Latest news with #GaryStevens
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Alaska Legislature halts Dunleavy effort to create agriculture department
John Boyle, commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (center left), sits with staff in the gallery of the Alaska House of Representatives as lawmakers debate the creation of a separate Alaska Department of Agriculture on Wednesday, March 19, 2025. Speaking is Rep. George Rauscher, R-Sutton. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon) Alaska will remain one of two states without a cabinet-level Department of Agriculture, at least for the time being. On Wednesday, the Alaska Legislature voted 32-28 to deny an executive order from Gov. Mike Dunleavy that would have created the department. Executive orders automatically take effect unless the Legislature, meeting in joint session, passes a resolution blocking them. The vote was largely along caucus lines, with members of the multipartisan House and Senate majorities voting in favor of the disapproval motion and members of the Republican House and Senate minorities voting against it. A 'yes' vote was against creating the department by executive order. A 'no' vote was in favor of the executive order. In favor *Jesse Bjorkman, R-Nikiski Robyn Niayuq Burke, D-Utqiagvik Ashley Carrick, D-Fairbanks *Matt Claman, D-Anchorage Maxine Dibert, D-Fairbanks *Forrest Dunbar, D-Anchorage Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham Ted Eischeid, D-Anchorage Zack Fields, D-Anchorage Neal Foster, D-Nome Alyse Galvin, I-Anchorage *Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage *Elvi Gray-Jackson, D-Anchorage Carolyn Hall, D-Anchorage Sara Hannan, D-Juneau Rebecca Himschoot, I-Sitka *Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel Ky Holland, I-Anchorage Andy Josephson, D-Anchorage *Scott Kawasaki, D-Fairbanks *Jesse Kiehl, D-Juneau Donna Mears, D-Anchorage *Kelly Merrick, R-Eagle River Genevieve Mina, D-Anchorage *Donny Olson, D-Golovin Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage *Bert Stedman, R-Sitka *Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak Andi Story, D-Juneau Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak *Löki Tobin, D-Anchorage *Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage Against Jamie Allard, R-Eagle River Jeremy Bynum, R-Ketchikan Mia Costello, R-Anchorage Julie Coulombe, R-Anchorage *Mike Cronk, R-Tok Bill Elam, R-Nikiski Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage *Shelley Hughes, R-Palmer Nellie Unangiq Jimmie, D-Bethel DeLena Johnson, R-Palmer *James Kaufman, R-Anchorage Chuck Kopp, R-Anchorage Kevin McCabe, R-Big Lake Elexie Moore, R-Wasilla *Robert Myers, R-North Pole David Nelson, R-Anchorage Mike Prax, R-North Pole George Rauscher, R-Sutton Justin Ruffridge, R-Soldotna Dan Saddler, R-Eagle River Rebecca Schwanke, R-Glennallen *Mike Shower, R-Wasilla Will Stapp, R-Fairbanks Cathy Tilton, R-Wasilla Frank Tomaszewski, R-Fairbanks Jubilee Underwood, R-Wasilla Sarah Vance, R-Homer *Robert Yundt, R-Wasilla *senator 'It was a fairly close vote, but in the end, I think we made the right decision,' said Senate President Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak. The Dunleavy administration has been working to promote in-state agriculture under the banner of 'food security' since the COVID-19 pandemic emergency and a separate West Coast dock strike threatened to limit food imports to Alaska. Alaska imports about 95% of its food. Establishing a cabinet-level agricultural department, Dunleavy officials said, wouldn't directly aid agriculture, but it would create the framework for future improvements and bring greater attention to a sector of the state economy that's currently overshadowed by oil and gas development. A cabinet-level agricultural department was the No. 1 priority of the state's food strategy task force and was endorsed by farmers and farm organizations across the state. But on Wednesday, a variety of legislators said they were rejecting the governor's proposal because he used an executive order, rather than legislation. Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, was among the legislators who said they were worried about protecting legislative prerogatives. An executive order can't be amended, meaning lawmakers were presented with a take-it-or-leave it proposal written as the governor wished. 'While the public had an opportunity to testify on the (executive order), there was no opportunity for the public to testify about what they might want to see in a new department that's being created,' Wielechowski said. Sen. Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel, said he would like to see a 'food security' effort acknowledge Alaska's natural resources, including berries, birds, caribou, moose and salmon. 'We should be looking at how we manage those resources and access to those resources,' he said. 'Let's not only look at the (Matanuska-Susitna) Valley. Let's look at all of the state of Alaska.' Other lawmakers objected to the proposal's cost; initial estimates suggested that creating the department would add $2.7 million more per year to the state budget, with higher costs possible in subsequent years. Later estimates suggested the department could be created at no additional cost. Sen. Jesse Bjorkman, R-Nikiski, said he doesn't believe that estimate. 'There's no free lunch,' he said. Supporters of the governor's executive order noted that the Alaska House last week passed a bill that would increase education spending by $272 million per year. The Alaska Senate is considering the revival of a pension program for public employees. In comparison, said Senate Minority Leader Mike Shower, R-Wasilla, the cost of an agricultural department is inconsequential. 'I've never seen this building be too worried about those kinds of numbers,' he said, referring to the cost of the proposed department. Sen. Shelley Hughes, R-Palmer, has been a key member of the state's food security task force and an advocate of the executive order. Alaska imports about $3 billion of food annually, she said. 'Some of the money we're sending out of state could be circulating here,' she said, adding that exports are also a possibility if agriculture grows enough. 'When you bring in new dollars from outside … that's how you grow your economy, right?' Creating the department through legislation will take time, Hughes said, and it's possible that lawmakers won't have enough time to pass a bill. 'There's no assurance that we get all the way through,' she said. 'The reason why the executive order, though, is better than the bill, in my opinion, is because there would be no delay to the farmers,' she said. 'We're approaching the growing season, and they're busy right now preparing.' 'We can take one vote today, and they can get to work, and we can move on and work on other priorities,' she said. Earlier in the legislative session, support for the governor's proposal appeared high, so much that a House committee voted against advancing the disapproval motion. Prior editions of the Legislature have simply declined to meet in joint session when presented with an executive order they supported, but this year, legislative attorneys said the meeting was required, not optional. 'I know that we actually had the votes as of a week ago,' Hughes said after the vote, 'and if I didn't hear the remarks about their willingness to hear a bill, I'd be incredibly disappointed.' During floor debates, Shower suggested that some legislators voted to kill the executive order specifically to deny Dunleavy 'a win.' Hughes said she doesn't know for sure why the order failed but echoed Shower's reasoning. 'I might be wrong, but I kind of see this as DDS — Dunleavy Derangement Syndrome — and you know, it's really unfortunate,' she said. Wielechowski and Stevens both said that opposition to the governor 'had nothing to do' with their votes against the proposal. 'I think it just makes a lot of sense … allowing us to have hearings,' Stevens said. Bills creating an agriculture department have already been introduced in the House and Senate, with the Senate version scheduled for a hearing next week, Senate Majority Leader Cathy Giessel said after the vote. Hughes urged speedy action. 'Am I going to put all my stakes in a bill going through quickly? No, but I think one should,' Hughes said. 'I think one should. It should not drag into next year. They need to hear the bill. They need to move it through.'
Yahoo
19-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Possible Postal Service changes present challenge to Alaska Bypass Mail
A plane flies over the town after taking off from the dirt runway on Sept. 14, 2019, in Kivalina, Alaska. (Photo by) In late February, Alaska Senate President Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak, and House Speaker Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, issued a letter to the state's congressional delegation voicing concerns over active and proposed federal spending cuts. In a list of potentially targeted agencies and programs they included one unique to Alaska: Bypass Mail. Bypass Mail is an Alaska-only classification of parcel post mail that bypasses U.S. Postal Service facilities. It includes food and other products that are shipped from Anchorage and Fairbanks through private carriers to retailers off of the road system. Bypass Mail must be from a single seller to a single recipient, shrink-wrapped and moved on pallets for ease of storage, and in a minimum order of 1,000 pounds. The USPS subsidizes the service, at an estimated cost of $133 million in 2022. Alaskans' concern over Bypass Mail is rooted in recent comments by President Donald Trump, who recently suggested ending the independence of the U.S. Postal Service. On Feb. 21, the Washington Post reported that Trump planned to transfer the USPS to the Department of Commerce. The president added the next day that the Commerce secretary was 'going to look at' postal reform. On March 5, presidential adviser Elon Musk announced his support for privatizing the Postal Service, saying, 'I think we should privatize the Post Office and Amtrak for example …. We should privatize everything we possibly can.' Calls to privatize the Postal Service have occurred since the 1980s, with rural delivery serving as a primary target. That's especially true for Alaska, where much of the state relies on air mail delivery. Virginia Congressman Gerry Connolly, ranking Democrat on the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was succinct last month in his estimation of what privatization would mean for the state, telling CNN, 'If you privatize the Postal Service, there's not a piece of mail that could be delivered in Alaska for any kind of reasonable price.' Those who oppose Bypass Mail, including the national-level Postal Service leaders, have repeatedly argued that it is not a mail service like others provided by the USPS. Instead, it is more similar to a private freight service. A 2011 USPS report referred to it as 'a freight service that includes items seemingly considered nonmailable anywhere else in the United States.' Bypass mail grew organically, out of the inability in the 1970s for Anchorage post offices to process the high volume of parcel post that was shipped to the bush. This mail reached its final destination by air and postal employees at that time began shifting large orders directly to the air carriers in a system they devised on their own. Rural mail service through the U.S. has been protected against previous cost-cutting attempts by a mandate in the 1970 Postal Reauthorization Act, which was co-sponsored by Alaska U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, created the USPS as the independent agency it is today. It codified into law that the USPS must provide 'equitable service to all Americans.' Bypass Mail has periodically been targeted for criticism. It was the subject of a strongly negative 2011 USPS report, followed by a 2014 congressional hearing. Then-Congressman Don Young testified at the time to the often unspoken and unsolvable part of the Alaska mail problem: lack of roads. 'Now, you build me some highways, Mr. Chairman,' he challenged California Republican Congressman Darrell Issa, 'and I will go along with you.' The hearing resulted in no changes to the Bypass Mail system. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy suggested eliminating Bypass entirely in 2020, but backed down in the face of political opposition. While those seeking to eliminate Bypass have suggested that without it shippers would promptly turn to freight services, Grant Aviation's Vice President of Commercial Operations Dan Knesek is mindful of parcel post's history. He cautions that those seeking to discontinue the program should be aware of how parcel post was previously the overwhelming choice for most Alaskan shippers and what returning to it would entail for the USPS. 'If those [thousands of pounds of] boxes were not shipped via Bypass, every box would be taken individually into the local post office by the shipper, every box would be weighed individually by a postal employee, and every box would then have to be stored in the post office until every box was separately dispatched for delivery. When it arrived in the destination village, the USPS would have to have employees out at that airport to receive every single box and either store them in those post offices or deliver them immediately. Right now,' he concluded, 'none of that storage and none of that handling is done by postal employees. It is almost entirely done by the aviation industry in Alaska. If the post office was to remove Bypass then it would need to invest in warehouses, hangars, trucks, forklifts, staff and everything else to do what the carriers are doing, and have done, in Alaska for decades.' Under the current system, USPS's only responsibility for Bypass Mail is to cover some of its costs. Once received by a carrier, the shipments are always under their control. The USPS thus is freed from responsibility for storage, loading, unloading, and delivery. Last year, according to Knesek, Grant Aviation moved 17 million pounds of U.S. mail as a Bush air carrier, with the majority of it Bypass Mail. Bush carriers serve small villages, mainline carriers serve hub destinations where the mail is then disseminated to Bush carriers. Additionally, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, which currently has figures through November 2024, reports that Bering Air moved 13.8 million pounds that year, Alaska Central Express moved 11.3 million pounds, Ryan Air moved 11 million pounds and Wright Air Service moved 5.4 million pounds. Several other companies flew figures less than one million pounds and Everts Air Cargo, which flies both mainline and Bush mail, flew just over 25 million pounds. When asked to comment on privatization and how it would affect Alaska, a USPS spokesperson replied that there was no statement at this time as the 'inquiry is centered on action by the administration and cuts that haven't happened.' Meanwhile, on March 14, DeJoy released a letter informing Congress that the USPS had entered into an agreement with the General Services Administration and Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. The agencies were going to assist USPS in 'identifying and achieving further efficiencies'. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
30-01-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Panel recommends automatic salary adjustments for Alaska governor, cabinet, lawmakers
Jan. 30—JUNEAU — A three-member panel recommended Wednesday that Alaska's governor, cabinet members and lawmakers receive automatic pay adjustments every odd-number year moving forward. The recommendation sets in motion pay changes for the state's top political officials based on the Anchorage consumer price index. That means that salaries would likely rise every other year, though they could also go down if the cost of living declines. The change — unless rejected by lawmakers — would go into effect in 2027. The proposal comes two years after the same panel recommended steep compensation boosts, including a 20% increase for the governor and his cabinet, and a 67% increase for lawmakers, following several years with no changes in pay. The pay guidance was issued by the State Officers Compensation Commission, which is required under law to issue recommendations every other year. The recommendations then go into effect automatically unless lawmakers pass legislation disapproving of them. Senate President Gary Stevens, a Kodiak Republican, said Wednesday that he was not in favor of automatic salary adjustments, and lawmakers might vote to reject the commission's proposal. "I don't like the idea of having an automatic increase because our budget is so tenuous," said Stevens. "We just don't know what's going to happen." Rep. Andy Josephson, an Anchorage Democrat, said he thought he was already "well compensated." "I'm hearing no interest from legislators in further adjustments to their salary," said Josephson. The commission — whose members are appointed by the governor and legislative leaders — was created to avoid direct conversations by lawmakers and the governor about how much they should get paid and when they should receive raises. But the commission's intended impartiality was largely sidestepped in 2023, when Gov. Mike Dunleavy fired all commission members after lawmakers rejected their proposal, which would have raised pay for the governor but not for lawmakers. The governor then appointed an all-new five-member commission, which approved a new proposal, paving the way for both lawmakers and the governor to receive pay raises with virtually no public input. Three commissioners have since resigned from the commission, and Dunleavy replaced only one of them, leaving the panel with just three members, the minimum needed to issue recommendations. Commissioners include former Education Commissioner Larry LeDoux, Fairbanks Economic Development Corp. President Jomo Stewart and Republican former Rep. Lynn Gattis. The commission's recommendations this year could largely render the panel's future meetings and intended purpose moot, by ensuring that lawmakers and the governor's pay are updated every other year, even without public comment or review. But commissioners signaled they would support future legislation to require the commission to continue to meet and prepare recommendations every other year. Such legislation has not been introduced this year. Lawmakers are currently compensated $84,000. All but Juneau lawmakers can also receive $307 per-day tax-free during legislative sessions, adding roughly $37,000 to their annual income. The governor is paid $176,000. The lieutenant governor is paid $140,000. Cabinet members earn $168,000. The average salary for state employees was just over $82,000 in 2024, according to data from the state. The potential approval of pay increases for the state's top officials comes as lawmakers say pay raises may be needed also for the state's rank-and-file workforce. Some legislators have raised alarm over a move from the Dunleavy administration to block the release of results of a salary study commissioned last year to investigate whether pay increases were needed to address an ongoing recruitment and retention challenge in state agencies.
