August 09, 2007
Thursday

Holding a legislative session outside of Juneau raises a number of serious concerns and I've been surprised by the muted public reaction around the State. While the migration of government jobs and political influence out of Juneau and into Anchorage is certainly not new, having a Governor who publicly encourages the trend is a worrisome new development. What's particularly disconcerting is that capital move supporters are using the current political corruption scandal as a means to justify their own self-interests.

The recent Anchorage session sets an extremely bad precedent and is an ominous sign for Southeast Alaska. It's common knowledge that the economic health of Southeast is heavily dependent on the seat of government remaining in Juneau. I certainly intend to do everything I can to ensure it stays there. But I would hope that every Alaskan resident appreciates that the State is not better served by a further concentration of wealth and influence in Anchorage. Where goes the Legislature, so goes the Capital.

Proponents of moving the capital are already pointing to the "historic" Anchorage session as proof that the legislature doesn't need to meet in the Capitol Building to be effective. Governor Palin was so pleased with the results of the Anchorage session that she has called for another one to be held somewhere "on the road system" beginning October 18th. Let's be honest, the only remarkable thing about the Anchorage gathering, was how little it resembled a real legislative session. It faced none of the logistical challenges and difficulties a lengthy session outside of Juneau will surely encounter. The majority of the House's work on the Senior Care bill was done in hearings held during the 3 weeks leading up to the official June 26th start. During the one-day session, no new legislation was introduced and no Senate committee hearings where held. In a cost savings move, Legislative staffers doubled as Floor Pages and provided extra security at the Egan Center. Non-Anchorage legislators worked without the benefit of staff, offices, phones or computers while they were there. While those conditions might be acceptable for a one-day session, they are clearly unworkable for a session of 30 days duration. Despite these short-cuts, the one-day session cost Alaskans approximately $110,000.

It's ridiculous to suggest that legislators will be less susceptible to the influence of lobbyist while in Anchorage. The vast majority of lobbyist and corporate influence peddlers live in Anchorage. Moving the legislature improves their access, not the other way around. So while legislators are forced to conduct the public's business without the tools, facilities or professional environment Juneau's Capitol Building affords, enterprising lobbyists simply move their business off-sight - to one of Anchorage's many hotels, restaurants or bars. Unethical operators will be more than happy to capitalize on this sort of chaos.

Supporters also contend that moving the legislature out of Juneau will open the political process up to greater public scrutiny. Yes, in theory, meeting close to a larger portion of the population should encourage more folks to observe the proceedings. In reality - despite the novelty and hype - attendance at the session in Anchorage was no-higher than it routinely is in Juneau. This is unlikely to change no matter where the legislature chooses to meet. Juneau's geographic isolation is inconvenient, but it certainly doesn't prevent interested Alaskans from participating in the political process. Anyone can testify before a committee by going to their local Legislative Information Office or by calling a toll-free number. Residents can watch the legislature in action on Gavel-to-Gavel, which is available on-line and reaches 90% of the state via cable TV. Regardless of where the legislature meets, Alaskans can track the process on the Internet using BASIS and communicate directly with their legislators.

A strong diversified statewide economy depends on every community in Alaska ­ urban and rural ­ having equal influence on their state government. Say what you will about the isolation of Juneau, but from a statewide prospective, it's equally inaccessible to everyone.

Senator Bert Stedman
Senator_Bert_Stedman[at]legis.state.ak.us
District A
Sitka, AK


Received August 08, 2007 - Published August 09, 2007

Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:

Webmail Your Opinion Letter to the Editor

SitNews ©2007
Stories In The News
Ketchikan, Alaska