• 2001 SPECIAL OLYMPICS WORLD WINTER GAMES, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
• AKPIRG
• ALASKACAM
• ALASKA CENTER FOR LAND REFORM
• ALASKA "DIGEST" EMAIL NEWSLETTER
• ALASKA LEGISLATURE ON-LINE
• ALASKA LIBERTARIAN PARTY
• ALASKA MUSIC ARTISTS
• ALASKA ON-LINE
• ALASKA STAR NEWSPAPER & ALASKA MILITARY WEEKLY
• ALASKA STATE CONSTITUTION
• ALASKA USA INTERNET START PAGE
• ALASKA VOTERS ORGANIZATION
• ALASKAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY
• ALASKAN WHALER'S "MESSAGE IN A BOTTLE"
• ANCHORAGE ASSEMBLY ON-LINE
• ANCHORAGE FUR RENDEZVOUS
• ANCHORAGE GLACIER PILOTS BASEBALL
• ANCHORAGE PRESS
• A.P.O.C
• EARTHPULSE
• GREEN PARTY OF ALASKA
• IDITAROD TRAIL RACE
• LIGHTED FOREST CANDLE CO.
• MAT-SU VALLEY NEWS
• MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER OF AK
• OILWATCH
• REPUBLICAN MODERATE PARTY OF ALASKA
• RICK RYDELL RADIO PROGRAM
• U.A.A. LADIES VOLLEYBALL

Notes:

See how each legislator voted on these bills at: http://www.akvoters.org/watchdog.htm

Question 4 of the July Alaska Voters Organization http://www.akvoters.org/JulySurvey.html survey indicated 68.5% of the public feel that our government officials have intentionally deceived us on the budget!

CAPITAL BUDGET

Background:

The capital budget is a plan for distribution of state financial resources for items which have an anticipated life that exceeds one year and which cost in excess of $25,000. Capital budget appropriations lapse only if funds remain after the project is completed. The Constitution of Alaska clearly states what the legislature should spend our money on. Compare the constitutional mandates to the list below, and decide for yourself if this money was spent correctly.

SB 29 was the capital budget for FY 2002. The total spending as a result of SB 29 was $1,529,315,682 ($1.5 BILLION). Examples of projects included in SB 29 are shown below:

• Operation Renew Hope: $30,000,000
• Rural Power Systems Upgrades: $10,000,000
• Kodiak Launch Complex Facilities: $4,500,000
• Alano Club Relocation Expenses: $295,000
• Alaska Zoo Parking Lot Planning & design: $111,000
• Arctic Winter Games Team Alaska: $225,000
• Matanuska Electric Association - GRANT: $750,000
• Gasline Development: $10,242,800
• Eagle River Lions Club ? Water project: $25,000
• Craig JT Brown Marine Industrial: $52,210
• Delta Junction Television Equipment: $25,000
• Denali Borough Chamber Building: $9,000
• Fairbanks North Star Borough Install Lights at Tot Lot in Alaskaland Theme Park: $11,550
• Grayling Washeteria Building Construction: $9,500
• Homer Animal Shelter Construction: $101,367
• Hughes Purchase of Elder Vehicle: $26,322
• Kachemak Homer Animal Shelter Construction: $25,000
• Kenai Street Improvement Program: $143,379
• Ketchikan Borough Restroom Construction and Improvements: $108,218
• Nome City Hall Expansion: $22,727
• Point Hope Day Care Expansion: $25,001
• Unalaska Community Park Development: $101,961
• Valdez Old City Dock Fendering System: $101,538
• Gulkana RV Park Construction: $25,000
• Takotna Utility Office Lodge Construction: $25,000
• Anchorage Harbor Dock and Facilities: $6,000,000
• Grant to the Alaska Air Show Association for purchase of fuel for civilian-owned aircraft: $10,000
• Scammon Bay Cemetary Fence Repair: $25,092
• Soldotna Sports Center: $102,456
• Stebbins Snow Fencing Construction: $25,001

SB 2006 is the Capital budget for FY 2003. Total spending in SB 2006 is $1,290,378,015 ($1.29 BILLION). Examples of projects included in SB 2006 are shown below:

• Bristol Bay Borough - Dock Improvement Project: 150,000
• City and Borough of Juneau Eaglecrest Nordic Ski Trail Development: 25,000
• City of Bethel - Dust Control: 143,500
• City of Fairbanks - River Front Improvements: 150,000
• City of Haines - Motorized Cart/People Mover: 11,000
• City of Hydaburg - Ice Cold Storage/Smokery Facility Final Phase: 75,000
• City of Larsen Bay - Mosquito Magnet Units: 20,000
• City of Saxman - Saxman Totem Pole Restoration: 200,000
• Arctic Winter Games Team Alaska: 150,000
• City and Borough of Juneau - Arctic Winter Games Planning: 45,000
• Fairbanks North Star Borough - Arctic Winter Games Planning: 45,000
• Kenai Peninsula Borough - Arctic Winter Games Planning: 45,000
• Municipality of Anchorage - Completion of the South Anchorage Sports Complex Baseball Fields: 500,000
• Municipality of Anchorage - East Anchorage Muldoon Ball Field Development: 150,000
• Municipality of Anchorage - Jade Park Improvements: 275,000
• Municipality of Anchorage - Skateboard Park Facility: 200,000
• Alaska Aviation Heritage Museum - Continued Operations: 150,000
• Alaska Trappers Association Instructional Video Production: 50,000
• Alaska Zoo - Caging Equipment and Maintenance: 24,000
• Anchorage Nordic Ski Club - Trail Maintenance and Upgrades: 35,000
• Cook Inlet Salmon Brand, Inc. - Quality Control Grant: 93,000
• Dimond West Little League - Park Improvements Equipment and Concession: 20,000
• Golden Valley Electric Association - Chatanika Line Extension: 567,000
• Homer Electric - Fiber Optic Study Between Moose Pass and Soldotna: 100,000
• North Peninsula Community Council - North Peninsula Road Traffic Study: 75,000
• North Peninsula Recreation Service Area - Nikiski Community Center: 400,000
• Salmantof, Inc. - Operating Grant: 48,000
• Alaska Air Show Association - 2002 Air Show at Elmendorf AFB: 35,000

The 22nd Legislature (SB 29 & 2006) had a combined capital projects total of almost $2.8 BILLION. During this time period the legislature failed to fund needed schools and transportation projects, and chose to put those on the ballot in the form of bond propositions B & C. Repaying these bonds will create even tighter budgets in the future.

Questions:

1. Would you vote for a bill containing such questionable line items?
2. Would you put bills like SB 29 & 2006 ahead of necessary transportation and education projects?
3. Is there a law that requires we have a capital budget during a fiscal crisis?
4. Would you vote for a capital budget knowing it will create deficit spending, and require borrowing additional funds from the constitutional budget reserve account?
5. Should individuals, corporations, communities, and clubs pay for their own projects, or should these entities continue to rely on the state for funding?

Notes:

Legislator?s voting records for SB 29 and SB 2006 can be found at: http://www.akvoters.org/watchdog.htm

In a survey (question 2) conducted by the Alaska Voters Organization 95.5% of the respondents disagreed with the legislature's capital budget priorities.

TOTAL SPENDING

Background:

Total government spending in 1975 was $800,000,000 ($800 MILLION). By 2002 it had grown to $8,000,000,000 ($8 BILLION), a 1000% increase!

In 1995 the Legislative Majority made a commitment to the people of Alaska to reduce state spending by $250 MILLION over five years. The plan is discussed in a press release dated January 10 1999 http://www.akrepublicans.org/prporter101102000.htm .

Chart 4 - Budget History FY 75-02, on the Legislative Finance Division web site http://www.legfin.state.ak.us/ paints a different picture. In 1995 it shows total state spending at about $5.7 BILLION, in 2000 total state spending was $7.2 BILLION a $1.5 BILLION INCREASE!

Total state spending, the operating & capital budgets (HB 403, HB 404, SB 2006), plus "off budget items" and supplemental spending, will be about $8,000,000,000 ($8 BILLION) again this year. This is approximately $13,000 for every man, woman, and child in Alaska, which is about triple the national average. With oil revenues rapidly declining and the constitutional budget reserve almost depleted, this level of deficit spending is clearly not sustainable.

Questions:

1. How do you explain the difference between the "5 year budget cut plan" outlined by the Legislative Majority, and actual total spending shown by the Legislative Finance Division?
2. Are these different conclusions consistent with accounting practices previously used by WorldCom and Enron?
3. Can we expect to see more of this deceptive misinformation from future legislatures?
4. Do the people of Alaska deserve to know the truth about legislative spending practices?
5. Do you think current total state spending is too high, too low, or just right?
6. What is your plan to force spending levels that match revenues?

Notes:

See how your legislator voted on these bills at: http://www.akvoters.org/watchdog.htm

In question 3 of the July Alaska Voters Organization public opinion survey 93.5% of the respondents said state spending is too high!

BONDS

Background:

On November, 5th the Voters of Alaska will be asked to approve two general obligation bonds. Proposition B (HB 525) is for $226,719,500 ($226 MILLION) in transportation projects.

Proposition C (HB 2002) is for $236,805,441 ($236.8 MILLION) in education and Anchorage museum projects. Total face value of these two bond proposals is $463,524,941 ($463.5 MILLION). After adding in the debt service these bonds will cost taxpayers $671,500,000 ($671.5 MILLION).

In addition, the passage of Proposition C will trigger reauthorization of the school debt reimbursement program (HB 2003) which would result in an obligation for the state to pay additional debt service on municipally issued school bonds approved by local voters before January 1, 2005. The annual debt service would depend on how much is authorized by local voters. In other words, a "blank check" for new school construction, and no "plan" for paying the bill!

Questions:

1. If these projects are really needed, why were they not paid out of the General Fund this year?
2. If you voted to approve a capitol budget full of questionable spending, then put transportation and education bonds on the ballot what does this say about your legislative priorities?
3. Due to continued decline in oil revenues, the general fund will shrink more with every passing year. If approved, these bonds will cause even tighter budgets in the future. What funding source will you use to pay for these bonds?
4. Why was HB 2003 hidden in bond proposition C, and not disclosed at all in the official State of Alaska election pamphlet?
5. Where will the money come from to pay for HB 2003?
6. Why did the legislature include a $5,000,000 grant to the Anchorage Museum in Proposition C?

Notes:

For complete disclosure on Proposition B & C.

To review your legislator?s voting record go to: http://www.akvoters.org/watchdog.htm

In a survey (question 2) conducted by the Alaska Voters Organization 95.5% of the respondents disagreed with the legislature's capitol budget spending priorities.

INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION BY "COMMITTEE"

Question:

• Would you support legislation that requires all bills be introduced by an individual (this would eliminate the current practice of introducing controversial legislation by committee)?

Notes:

See many examples of this practice by going to: http://www.akvoters.org/alerts.html See how the legislature and governor voted on these bills at: http://www.akvoters.org/watchdog.htm

MOVING THE LEGISLATURE

Background:

In a public opinion survey conducted by the Alaska Voters Organization 82.5% of the people favored a constitutional amendment that would require our legislators meet via video-teleconference from their local Legislative Information Office (LIO) rather than going to Juneau.

If all legislators conducted the state's business from their home town it would greatly reduce travel and per diem expense; make legislators more accessible to their constituents, and less accessible to lobbyists.

The technology and necessary equipment is currently available for conducting meetings in this format. Many corporations have adopted this form of communication since 9/11/01 to reduce expense and travel risk for their staff and management.

Questions:

1. Would you introduce and/or support this constitutional amendment?
2. Why do you favor or disapprove of this idea?
3. Can you suggest a better location that would make you more accessible to your constituents?
4. Do you feel it is more important to sit down ?face to face? with lobbyist and other politicians or with your constituents?

CLOSED PRIMARY

(a.) Background:

The Democratic Party of California won a lawsuit in the US Supreme Court, which required that the state must recognize a political party's First Amendment rights in determining which voters may participate in nominating their party's candidates. The Republican legislators in Alaska voted to institute this new system here. However, they went beyond restricting who could participate in the Republican primary. They restricted who could participate in ALL party primaries. They went beyond what was necessary to comply with the law and eliminated voters choice.

Representative Eric Croft, D-Anchorage, attempted to amend the legislation to say, "The director shall charge a fee to a political party to recover the costs of preparing the party's ballot containing the names of that party's candidates, unless the party has notified the director that its bylaws permit members of other political parties to participate in the party's primary election." Every Republican legislator voted down the amendment. That amendment would have been fair and made sense.

The "Closed Primary" HB 193 adds additional cost to all primary elections. In even numbered years that extra cost is estimated at $5,200, in odd numbered years the extra cost is estimated at $269,500!

Undeclared and Non-partisan were 52% of Voters in the last general election. Republicans were about 26%, and Democrats 17%. The closed primary did not provide a ballot for the 52%, which forced these voters to choose a party instead of allowing them to select the candidates of their choice.

(b.) Questions:

1. What is the actual benefit of a closed primary to ordinary Alaskan Voters?
2. Was this done exclusively to benefit political parties?
3. What will you do in the future to restrict or improve voter choice?
4. Will you work to repeal HB 193, or support it?
5. Should political parties pay the total cost of administering a closed primary?
6. Do you feel that partisan politics have been good or bad for Alaska?

Note:

See how each legislator voted on HB 193 by visiting this website: http://www.akvoters.org/watchdog.htm

PRIVATE PRISON

Background:

HB 53 called for the State of Alaska to pay the cost of non-competitive contracts for the construction of prison facilities in Delta Junction and Anchorage, then turn them over to a private operator with no capitol investment in the project. Included in this bill is a State guaranteed number of prisoners at a set price which is higher than the price currently being charged in Arizona. HB 149 was for a similar project built in Kenai. HB 498 was a similar project built in Whittier. This issue was also considered by the community of Wrangell. In every community where it was put to a proper vote of the residents it has been rejected by huge percentages.

Questions:

1. Why does the legislature continue to support this special interest legislation when the public statewide is so against it?
2. Will you support future legislation that gives a $1,000,000,000 ($1 BILLION) contract to an out of State Corporation with no investment in the project?
3. Why should we bring prisoners back to Alaska if the cost is almost double what is currently being charged in Arizona?Why are the construction cost in all of these bills a non-competitive contract?
4. Why should the taxpayers of Alaska be expected to provide all construction and startup costs, guarantee number of full beds and sets rate of compensation at above market values with built in inflation proofing?

Notes:

See how each legislator voted on HB 498 at: http://www.akvoters.org/watchdog.htm

For HB 53 go to:

For HB 149

The Alaska Voters Organization motto is, "an informed voter is the best defense against bad government". November 5th is the General Election, and everyone is encouraged to participate in the process.