed the conclusion could only be taken as a
whitewashed coverup to protect the governor's office. He
asserted Mr. Taylor had failed in his duty to uncover and
prosecute corruption.
3:14:52 PM
ANDREE MCLEOD, ALASKA PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), stated that Mr. Taylor's
first couple of months in office had already raised alarms.
She remarked that statements made by Mr. Taylor to the
judiciary committee made it clear that he should not be
confirmed as attorney general because of his insistence to
misconstrue Alaska's laws, violate the public trust and
interest, and betray the people of Alaska. She referenced
copies of public interest determination waivers in members'
packets, which established how former employees had
traditionally handled the waivers. She stated the
information showed that former officials took to heart
their oath to do right by the public and follow laws. She
furthered that former officials knew that appearances of
conflicts of interest existed and took them seriously. She
stated the officials had known the reason for the waiting
periods because they read, understood, and respected the
law.
Ms. McLeod stated that the laws were clear and simple and
prohibited some activities of certain employees who left
state service, especially ones who worked in the governor's
office. She explained that law mandated restrictions to
represent, advise, or assist a person for compensation
regarding matters related to their state duties. She
detailed that a transparent, written process was available
to waive the restrictions. She noted that statements
regarding the Ben Stevens jump from the governor's office
to ConocoPhillips revealed that either Mr. Taylor did not
understand the laws or that he had chosen to contradict
them. She stated that when Mr. Taylor had been questioned
about the nonexistence of a written waiver, Mr. Taylor had
insisted it was unnecessary until such a time when Mr.
Stevens thought he had a conflict of interest, at which
time, he would contact the state to request a waiver. She
stated that the logic was ludicrous and laughable, if not
for its significance as it enabled corruption. She believed
Alaskans deserved better than an attorney general who
conducted business via oral conversations through back
channels and other illegal procedures, rules, and
regulations that lacked transparency and accountability.
She asked the committee to not confirm Mr. Taylor.
3:17:24 PM
Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Rasmussen shared that she had gone to church
with Mr. Taylor's in-laws. She had found Mr. Taylor to have
high morals and ethics. She thought he had inherited
baggage from the previous attorney general who was no
longer employed by the state. She shared a common interest
in the desire to see some changes to the way the state
handled some of the sexual assault and domestic violence
cases. She asked Mr. Taylor to expand on his long-term plan
related to the issue.
Mr. Taylor responded that there were certain things he
could do automatically within the Department of Law (DOL)
and things that involved other departments and approvals.
He addressed some of the things done in DOL. The department
was implementing an annual district attorneys training on
domestic violence and sexual assault. Additionally, the
department had created a new position to train prosecutors
in sexual assault. The department had two additional
prosecutors with federal funds to serve rural communities;
one of their duties would be to work on sex crimes. He
highlighted that the proposed budget requested ten
additional prosecutors and nine support staff to address
the epidemic in Alaska. He noted the problem could not be
eliminated through prosecution. He remarked that the issue
was a large multifaceted societal problem that would take a
lot of efforts from many areas. He explained that current
prosecutors had caseloads of 60 to 70, which was an
enormous workload. He used sex crimes as an example and
estimated that 30 cases would account for well over 40
hours of work per week. The idea behind the request for
additional prosecutors and support staff was to reduce the
caseloads down to a target of 47. He explained that the
lower number would enable prosecutors to keep track of
their cases.
Mr. Taylor detailed that when prosecutors needed more
information, they sometimes had to reach out to law
enforcement. He remarked that law enforcement was also
extremely busy and sometimes the request for more
information may be missed or take time to receive a
response. He elaborated that in the meantime a prosecutor
went to work on their remaining 67 cases while waiting for
a response; by the time they got back to the specific case
they may discover they had never received the information.
The desire was to enable prosecutors to keep on top of
their cases by reducing caseloads to 47. The goal was to be
able to get through the cases more quickly.
3:21:57 PM
Mr. Taylor continued to answer the question by
Representative Rasmussen. He explained that the extra
support staff would make it possible to keep survivors of
sex crimes better apprised on the status of their trial
including the timing, whether charges would be pressed, and
whether the survivor would need to testify. The goal was to
better address survivors' questions and alleviate fears. He
was looking at a holistic approach to sex crimes within the
state. He shared that he had done significant research
compiling a list of current resources within the state,
communities, and nonprofits. He was looking at certain sex
crime statute changes the department may suggest to the
current and future legislatures. Additionally, the
department was looking at public outreach. He thought the
state could improve how the survivors of sex crimes were
treated and how they were helped through the recovery
process. He noted the specific area was not directly
related to his job as attorney general, but it was one of
the areas he was looking at as a piece of a wholistic
approach. Once he finalized a plan in his mind, he would
involve other departments and the governor's office in the
process.
3:23:44 PM
Representative Rasmussen believed the topic was an
important issue that needed a strong emphasis as a focus.
She thought Mr. Taylor had the appropriate background with
his experience in the Civil Division to tackle many of the
issues the facing the state. She stated that other baggage
Mr. Taylor had inherited was the departure of [the
governor's] former chief of staff Ben Stevens. She asked
him to share his thoughts on the ethical consideration for
Mr. Steven's move to the private sector.
Mr. Taylor answered that the Ethics Act was set up in a way
that allowed the governor and attorney general to work
together, and they could determine it was in the public
interest to waive the restriction on a person's employment
after leaving state service. He explained that it was
designed to protect the state in addition to creating a
relief valve. He elaborated that without the ability of the
governor's office and the attorney general to waive a
conflict, the state would be crippled in ability to find
people willing to work for the state for a couple of years
with the expertise needed to hit the ground running and
address critical issues facing the state.
Mr. Taylor clarified that without a waiver, a person that
left state service was prohibited in future employment for
two years from engaging in any issue they personally or
substantively had been involved in as a state employee. For
example, Ben Stevens had not been granted a waiver and
would be prohibited from working on any issue he was
personally and substantively involved in during his
position of chief of staff for the governor. In preparation
for Mr. Steven's departure from the governor's office,
there had been a meeting with Mr. Stevens and
ConocoPhillips to discuss exactly what he would be doing
for ConocoPhillips to see if there was a need for him to
apply for a conflict waiver. They had ultimately determined
there was nothing in Mr. Steven's duties as constituted
that would require the state to entertain a waiver of the
conflict. He clarified it did not mean the state was not
protected. He explained that Mr. Stevens could not engage
in anything in his current employment for two years that he
had been involved in personally and substantively while
employed by the governor's office. He fully expected that
over the course of the two years there will be instances
where a conflict would arise, and Mr. Stevens will request
conflict waivers. At that time, it would be before the
governor and the attorney general to determine if it was in
the public's interest to waive the conflict. He believed it
was a reasonably foreseeable outcome in the specific
situation. He cautioned that the state did not want to get
in the habit of granting a raw, global conflict waiver
because it did not protect the state. He explained that it
gutted what the ethics statute aimed to prevent, which was
people getting valuable information while in government
service and using the information for private benefit of
themselves and their future employers.
3:27:54 PM
Representative Rasmussen asked who would bear the liability
of a potential unethical behavior on the part of Mr.
Stevens in his new role if a complaint arose and there was
no ethics waiver was in place.
Mr. Taylor answered that the liability and responsibility
was on the individual. The Ethics Act was a personal act
that put the impetus on obeying the act on the individual.
He clarified it did not mean other people could not raise
the issue, which was typically how the issues came to
light. He elaborated that typically DOL or another
department such as the Department of Natural Resources
noticed something going on. Additionally, private citizens
sometimes sent in complaints. He explained that at that
time a complaint would be adjudicated and if the person was
found to have violated the act, they would be personally
responsible.
3:29:01 PM
AT EASE
3:29:49 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Josephson stated that he did not know how
Mr. Taylor could have reached his conclusion that any
potential liability would reside with Mr. Stevens. He
shared his belief that Mr. Taylor had rewritten AS
39.52.180. He stated it was not the same law that Mr.
Taylor was speaking of. He asked how Mr. Taylor would make
a case that Mr. Stevens would be liable for violating the
Ethics Act, when the act put the burden of the waiver in
the screening process on the administration.
Mr. Taylor answered that it was completely up to the
governor's office and the attorney general to evaluate
waiver requests. He elaborated that if they did not find
that the waiver request was in the public interest, they
were under an obligation not to grant the waiver. He stated
that by exercising the authority not to grant a waiver, the
individual would be liable under the Ethics Act if they
violate the two-year rule against engaging in conduct they
had personally and substantively engaged in while employed
by the state.
3:31:31 PM
Representative Josephson did not see anything in AS
39.52.180 about the departing employee's duty and
responsibility to report they were being asked to work on
something that may breach the statute. He interpreted the
"may waive" language as an exception to the presumption
that the person could not work in a capacity similar that
overlapped. He stated that Mr. Steven's job concerned
government relations. He remarked that Mr. Jepsen had sat
in the gallery for two years while he had been the co-chair
of the House Resources Committee. He remarked that there
were a lot of oil and gas issues and in the last
legislature there had been 37 bills on oil and gas. He
thought Mr. Taylor had rewritten the code in his analysis.
He was surprised Mr. Taylor did not demand the
administration provide him with a copy of a waiver.
Mr. Taylor responded that once a waiver was granted the
state was completely unprotected. He explained that once a
waiver was granted, the individual could engage in whatever
was outlined in the waiver in private practice. He stated
it had been "our" position for a long time that the
situations were looked at on a case by case basis and if
there was a need for a waiver, it would be evaluated by the
governor and attorney general. He explained that if the
governor and attorney general found there was a need for a
waiver because there was personal and substantive
involvement in the specific issue the individual wanted to
engage in in private practice and that it was in the public
interest, the waiver would be granted. He stressed there
was no obligation on the governor to grant waivers. He
stated that the waiver left the public unprotected. He
explained it was the reason the governor had to find that a
waiver was in the public interest before giving approval.
3:34:55 PM
Representative Josephson replied that it was a policy call
that would require legislative change. He moved to a
different topic. He referenced Mr. Taylor's statement that
he met with members of the LGBT community to discuss
issues. He asked for details about the issues and what
resolution or conclusion had been reached.
Mr. Taylor replied that he felt very strongly about the
issues he had worked on for almost two years with
individuals from LGBT community leadership. He expounded
that the issues surrounded the intersection between LGBT
rights and religious liberties. The idea had been to get
together with the LGBT community and devise a statutory
scheme to present to the legislature that would protect
members of the LGBT community from discrimination and being
treated in an undignified manner. Additionally, it would
individual's rights to religious freedom. He stated that it
was difficult to speak about the two groups separately
because so many members of the LGBT community were
religious adherents. He detailed that a couple of sponsors
had been found to carry legislation, but it had
unfortunately not moved forward.
Representative Josephson asked what advice Mr. Taylor would
give the Human Rights Commission if the commission told the
attorney general it wanted to expand jurisdiction to cover
claims of anti-discrimination for LGBT community members
relative to housing, employment, lending, etcetera.
Mr. Taylor answered that his advice would come after his
evaluation of the current statutory scheme. He elaborated
that his duty as attorney general was to defend state laws.
He would review what state laws stated on the subject and
then consult with the Human Rights Commission on the
findings.
Vice-Chair Ortiz prefaced the question with the fact that
the attorney general served at the discretion of the
governor. He asked how important it was for the attorney
general, serving at the head of DOL, to have a strong
independence from the governor.
Mr. Taylor replied that he took the duties very seriously.
He referenced the oath he had taken several days after the
governor had asked him to serve as the next attorney
general. He stated that the oath was not to the governor's
office or other departments, but to the U.S. Constitution
and the Constitution of the State of Alaska and to the
people of the state. He stated that he took the oath very
seriously. He believed there was an opportunity for
independence in decisions about litigation that the state
took on. He elaborated that the Alaska Supreme Court had
made it clear that the attorney general had the authority
to bring action that the attorney general considered to be
in the public's interest. He pointed out that the governor
was not included.
Mr. Taylor remarked that the governor was a client just
like all of the other departments and commissions and the
attorney general took what the clients wanted into
consideration. He explained that ultimately, his duty was
to the laws of the state, the state constitution, and the
people of the state. He viewed his role as independent when
deciding what litigation the state would engage in. He
added that if the governor was unhappy with the decisions
being made by the attorney general, the governor had the
ability to remove the attorney general from the office. He
stated it was a check the governor had on the authority of
the attorney general to engage in litigation the attorney
general found in the public's interest.
3:39:56 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz addressed the topic of litigation the
state may choose to pursue on behalf of the interest of the
governor or another agency. He asked if Mr. Taylor believed
it was important to advise the governor on the prospects of
being successful in pursuing such litigation.
Mr. Taylor answered that there were similarities and
differences between the role the attorney general played
for clients (i.e., the governor and departments) and the
role private practice played for its clients. He stated
that as in private practice, he expected the attorney
general to be frank with clients including outlining
strengths and weaknesses in a case, whether a case should
be pursued, and what the odds of a successful outcome were.
He believed it was the obligation attorneys took on under
the Alaska Bar Association. He shared that he took the role
very seriously and had filled the role of in-house counsel
for almost ten years. He elaborated that his role had been
to talk to individuals who ran the companies he advised and
give them very frank and clear advice on actions under
consideration.
Mr. Taylor addressed the difference between the role of
attorney general and attorneys in private practice. He
explained that the individuals running companies could
choose to take or leave an attorney's advice. As long as
there was nothing unethical and no laws were being
violated, it was their obligation as leaders of a
corporation. Whereas the attorney general got to decide on
any litigation and what was in the public interest. He
elaborated that while the attorney general advised clients
frankly on actions, defending the actions was one of the
duties of the state. He reiterated that he got to make the
call on whether to engage in litigation.
3:42:38 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz stated that the governor had very recently
announced an initiative that he wanted to see the state
takeover management of more than 8,000 miles of navigable
rivers and 30 million acres of navigable lakes in Alaska,
which would mean taking over management from the federal
government. He asked if there could be litigation over the
issue.
Mr. Taylor answered in the affirmative. He elaborated that
the state had title to submerged lands under navigable
water since statehood. He detailed that the Sturgeon
decision clarified that the state owned the land under
navigable waters and that the state had the right to manage
the waters as well. The state had been in the process of
litigating each of the things separately since statehood.
He stated that the governor was changing the paradigm. He
provided a hypothetical example of a person in a grocery
store coming out to their car. He explained that the
individual could merely get in their car and drive away
without having to furnish ownership documents or tell an
agency. He underscored that the state had ownership of
submerged lands under navigable waters and had the right to
control waters above the submerged lands. He stressed it
was a right Alaska had since statehood, which had been made
clear by the U.S. Supreme Court. He stated that the
governor had changed the paradigm; he was getting in the
car and driving it. He anticipated litigation on the issue.
He stated it had been 60 years in the making and he hoped
the state could deal with the issue in one piece of
litigation instead of piecemeal year after year expending
state funds to claim what was rightfully belonged to the
state and the people of Alaska.
3:45:29 PM
Representative Wool referenced a graphic Mr. Taylor had
shown about the sex crime rate in the state. He asked where
the state ranked nationally in violent crime and homicide.
Mr. Taylor replied that he did not have the information on
hand.
Representative Wool believed Alaska ranked number one in
violent crime and number two in homicide. He understood the
emphasis on the important issue of sex crimes. He assumed
the same emphasis would be given to violent crime given the
state's poor ranking. He asked for detail.
Mr. Taylor answered that there was no intent to slow
efforts in the areas. He remarked that the issues were
sometimes very interrelated. He believed people felt
emboldened when they broke the law and did not suffer any
type of recourse or society failed to hold them
responsible, which he thought led to further issues in
murder and violent crime rates. He was not taking his foot
off of the accelerator on the very important issues, while
trying to focus on the issue of sex crimes in Alaska.
Representative Wool asked if Mr. Taylor believed his role
as attorney general went beyond enforcement, prosecution,
and incarceration into a more holistic scope or vision of
how to eliminate the cycle of sex crime, violent crime,
homicide, etcetera.
3:47:56 PM
Mr. Taylor answered there were limitations on the attorney
general's authority to address the issues. He fully
intended to work with the other players in the arena
including the Department of Public Safety, the Department
of Health and Social Services, and other departments within
the state with pieces of the puzzle. The idea was to get
buy-in from the departments and governor's office on a plan
of action. He elaborated that he could also utilize his
voice. He believed that inherently the attorney general had
weight, which he intended to use for the public good when
it came to sex crimes.
Representative Wool asked about the Mr. Taylor's vision of
the state's involvement in Janus. He asked where Mr. Taylor
saw the case going forward and what the state's investment
should be.
Mr. Taylor answered that he understood it was a matter of
concern by many legislators. He believed that largely the
investment spent on the cases had already taken place. He
pointed out that he did not make the decision to engage in
Janus. He shared that he had seen a piece criticizing the
last amicus brief the state had joined in the Belgau case
before the U.S. Supreme Court. He communicated his intent
to reevaluate the decision. He understood the legislature
used the appropriations power to set some limitations. He
had not made the initial evaluation but be believed it
brought up some separation of powers issues. He stated that
the Alaska Supreme Court had made it clear the attorney
general had the power to bring litigation the attorney
general deemed to be in the interest of the public. He
believed any appropriations language curtailing the
authority may or may not be unconstitutional. He remarked
there was another issue with the confinement clause that an
appropriations bill could not be used to administer a state
program. He planned to reevaluate the decision to determine
whether or not DOL was subject to the appropriation and
whether it was a lawful appropriations limitation. He
intended to do what the department found.
3:51:16 PM
Mr. Taylor stated that Janus was an important issue and
would not get into whether or not his predecessors had done
the right decision to engage in Janus. He shared his
framework for thinking about issues like Janus. He stated
there were two very important issues that were in conflict.
He stated there was an issue of constitutional rights. He
elaborated that the Janus court and the U.S. Supreme Court
enumerated the rights as it related to an individual and
their association with union representation. He stated that
the individual constitutional right was very important;
however, so was the state's interest. He believed any time
state interests and individual constitutional rights came
into conflict, he would always lean on the side of the
individual's constitutional rights. He explained that his
predecessors had asked the courts to decide the conflict
for the state.
Mr. Taylor understood there was quite a bit of concern
about the amount of money being spent on the Janus
litigation. He was doing everything in his power to reduce
the litigation costs just like he would with any litigation
facing the state. He discussed cost saving measures. He
explained that the department had agreed to stipulate the
facts. He explained that the agreement saved the state and
saved the unions representing the other side a significant
amount of money because the state was not disagreeing over
the facts. The state had agreed the court had a clear
record that limited the amount of briefing to be done by
the parties. He had also substantially pulled back the role
of outside counsel. He understood his predecessor had
engaged a capable law firm and the unions had engaged a
capable law firm out of San Francisco. He believed going
forward the department had an ability to do the work in-
house.
3:53:41 PM
Mr. Taylor continued to answer the question related to
Janus. He was taking a serious look at whether the state
would appeal the last decision. He remarked that it was a
process and the state had agreed with the other counsel to
put off an appeal date until after seeing what the court
would do with Belgau. He explained that the state was
participating in Belgau because it was the first case up
before the U.S. Supreme Court. He elaborated that if the
supreme court looked at the case and made a decision, the
state would know where it was functioning on constitutional
grounds, and it could avoid a lot of litigation in the
future. Additionally, the state could avoid issues that
would arise when it negotiated its CBAs [collective
bargaining agreements] with unions over the next several
years. He explained it would be a non-issue if there was a
U.S. Supreme Court decision. He added that he fully
intended to comply with the decision. He stated the issue
was not about him hoping for one outcome over another. He
explained that the state needed a decision. He relayed that
the state had been sued by two employees following the
Janus decision and following the state's actions in regard
to the Janus decision. The state had agreed with the two
parties to stay the lawsuits until after the supreme court
ruled on Belgau. He hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would take
on the Belgau case and provide a ruling to enable the state
to move forward and put the issue in the past.
3:55:21 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz highlighted DOL's duty to protect
consumers. He was particularly interested in the area of
business mergers that could result in the perception of
eliminating competition. He asked how active a role Mr.
Taylor thought DOL should play in its duties in consumer
protection.
Mr. Taylor replied that DOL was the last line of defense
for the Alaska public in regard to mergers. He relayed that
the department took the role very seriously. He reported
that the department monitored mergers from the first time
it became aware of the merger throughout the merger
process. He elaborated that if the department did not
believe there was a violation of law in a merger, it
continued to monitor what took place after the merger to
ensure Alaska consumers were protected. He explained that
if DOL felt two years down the line that a merger had
resulted in a practice that was detrimental to the public,
the department would act on residents' behalf.
Representative Josephson remarked that the Janus decision
concerned non-members, not members. He referenced Mr.
Taylor's mention of constitutional rights. He highlighted
that the constitution included a case called Laughlin
Steel, specifying people had the constitutional right to
organize. He noted that the state was on the hook for
$185,000 in damages in just one of the lawsuits. He
encouraged committee members to look at AS 39.52.250(b),
which stated that a former public officer was not liable
under the chapter for any action carried out in accordance
with the advice of the attorney general issued under this
section if the public officer fully disclosed all relevant
facts reasonably necessary for the issuance of the advice.
He believed the attorney general's position was that he had
not given all of his advice. He was concerned that the
attorney general's meeting with Mr. Stevens and
ConocoPhillips would be classified as the moment in time
when advice was given. He pointed out there was some
evidence that Mr. Stevens would not be held liable.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked Mr. Taylor for meeting with the
committee and relayed his confirmation would be finished
during another meeting. She asked for a motion from Vice-
Chair Ortiz.
Vice-Chair Ortiz stated that the House Finance Committee
had reviewed the qualifications of the governor's
appointees and recommended the following names be forwarded
to a joint session for consideration:
Regulatory Commission of Alaska
Keith Kurber
Robert Pickett
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority
Rhonda Boyles
Brent Fisher
Anita Halterman
Annette Gwalthney-Jones
Vice-Chair Ortiz noted that the action did not reflect the
intention of any member to vote for or against the
individuals during any further session for the purposes of
confirmation.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked the appointees.
3:59:24 PM
AT EASE
3:59:58 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the agenda for the following
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
4:00:15 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Taylor Testimony McLeod 032621.pdf |
HFIN 3/31/2021 1:30:00 PM |
Gov Appointee HFIN |