Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
04/07/2021 09:00 AM 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: 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
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 7, 2021
9:01 a.m.
9:01:49 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Merrick called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:01 a.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
Treg Taylor, Governor's Appointee, Attorney General,
Department of Law
SUMMARY
CONSIDERATION OF GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES: TREG TAYLOR,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the meeting agenda.
^CONSIDERATION OF GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES: TREG TAYLOR,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
9:02:31 AM
Representative Josephson stated that his questions related
to Mr. Taylor's testimony on the statute from the Alaska
Executive Branch Ethics Act (AS 39.52.180) related to
restrictions on employment after leaving state service. He
stated that Mr. Taylor had noted a preference for not
granting Mr. [Ben] Stevens a waiver because the state would
be unprotected if it did so. He asked Mr. Taylor if he
recalled the testimony [from the 3/31/21 1:30 p.m.
meeting].
TREG TAYLOR, GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEE, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW (via teleconference), replied that he
recalled the testimony.
Representative Josephson wondered, based on Mr. Taylor's
position on the issue, why the state would ever grant a
waiver to anyone.
Mr. Taylor answered that the statute laid it out. He
elaborated there were times in the course of a person's
duties while working for the state that they had worked on
things in a personal and substantive manner and once they
left state service, they wanted to engage in the same issue
outside of state service. He stated there were times it was
in the public interest to allow an individual to engage in
the work. The statute allowed for setting up a process for
the governor and attorney general (AG) to review the
request for a conflict waiver. He explained that the
governor and AG could grant the waiver if they determined
it was appropriate for the person to work on an issue they
had worked on during their state service. The governor and
AG could also determine it was not in the public interest
to grant the conflict waiver. He elaborated that if the
waiver was denied, the individual would be prohibited from
engaging in work in the specific area for a period of two
years after leaving state service.
9:05:30 AM
Representative Josephson stated that Natalie Loman, the
public facing person (other than the president) of
ConocoPhillips AK had told the media that Mr. Stevens'
would be working on legislative affairs. He referenced Mr.
Taylor's previous testimony that he had met with
ConocoPhillips. He asked how Mr. Stevens could do the work
without coming into conflict with personal and substantive
work as [the governor's] chief of staff. He asked how Mr.
Stevens could do the job he was being paid to do.
Mr. Taylor answered that just because a person had been an
engineer for the State of Alaska did not prevent them from
engaging in engineering after leaving state service. He
explained that the conflict arose when a person was working
on issues they had specifically worked on as a state
employee in a personal and substantive way. He stated that
just because as chief of staff, a person engaged in working
with the legislature on issues, did not mean the person
could not engage in the same general work following state
service. He stated it was issue specific, which was the
time a conflict waiver would be necessary.
Representative Josephson referenced a document in members'
packets showing that previous administrations believed a
former state psychiatrist should get a waiver from a future
employer in the field of psychiatry. He stated it was hard
to imagine how performing the psychiatric care for patients
at the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API), knowing about
the psychiatric care, and talking about it with a future
employer could be a threat to public interest. However, he
stressed that the former public employee had been required
to get a waiver. He emphasized that while in the current
case, Mr. Taylor believed it was up to Mr. Stevens, under
the Executive Branch Ethics Act, to be the judge and jury
of whether he needed to contact Mr. Taylor to talk about a
conflict. He asked Mr. Taylor if that was what he believed
had been passed as the law.
Mr. Taylor believed the statement by Representative
Josephson was a mischaracterization of what he had stated.
He clarified that under the ethics act, any violation of
the act would be personal to Mr. Stevens. He elaborated
that Mr. Stevens had an obligation under the act to follow
the statute under discussion. He stated that Mr. Stevens
was not the judge and jury, there were outside sources. He
elaborated that the AG's office received ethics complaints
all of the time from third parties. He relayed that if the
Department of Law (DOL), another department, or the
governor became aware of actions a former employee was
taking, they could raise the issues at the time. He
clarified it was not completely up to Mr. Stevens to police
himself, there were other safeguards in place under the
ethics act. He stated that for a waiver to be necessary,
Mr. Stevens would have to engage in an issue for
ConocoPhillips that he directly engaged in as a state
employee in a personal and substantive manner. He did not
understand how a general waiver would protect the state
under the current circumstance. He believed giving a
general waiver to Mr. Stevens on the issue, it would
circumvent what the legislature had put in place to protect
the State of Alaska. He explained it was the reason he was
insistent on looking at each individual issue on a case-by-
case basis. He added that he fully expected issues would
arise in the coming months and years where the AG and
governor would need to evaluate whether to grant Mr.
Stevens an issue-specific waiver.
9:10:58 AM
Representative Josephson paraphrased Mr. Taylor's statement
[from a previous meeting] that he was doing some rethinking
about the future of the Janus litigation. He asked for
verification that Mr. Taylor had signed many of the
pleadings in the past couple of years for the state on
Janus related litigation.
Mr. Taylor replied that it was a distinct possibility that
his name appeared on some of the pleadings. He expounded
that typically the AG's name was on the pleadings. He could
not specifically recall whether his name had appeared on
the documents, but he had been involved in his role as the
deputy attorney general on the issue.
Representative Thompson asked what the state was doing
about the 9th circuit court's decisions on the open carry
in Hawaii and on the magazine limitations in California. He
asked how the decisions impacted Alaska.
Mr. Taylor responded that the State of Alaska cared deeply
about the 2nd Amendment. He found the two specific cases to
be alarming in a number of ways. He shared that Alaska had
joined an amicus brief in the 9th Circuit, challenging the
California law. He detailed that the law banned certain
capacity magazines and it was the state's contention that
the law was unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment. He
reported that DOL was monitoring the Hawaii case and
believed the 9th Circuit got the ruling wrong. He
elaborated that the case eviscerated the 2nd Amendment's
protection of the right to bear arms. He explained that the
Hawaii law prohibited people from carrying firearms unless
they could show a good reason to the state.
Mr. Taylor relayed that the cases did not directly impact
Alaska's law or current right to bear arms under the state
and U.S. constitutions. He explained that if the
legislature decided to pass legislation banning magazines
or prohibiting the right to carry firearms without
demonstrating a good reason, the laws would be
constitutional in the eyes of the California court and the
9th Circuit court. He reiterated that the cases did not
change anything pertaining to Alaska law; however, it
allowed future legislatures to delve into the two areas.
9:14:32 AM
Representative Thompson asked what the state was currently
doing to defend its statehood and resource development
rights.
Mr. Taylor replied that it was an area of law that had
always been a priority for DOL; the department had been
dealing with the issues and sorting them out since
statehood. There were currently many ongoing cases related
to statehood defense including navigable water issues, RS
2477 issues, resource development issues, and management of
fish and game. He highlighted the Tongass where there was a
federal exemption from the roadless rule. He detailed there
had been two lawsuits challenging the exemption. He
explained that Alaska had intervened with 22 other parties
asking the court to uphold the exemption from the roadless
rule. He stated that within the Natural Petroleum Reserve-
Alaska (NPRA) the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had
issued a revised management plan. There had been two
lawsuits filed by environmental groups challenging the
revised plan and Alaska had intervened in both actions.
Mr. Taylor continued to address the question by
Representative Thompson. He reported that the state had
intervened in multiple lawsuits challenging decisions
related to the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). He
stated that the Obama Administration had limited hunting in
the Kenai Wildlife Refuge, which DOL had appealed to the
9th Circuit. He cited the Ambler Road as another example.
He detailed that the federal government had approved the
road but there had been several cases from environmental
groups challenging the approval. He relayed that the state
had intervened in the cases. He addressed an issue related
to Cook Inlet waters where the 9th Circuit found the
federal government needed to manage the federal waters
adjacent to the state waters, whereas previously the state
had management over those waters. The department was
currently working with the federal government on the issue
as it developed the management plan. The department wanted
to ensure the management plan worked in conjunction with
the state plan in state waters.
Mr. Taylor continued to answer the question by
Representative Thompson. He highlighted an issue where the
federal subsistence board delegated authority to local land
managers, which the state felt violated the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). He addressed the
proposed Pebble mine project and clarified the issue was
not about support or opposition to the project. He
referenced the Army Corps of Engineers denial of the 404
clean water permit and explained that the Army Corps could
deny a permit based on several criteria. He stated that the
Army Corps' denial was not based on any of the specified
criteria. He shared that DOL had tried to intervene in the
case, which was an agency decision. He explained that the
state had been denied due to not having sufficient interest
even though the mining project was planned on state land.
The department was continuing to monitor the situation and
was asking the Army Corps to follow its own process. He
remarked that if the Army Corps failed to follow the
process in the Pebble project, it could fail to follow the
process in any development within Alaska.
Mr. Taylor provided a final example in response to
Representative Thompson's question. He explained that
Hilcorp had received a federal permit to conduct seismic
testing in Cook Inlet. He detailed that a group had sued to
challenge the federal permit and the state had intervened
to thwart the federal decision. He relayed that the
examples were just a handful of the many cases in regard to
statehood rights and resource development. He expected many
more cases in the coming years. He thought the state was in
for a considerable expenditure of resources in defense of
statehood rights.
9:19:12 AM
Representative Johnson referenced Mr. Taylor's previous
statements about working with LBGTQ groups. She believed
former Senator Chris Birch and former Representative Chuck
Kopp had taken up a law passed in Utah, which she believed
had merit. She asked if Mr. Taylor had been referring to
the legislation.
Mr. Taylor confirmed it was the legislation he had referred
to [during a previous meeting]. Former Senator Birch and
Representative Kopp had agreed to sponsor the bill and it
was something he had worked on with them for many years to
try to weigh the individual rights of the LGBT community
with the religious freedoms guaranteed under the state
constitution.
Representative Johnson stated that one of the items that
came out of the DOL budget subcommittee was a carve-out in
the Civil Division related to Janus litigation. She asked
how much contractual Janus legislation Mr. Taylor
anticipated. She stated the action was unprecedented and
was typically done through intent language. She asked how
the budget action telling DOL what it could not do would
impact his job.
Mr. Taylor replied that the department had taken a number
of measures to scale back on spending related to Janus. He
shared that the department had worked hard with the
opposing party (the union) to stipulate the facts. He
explained that agreeing on the facts took out much of the
litigation and the motions typically seen in litigation and
made for a streamlined record during appeal. He detailed
that the agreement on facts saved a significant amount of
time and effort. The department had also pulled back the
role of outside counsel substantially. He relayed the
department was taking a serious look into whether to appeal
the decision and it had worked with opposing counsel in the
action to delay a decision on appeal.
Mr. Taylor explained the case was before the [U.S.] Supreme
Court and cert had been requested. He noted that not all of
the thousands of cases that asked for cert were granted a
hearing before the court. The department was hoping cert
would be granted in the Belgau litigation currently before
the court. He discussed that the state had been sued by two
employees in the Janus litigation alleging the state and
union failed to follow their constitutional rights. He
stated that both cases had been stayed while awaiting the
court's decision on Belgau. The state had put off an appeal
decision directly with the union until the decision had
been made. He explained that all of the measures
substantially reduced spend on the case.
9:24:29 AM
Mr. Taylor addressed the second part of Representative
Johnson's question related to a cut to the DOL budget in
the subcommittee. He explained that the subcommittee had
thought cutting the chief of staff position was a cut to
general funds. He clarified that the chief of staff was
funded through IAs [inter-agency receipts] between the
different divisions. He explained that the chief of staff
served the Criminal Division, Civil Division, and AG;
therefore, the divisions shared the funding for the
position. He stated that unfortunately the reduction
actually went to the AG's executive assistant. He depended
on the position to help keep track of matters and for
outreach to the public and the legislature. Additionally,
the cut went to the department's legislative liaison. He
hoped the funding could be retained for the chief of staff
position. He wanted the position to help coordinate efforts
on addressing sex crimes in Alaska. He elaborated on his
plan to involve multiple departments and the governor's
office in the multifaceted issue.
9:26:30 AM
Representative Johnson referenced a "rather scathing"
letter in members' packets [pertaining to the appointment
of Mr. Taylor as AG]. She read from the letter:
He's announced a so called sincere desire prioritizing
and addressing the sexual violence crisis that Alaska
faces without any concrete plans of how to do so.
Representative Johnson asked Mr. Taylor to provide more
detail on his plans.
Mr. Taylor replied that he had reviewed the letter earlier
in the day. He categorically condemned the actions of his
predecessor related to texts he had sent while in his
position as the attorney general. He believed he had made
it clear in various hearings that it was appropriate for
his predecessor to be removed from his role as AG. He
addressed his plan regarding sexual assault crimes, which
had expanded in scope. He shared his hope to involve the
Department of Public Safety, Department of Corrections, and
Department of Health and Social Services in a multifaceted
approach to combatting sex crimes in Alaska. He elaborated
that the first meeting had been held with the departments
and governor's office the previous week. He stated that
while the plans were in their infancy, there were certain
things he could do immediately as AG. He detailed that the
department would provide annual training on domestic
violence and sexual assault for its prosecutors and support
staff. The department had created a new full-time position
to train the prosecutors and answer prosecutors' questions
on the difficult trials. The department had asked for a
budget increase to fund ten additional prosecutors and nine
support staff to house the sex crimes section. He stressed
it was not a problem the state could prosecute its way out
of, but the effort reflected one prong in the approach.
Mr. Taylor shared that the department currently had a
section of five prosecutors. He stated that all prosecutors
had the ability to prosecute sex crimes, but the specific
unit was designed to focus on the issue. He added there had
been a turnover of six in a section of five attorneys in
the past two years. He believed burnout was the cause of
the turnover. He elaborated attorneys currently had about
67 cases per person. He added that given the average time
it took to prosecute a sex crime, 30 cases alone would put
the attorneys well over 40 hours per week. Additionally,
the type of prosecution was emotionally taxing. He remarked
that the attorneys felt passionate about their work, which
included emotional stress caused by not having enough time
to focus on each of the cases. He stated that the ten
additional attorneys and nine additional support staff
would go a long way to reducing the caseload. He was hoping
to build up a cadre of seasoned officers in the area that
could act as mentors to newer attorneys. He hoped to reduce
the caseload into the 40s down from 67 with the new
prosecutors. Additionally, he hoped the reduced caseload
would reduce turnover. He hoped the changes would
ultimately provide better support for survivors of sex
crimes.
9:32:10 AM
Representative Johnson stated that with the new federal
administration a number of things had come out from the
White House. She stated that one current topic was about
rights for women athletes and the ability for transgender
athletes to compete. She considered whether the state
needed related legislation or if it would hold up in light
of what the federal government was saying about states'
rights. She stated that federal overreach could extend from
criminal issues to the state's land rights. She remarked
that it was another issue when the federal government
stated it would withhold federal education funds if the
state failed to comply. She asked how to push back against
the federal government on a variety of issues. She asked
Mr. Taylor to speak to the current rights and some of the
legislation happening in other states.
Mr. Taylor replied that DOL was constantly weighing the
decision on whether to push back on what it was seeing. He
referenced the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) that
provided funding to the state but prohibited states from
decreasing taxes while receiving the federal funds. He
stated that the entity responsible for taxation within
Alaska was the legislature and he believed the federal
government's requirement was an inherent conflict. He
thought it was a direct attack on the legislature's right
to decide tax issues within the state. He informed the
committee that the department would push back on the
requirement and felt strongly that the federal government
had overstepped its bounds. He stated it was one example of
how the department evaluated issues and when it decided to
push back.
9:35:35 AM
Representative Carpenter believed there was somewhat of a
stain on the reputation of DOL given the unprofessional
behavior of the last two attorneys general. He thought the
behavior had likely impacted the climate and possibly the
culture of the department. He believed it may also impact
the ability to address recruit and retention issues. He
asked what Mr. Taylor would do to address the culture and
climate in the department as well as recruitment and
retention.
Mr. Taylor replied that the words accurately described his
feelings about the situation. He agreed the former
situations were a stain on DOL in public perception and
within morale within the department. He stated that the
issues weighed heavily on his mind, and he felt a
responsibility to correct the issue within the public eye
and within the department. He explained that when it had
occurred, he acted quickly to address all of the questions
from staff within the department. Additionally, he had left
his position as deputy attorney general and there had been
numerous questions about what would happen there. He had
addressed the issues quickly. He stated that some of the
concern had been whether an outsider would be brought in
for the deputy position. He decided they needed a trusted
person within the department who would have full support
from other staff. He had quickly reached out to Cori Mills
who had taken over as the new deputy attorney general for
the Civil Division. He stated that Ms. Mills was doing a
fantastic job and he believed her selection had gone a long
way toward calming the nerves of staff and other department
attorneys.
Mr. Taylor continued to address the question by
Representative Carpenter. He explained that the story of
Mr. Ed Sniffen had broken over a weekend and the first
thing employees saw when they returned to work was an email
from Mr. Taylor addressing the elephant in the room and
letting employees knew he understood how difficult the
situation was. He elaborated that Mr. Sniffen had been well
loved and respected within the department and had worked
for the department for over 20 years. He acknowledged that
people were processing the news at different speeds and in
their own way. Additionally, he had let employees know that
the department's strength resided with the attorneys and
staff and not the person residing at the AG's desk at a
given time. He believed the quick and decisive action had
gone a long way toward stabilizing internally.
Mr. Taylor shared that recruitment and retention had been
an issue for the department for quite some time. He
detailed that the department was in the process of
finalizing a strategic plan and one of the four priorities
identified was on recruitment and retention. He noted the
other three priorities tangentially touched on the same
issue. The department had identified a number of ways where
recruitment could be improved. He detailed that the
department wanted to expand the locations where recruitment
notices were posted. He expounded that DOL planned to
partner with law schools and other institutions to develop
pipelines into the department and develop relationships to
reach law students. Additionally, DOL wanted to better
utilize its attorneys in the recruiting process. He stated
that attorneys within the department all knew individuals
with the same interests who may be willing to join the
team. He highlighted the department's internship program
and reported that he was looking into the possibility of
developing an externship program where third-year law
students could work for the department and receive school
credit. He stated that it DOL also needed to improve the
recruitment website as well. He addressed the importance of
accentuating the positive aspects about living in Alaska.
Mr. Taylor continued addressing ideas related to
recruitment. He spoke about the need to be more creative in
the process. He explained that when vacant positions were
posted they sometimes received one or two applicants, which
meant the position needed to be reposted. He shared that a
fellowship position had been posted, which had received an
overwhelming response. He believed fellowship positions
needed to be better utilized. He detailed it was a two-year
program. He explained that many times people in fellowships
enjoyed working at the department and left the position
early to take a full-time position within the department.
He stated it was a great tool the department should better
utilize.
Mr. Taylor discussed retention and shared that DOL was
trying to improve training opportunities. He elaborated
that the department had partnered with some outside groups
to provide training and was working to increase internal
training as well. The department was considering
telecommuting options like all other departments. He
relayed that the option had been discussed prior to COVID
with the understanding it may be a good option for some of
attorneys. The department believed it needed to clarify and
expand its existing promotional tracks so that attorneys
understood the criteria.
9:43:03 AM
Mr. Taylor continued to address the question. He loved that
DOL served the people of Alaska and worked on a broad
variety of law in the state. He detailed there were almost
300 attorneys and 15 sections within the Civil Division
doing distinct work. He wanted to encourage attorneys to
move around the department to gain experience in other
sections. He wanted attorneys to feel like they could move
to different section if they were dissatisfied with their
work in order to keep attorneys within the department. He
stated that the movement between sections would mean
attorneys would be cross trained on various aspects, which
would be useful for coverage if another attorney was out
sick or on maternity leave.
9:44:12 AM
Representative Carpenter was encouraged by Mr. Taylor's
response that he recognized the importance of addressing
the elephant in the room with department employees. He
remarked that unprofessional behavior impacted the quality
of work done. He asked about strategic vision and what the
largest challenges for the department were in the next
several years.
Mr. Taylor replied that a backlog of criminal and civil
trials that had piled up due to COVID. The department was
currently pushing for misdemeanor criminal trials to start
back up. The department believed misdemeanor trials were
ideally suited for the COVID environment because the trials
involved fewer people and were shorter than other types of
criminal trials. The department was hoping to get the
criminal matters moving through the courts. He relayed that
misdemeanor criminal trials had shorter sentencing times.
He stated that in order to comply with the constitutional
requirement for speedy trials, the department felt a
necessity to start pushing the courts to open and start
conducting trials.
Mr. Taylor anticipated there would be a substantial
increase in statehood defense issues, which was one of the
reasons the department was requesting for $4 million over
the next four years to help address the concerns. He
reported that DOL was already working at capacity in the
sections dealing with the topic. He relayed it would be a
real challenge as the department addressed the necessary
actions to deal with statehood defense. He stated that the
department was addressing the issue with a multifaceted
approach. In addition to the budget request, the department
was communicating frequently with its counterparts in other
states with large federal land holdings and resource
development. He explained that the states kept each other
apprised of federal actions that may have an impact. For
example, he would call West Virginia to notify them if he
heard about coal coming up on the federal register.
Mr. Taylor continued that he hoped to use combined
resources to address some of the issues. He highlighted the
executive order related to offshore/onshore oil leasing. He
elaborated that the department had joined with other states
led by Louisiana on the issue, which had saved an immense
amount of resources within DOL. He detailed that the state
had been able to add Alaska-specific items to the
complaints. He stated there would likely be much more of
that type of thing. He remarked that Alaska was different
than the Lower 48; it had ANILCA and numerous things
guaranteed in statehood. There were many things that were
Alaska specific that the state would have to address and
defend on its own, which would be a big hurdle.
9:48:45 AM
Mr. Taylor mentioned that he thought there would be an
increase in child in need cases as society returned to
normal following COVID (as kids started returning to
school, spending time at friends' houses, going to doctor
appointments, and other). He believed there would be
increased reports of child abuse and neglect. He remarked
that COVID had been difficult financially and emotionally
and those types of environments historically had resulted
in more child in need cases. He shared that the department
was gearing up for that possibility. He stated that the
specific work could be a thankless job and he applauded
attorneys in the section devoted to the issues. He shared
that he and his wife had brought in her cousin's two
children - they had gone through the system as infants and
were with them for two years. He stated the system was near
and dear to his heart. He worried about the state's
capacity to address all of the cases.
9:50:20 AM
Representative Carpenter referenced a question he had
previously asked about the state's land grant issue with
the university. He asked if Mr. Taylor had looked into the
issue. He wondered what could be done to increase the lands
available to the land grant university.
Mr. Taylor replied that he had not thoroughly reviewed the
issue. He shared that he had a memo in his inbox that he
had received the previous afternoon outlining the issues.
He relayed that after he had spoken with Representative
Carpenter, he had reached out to other attorneys in the
department to be briefed on the topic. He imagined there
would be some follow up meetings after he reviewed the
memo. He hoped to have more information to provide the next
time he spoke with the committee.
9:51:24 AM
Co-Chair Foster stated he had been happy to hear Mr. Taylor
mention RS 2477s or historic trails and Alaskans' ability
to use the trails. He reported that there were numerous
historic trails in the park on the Seward Peninsula in
Nome. He highlighted the Serpentine Hot Springs 100 miles
north of Nome. He stated that currently most people reached
the hot springs by plane; however, most people did not have
a plane. He explained that people would love to be able to
take an ATV to access the area. He remarked that there were
many trails throughout the state where access was
restricted for similar reasons. He was glad to hear the
state would push back against the federal government to
allow greater access. He asked if there was anything
specific the department was currently working on or any
specific future plans to try to break the issue that had
been around since ANILCA.
9:53:05 AM
Mr. Taylor answered that it was a challenging issue because
it was place specific. He elaborated that each place the
state asserted an RS 2477, it tried to work with federal
counterparts and other land interest owners in developing
the areas and asserting the easement through the areas. He
noted that the federal government was an unwilling partner
and in order to pursue the issue was almost always through
some form of litigation. The department was hoping to find
a way to prevent that in the future and to have a better
relationship with federal counterparts on the issue.
Mr. Taylor stated that DOL was working hard to develop the
relationship, which would hopefully bear fruit. The
department was looking at ways to streamline the process
because it was resource intensive. He stated that each RS
2477 required experts and significant research for
historical evidence. He stressed it was a time consuming
and expensive process; however, the department would
continue to fight the fight. He believed it was important
for all Alaskans to have access to the lands. He agreed
that not everyone in the state had access to a plane where
they could bypass some of the areas and they relied on
easements to gain access to lands guaranteed at statehood.
He fully understood the concern.
9:55:01 AM
AT EASE
9:56:56 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick relayed the committee would resume the
confirmation hearing with Mr. Taylor at the afternoon
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
9:56:56 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Gov Appointees Treg Taylor, AG 032521.pdf |
HFIN 4/7/2021 9:00:00 AM |
FIN Taylor consideration |