Connect with us

Alaska

Door ajar: Permanent Fund board left its executive session on topic of leaks open to the public

Published

on

Door ajar: Permanent Fund board left its executive session on topic of leaks open to the public


Yesterday, the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC) Board of Trustees held an emergency special meeting to discuss the leak of emails to the Alaska Landmine.

The emails obtained by the Landmine showed that Trustee Ellie Rubenstein had set up meetings with Permanent Fund staff and her billionaire father David Rubenstein, as well as money managers who are investors in her own private equity fund.

After the public portion of the meeting, the board voted 4-2 to go into executive session to discuss the leak. Interestingly, Board Chair Ethan Schutt, along with Trustee Craig Richards, voted not to take up the matter in executive session. Trustees Adam Crum, Jason Brune, Ryan Anderson, and Ellie Rubenstein voted to go into executive session. Four votes are required on the board for a majority.

During the public portion of the meeting, Crum and Brune defended Rubenstein. But Richards, without naming Rubenstein directly, was critical of her interactions with staff as well as her attempts to directly engage money managers on behalf of APFC. The discussion and vote for executive session demonstrated a clear divide on the board.

Advertisement

The meeting was held virtually on Webex. The executive session portion of the meeting was supposed to only include board members and some staff, but for unknown reasons members of the public were able to attend. This allowed members of the public to observe what should have been a closed executive session. This was akin to a door being left open in the Capitol during an executive session of a committee, allowing anyone outside to listen in.

A member of the public who attended the entire two and a half hour executive session provided extensive notes to the Landmine. The source also provided multiple screenshots of the executive session, proving that they were able to attend. We have redacted their name to protect their identity.

Rubenstein, who remained quiet during the public portion of the meeting, became animated during executive session, according to the notes.

The notes suggest a high degree of palace intrigue within the Permanent Fund board and staff. For example, at one point APFC CEO Deven Mitchell and Scott Balovich, the head of IT for the APFC, were asked to leave the executive session at the request of Rubenstein, according to the notes.

Advertisement

After Mitchell and Balovich left, Rubenstein said she was surprised that they had not been more concerned about forwarding APFC emails to personal email accounts. Richards then weighed in, saying that staff are “covering their ass” by documenting things. Richards also said he was more concerned about employees feeling uncomfortable than about the leak itself, according to the notes.

Mitchell and Balovich leaving meeting. The other man is a lawyer with the Dept. of Law

There was discussion about the original Landmine story, and speculation about which staff could have been the source of the leak, according to the notes. There was also discussion about a possible external investigation into the leak. Oddly, the notes do not indicate any substantive discussion about the content of the leaked emails. Instead, the meeting was intensely focused on identifying the source of the leak.

According to the notes, Brune and Crum seem to think CEO Deven Mitchell was the source of the leak. Rubenstein then voiced concern about staff writing unsecure memos. She then asked Richards for his opinion, and mentioned that they had gone out of their way to not put their suspicions about Mitchell in writing, according to the notes.

Crum and Rubenstein then both voiced concerns about staff, according to the notes. Crum said that he no longer wants to have one on one meetings with staff. Rubenstein then stated she has issues with the CIO, Marcus Frampton, and does not trust him to handle private equity.

Earlier in the executive session, the notes stated Rubenstein expressed frustration that some staff may have transferred APFC emails to private email accounts. Extensive discussion followed regarding IT policies about emails, according to the notes. Rubenstein mentioned that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) does not allow forwarding emails to private accounts, and accused Frampton of having done so.

Advertisement

Brune referenced an email he sent to Mitchell with a list of questions about the source of the leak, according to the notes. Mitchell said he asked all the staff who received emails if they were the source of the leak. They all said no.

Rubenstein then asked if “Rachel” was the source of the leak. It’s unclear who Rachel is, but Balovich responded that she did not show up on the Exchange system, according to the notes.

The notes also stated that Anderson asked whether possessing the leaked emails was a crime. Mitchell said that that was Rubenstein’s concern as well. But Mitchell indicated that he felt possession of the leaked emails itself was not a crime, but that the release of the emails may have been a crime, according to the notes. Mitchell also said he hoped there was not someone in the organization trying to undermine it.

The notes stated that Rubenstein expressed concern about staff making “unchecked allegations.” She went on state that there had been no head of private equity for nine months, and that Frampton had worked to undo relationships. She said it was “baseless” to conclude that she had pressured Frampton into investing Permanent Fund money into companies she’s connected with. She also said she had no idea a Permanent Fund staffer had met with Carlyle, according to the notes. Schutt then weighed in, saying that she was straying from the executive session topic.

The notes state there was extensive discussion about whether to issue a statement that the board had conducted an investigation into the leak. Mitchell pushed back, stating that that an IT review had been done, not an investigation.

Advertisement

Rubenstein asked if there was a way to check if personal cell phones had been used to forward emails, and added that it appeared someone had taken photos of the emails, according to the notes.

Brune asked if a search had been done to see if anyone “was stupid enough” to email Jeff Landfield. Balovich said it had not been done, but they could, according to the notes.

Brune also seemed to want to look at who has cultivated relationships with Jeff Landfield, according to the notes.

Yesterday, the APFC issued a statement that they were aware the public had been able to access their executive session.

Advertisement



Source link

Alaska

Alaska Supreme Court to take up case on Dan J. Sullivan, decision expected by Tuesday

Published

on

Alaska Supreme Court to take up case on Dan J. Sullivan, decision expected by Tuesday


JUNEAU, Alaska (KTUU) – The Supreme Court of Alaska will be taking up the case of the State of Alaska, Division of Elections v. Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr.

The oral arguments will be held Monday at 10 a.m. via Zoom, according to an order and opening notice.

The document also specifies that a decision is expected to be made before noon on Tuesday.

According to documents from the Division of Elections, the state must start printing ballots at noon on the same day.

Advertisement

This comes after an Anchorage Superior Court Judge ordered Dan J. Sullivan on to the ballot Friday.

See a spelling or grammar error? Report it to web@ktuu.com

Copyright 2026 KTUU. All rights reserved.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Alaska

Mat-Su Initial Attack Responding to Fire in Flat Lake

Published

on

Mat-Su Initial Attack Responding to Fire in Flat Lake


An engine and firefighters from the Division of Forestry & Fire Protection’s Mat-Su Area are responding to a fire near Flat Lake.

A caller reported a fire on an island in Flat Lake, with 2 foot flame lengths and structures near by.

The engine crew responding will be shuttled by boat to the fire. The fire is currently reported as .1 acre, creeping and smoldering.

Advertisement

Additional updates will be shared as they become available.

‹ Pioneer Peak Hotshots, Gannett Glacier Crew Join Fight Against 2 Fires Near Ruby

Categories: Active Wildland Fire

Tags: #FireYear2026 #2026AKFIRESEASON, 2026 Alaska Fire Season



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Alaska

Opinion: Alaska’s $10,000 question: Leave or stay?

Published

on

Opinion: Alaska’s ,000 question: Leave or stay?


A new home under construction in Potter Valley in Anchorage. (Loren Holmes / ADN)

This June, two very different offers reach Alaska families, and both amount to the same thing: $10,000. The difference is everything.

Bill Walker, running for governor, would hand every eligible Alaskan a one-time $10,000 check and then end the Permanent Fund dividend for good. Ask one question: Where does his $10,000 come from?

It comes from the Permanent Fund, the people’s own money and the savings Alaskans built for their children. Walker would spend that endowment once to pay Alaskans to give up the yearly dividend forever.

Think about what that does. It cancels the annual check that gives a family a reason to keep an Alaska address and replaces it with a single payout. You hand people their own savings, call it a gift and cut the tie that held them here in the same motion. It is the oldest mistake in governing money: raid what you have saved to buy a moment’s applause and call the spending generosity.

Advertisement

A plan that spends the people’s savings to send the people away is not bold. It is foolish.

Now consider the other $10,000. Through Alaska Housing Finance Corp., the state offers families up to $10,000 to build a new, energy-efficient home. AHFC raids nothing. It earns its own way. Over the years, it has returned more than $2 billion to the state treasury, and it spends some of that income the way any good business does: to win a customer.

Here, the customer is an Alaskan who wants to own a home, put down roots and stay.

That is the oldest sound move in business: Invest a little of what you earn to bring in someone who stays. The homeowner remains, the community gains a family and the corporation keeps earning. The money spent comes back. A plan that puts earnings to work to bring people home is not charity. It is clever.

Same amount. Opposite source. Opposite wisdom. One spends savings; the other spends earnings. One pays Alaskans to leave; the other pays them to stay. One empties the state; the other fills it.

Advertisement

This Homeownership Month, the choice is the size of a single check, and the whole question is where the check comes from and what it asks of you. Ten thousand dollars of your own fund, to wave you goodbye. Or $10,000, earned and reinvested, to help you stay and build.

Evan Swensen is the publisher of Publication Consultants in Anchorage and the author of “What’s the Money For: A Permanent Fund Mortgage Proposal.”

• • •

The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending