GREGG RENKES HAS AN AX TO GRIND

BILL MCALLISTER
Juneau, AK
November 5, 2003

The role of attorney general in Alaska is now crystal clear.

Anyone who has wondered whether this should be an elected position here, as it is in many other states, will be interested in the tone struck by Attorney General Gregg Renkes.

Renkes has served notice that he has one constituent: Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski, who appointed him.

This arrangement isn't necessarily a bad thing. The constitutional convention delegates in the 1950s wanted a strong chief executive, and giving the governor the power to appoint the attorney general was one of the ways in which they achieved their aim. They assigned to the governor full responsibility for almost all actions of the executive branch.

But at the same time, it's hard to stifle a guffaw when Renkes says, in an op-ed column, that he "can't find" the political self-interest he's supposed to have. And his sarcastic reference to the "Initiative Olympics" -- not that surprising, when one considers the administration's lip service to the all-Alaska gas line initiative overwhelmingly approved by voters last year -- indicates he doesn't think much of citizen participation in lawmaking.

The current controversy concerns an initiative that would require special elections to fill any vacancy in the U.S. Senate.

Initiative co-sponsor Eric Croft, a Democratic state representative, accused Renkes of dragging his feet on a recommendation about whether the initiative should be certified for the signature-gathering process to get it on the ballot. And when Renkes recommended against certification, citing what he says is a constitutional defect in the initiative, Croft accused Renkes of exceeding his authority. So far, Croft is winning in court.

Now, it's clear what Democrats are up to. They want to remind voters in November 2004 that U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who will be on the ballot, was appointed by her father. To the extent that voters otherwise might have forgotten about it, a simultaneous ballot initiative for special elections won't help Sen. Murkowski in an expected contest against former Democratic Gov. Tony Knowles.

But it's also not believable for Renkes to say that he is objective and dispassionate on this issue. He has a long professional and personal relationship with the Murkowski family. Indeed, some Democrats say that this is the only reason that he's attorney general, given that they regard him as a carpetbagger with a barely adequate legal background for the job.

And I can say from personal experience that Renkes has exhibited less than judicial temperament when he has perceived a slight to Gov. Murkowski.

This spring, I was amazed when the attorney general exploded in my face, literally leaping from his seat and going nose-to-nose with me, shaking with fury.

The incident occurred after a press conference with the governor, in which another reporter asked Murkowski why Renkes wasn't responding to requests for interviews. Coincidentally, when the press conference concluded and reporters filed out, Renkes was seated in the reception area outside the governor's office.

Although I had not been the one to press the governor about Renkes' inaccessibility, suddenly I became the target of his wrath.

The reason: a television interview I had conducted with then-Sen. Murkowski seven months earlier, when he was running for governor, an excerpt of which was lifted for a television advertisement by his Democratic opponent, Fran Ulmer. Ulmer used an out-of-context quote on the Permanent Fund to suggest that Murkowski was targeting the dividend program.

Renkes and I had machine-gun dialogue reminiscent of a David Mamet play, sans actual profanity. The upshot was that, incredibly, Renkes implied that I had duped a U.S. senator of 22 years into saying something he didn't mean so that he would be vulnerable to negative ads by his opponent.

What did the state's chief law enforcement officer provide in the way of evidence for this remarkable accusation? Nothing. In fact, it turned out that Renkes hadn't seen my follow-up program, broadcast before the election, in which a panel of reporters viewing the Ulmer ad and Murkowski's original remarks came to the conclusion that there was indeed a serious context problem.

After much prodding, Renkes later allowed that he was "sorry you feel that I confronted you." In other words, despite my prescription glasses, the veins on his neck weren't really bulging.

Now, this is hardly the only time a politician has flipped out on me, and I know reporters don't get much sympathy for this sort of thing. I don't take it personally, even if it was meant that way.

But the attorney general's hot temper about an imaginary conspiracy shows that his top priority is protecting the governor and advancing his agenda.

Loyalty can be a great thing. And, no question, there have been political feuds between governors and attorneys general in states that elect the attorney general.

But let's dispense with any illusion that the Alaska attorney general's office is free of politics.

When it comes to state policy, the attorney general is the governor's lawyer. No more, no less.