FAIRBANKS, Alaska (KTVF) – Alaska senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, as well as Rep. Mary Peltola, have introduced new legislation directing a land exchange between the federal government and Chugach Alaska Corporation for the purpose of resolving conflict.

The Chugach Alaska Land Exchange and Oil Spill Recovery Act would mitigate strife between the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) Trustee Council’s Habitat Protection Program which protects the ecosystems of the EVOS spill areas, and Chugach Alaska Corporation’s (Chugach) responsibilities to its Alaska Native shareholders. The responsibilities to the Alaska Native’s come from the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) which protects the lands that belong to the Native corporation, the same lands the EVOS protection program is working on.

The land exchange conducted by the new legislation would mandate that Chugach trade 231,036 acres of subsurface estate for 65,403 acres of fee simple land owned by the federal government. The land traded by Chugach must be under surface fee and conservation easements on surface land owned by the federal government.

“The 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill forever changed the lives of Alaskans, particularly those living in the Chugach region. Chugach’s subsurface rights were restricted and subjugated to the EVOS Program’s environmental conservation goals, which unfairly prevents Chugach from realizing the economic benefits of its mineral interests under ANCSA,” Senator Murkowski said.

“I helped set this land exchange in motion in 2019 when I authored and shepherded a major lands package, which required the land study, into law. Now we are addressing its findings, permanently conserving EVOS program lands, and providing Chugach and its shareholders a fair resolution of their ANCSA claims,” Murkowski added.

“Since its original passage in 1971, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) has been amended many times to assist emerging needs of Alaska Native communities across the state,” Senator Sullivan stated.

“The Chugach Land Exchange Act should be no exception. This bill facilitates a land exchange for Chugach Alaska Corporation based on a congressionally-mandated study completed by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service in late 2022. This legislation would provide Chugach with lands that will help create economic sustainability and cultural benefits for thousands of Alaska Native shareholders, as intended under ANCSA,” Sullivan continued.

“35 years after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, the conversation on how to best serve the people, environment, and resources of Prince William Sound is still ongoing. A patchwork of conflicting surface and subsurface rights has left everyone unable to effectively use the land,” said Rep. Peltola.

Peltola went on to say, “The Chugach Land Exchange and Oil Spill Recovery Act would free Chugach Alaska Corporation to use their lands for the benefit of their shareholders and give the federal government a clearly defined area to manage. This is a commonsense solution that gives everyone in Prince William Sound a clear understanding of land use and management.”

“Introducing this bill represents a meaningful and long-awaited step on the path towards healing for the Chugach region and shareholders following the devastation of the Exxon Valdez oil spill,” said Chugach Alaska Corporation’s Chairman of the Board Sheri Buretta.

“Resolving the existing split-estate conflicts will empower Chugach to exercise self-determination for its people as intended by ANCSA. We are grateful for Senator Lisa Murkowski’s leadership, as well as the support of Senator Dan Sullivan and Representative Mary Peltola, in their ongoing advocacy for a fair and just land exchange on our behalf,” Buretta added.

For background and history on the Exxon Valdez oil spill and Chugach Region, the full press release is available here.

Copyright 2024 KTVF. All rights reserved.

By MICHAEL TAVOLIERO

Article VII, Section 1 of the Alaska State Constitution states, “Schools and institutions so established shall be free from sectarian control.”

This provision is aimed at ensuring that Alaska’s public education system, which includes its university system, remains impartial and free from influence or control by any particular religious or ideological group. It underscores the importance of maintaining neutrality and inclusivity within the state’s educational institutions.

If you agree with my constitutional reading, then how can this best be approached by our state government? 

The National Education Association-Alaska has over 12,000 members. It is obligated to represent its members. However, its ideological control over the Alaska education system is considered ubiquitous and multilayered in local school districts, our state bureaucracy and our tripartite government, the executive, legislative and judicial branches, and the federal government. 

In a seismic legal upheaval, Alaska’s educational landscape is in tumult, with the future of homeschooling hanging in the balance. Recent judicial action has delivered a stunning blow by striking down laws supporting the state’s correspondence education program, citing them as unconstitutional.

The reverberations of this decision are felt across the state, as over 20,000 homeschool students face uncertainty, and public-school districts are thrust into chaos, tasked with integrating these displaced students back into traditional classrooms. With the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development now at the center of this urgent crisis, the need for a swift resolution looms large. 

It’s baffling to witness our state government hesitating, caught in indecision over the crucial next steps: Do we pursue a legislative remedy or take the matter to the Supreme Court? The urgency of this issue cannot be overstated, yet inexplicably, the government remains on the defensive, failing to seize the initiative. Let’s be clear: This is not just about politics or legal wrangling. It’s about the very future of our children, the very future of our state. The time for action is now.

To address the issue of NEA-Alaska violating Article VII, Section 1, the governor of Alaska holds significant authority and avenues for action.

Firstly, under the state constitution’s Article III, Section 16, the governor has the authority to ensure the faithful execution of the laws, including constitutional mandates such as sectarian control in education. This authority empowers the governor to take appropriate legal action to enforce compliance with constitutional provisions and legislative mandates, as well as to restrain any violation of constitutional or legislative powers, duties, or rights by state officers, departments, or agencies.

Additionally, Article III, Section 23 grants the governor the authority to make changes in the organization of the executive branch or in the assignment of functions among its units for efficient administration. These changes, when requiring the force of law, are set forth in executive orders. The legislature has a specified period to disapprove these orders, after which they become effective. The governor also has administrative order authority which can be solidified into regulations without legislative review.

Moreover, the governor’s oath of office, as mandated by Article XII, Section 5, requires the Governor to uphold the U.S. and Alaska constitutions. This oath underscores the governor’s commitment to respecting and adhering to constitutional principles, including those related to education policy and sectarian control.

The governor and all members of the state legislature are required to comply with Article XII, Section 5. Additionally, every public official and employee of the state before entering upon the duties of office are required by AS 39.05.040 and AS 39.05.045 to take and sign an oath which includes supporting and defending both the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alaska.

Do the members of the NEA-Alaska support this when teachers have also taken an oath? The oath is same per 4 AAC18.010(a)(5) and AS 39.05.045 so all contracts for teachers and administrators must include in this all Alaska public school contracts.

This brings into question the practical application of the state’s Legislative Ethics Act, specifically Section AS 24.60.010, and the role of the Ethics Committee when the governor identifies a constitutional violation.

If you agree with my constitutional reading, how can any of our state government and our teachers support the continuation of NEA-Alaska’s sectarian control of education in the light of the oaths taken?

In practical terms, the Governor can utilize legal mechanisms such as executive orders or administrative orders to address concerns regarding sectarian control in education. These orders could outline specific actions or directives aimed at ensuring that schools and institutions remain free from sectarian influence or control. Additionally, the governor may use this opportunity to reign in the NEA-Alaska’s unconstitutional behavior through regulation.

Furthermore, the attorney general, as the legal advisor for the state, can work with the governor to assess the legal basis for any actions taken against NEA-Alaska or other entities perceived to violate constitutional provisions.

Regarding campaign donations to members of the legislature, the constitutional mandate for schools to be free from sectarian control may influence donor behavior and legislative decisions. Donations from organizations like NEA-Alaska may face greater scrutiny, and legislators receiving such contributions may be questioned about their commitment to upholding constitutional principles as well as their oath of office.

Will such a declaration of unconstitutionality by the governor trigger the Alaska Public Offices Commission to investigate every donation which supports this unconstitutionality? The governor certainly has the authority to demand this.

Ultimately, the governor’s authority, combined with legal and ethical considerations, provides avenues for addressing concerns related to sectarian control in education and ensuring adherence to constitutional mandates.

If the governor determines that NEA-Alaska has violated Article VII, Section 1 of the Alaska State Constitution, specifically regarding the freedom of schools and institutions from sectarian control, he has the authority to act, including addressing public education union contracts through administrative orders immediately. 

Administrative orders issued by the governor typically pertain to the organization and functions of the executive branch. If the governor declares unconstitutionality, the structural components of NEA-Alaska may be challenged. The governor could also take indirect actions within the scope of his authority to address concerns related to sectarian control in education.

For example, the governor could utilize administrative orders to initiate investigations or audits into public education union activities to determine compliance with constitutional mandates. If violations are found, the governor could work with relevant state agencies to enforce corrective measures or impose penalties as allowed by law.

Additionally, the governor may leverage his authority to influence legislative action or budgetary decisions that impact public education union contracts. By working with the state legislature and other stakeholders, the governor could advocate for policy changes or funding allocations aimed at addressing issues related to sectarian control in education.

Ultimately, any actions taken by the governor must adhere to constitutional principles, respect the rights of all parties involved, and comply with applicable laws and legal procedures. The governor must carefully consider the legal and practical implications of his actions and ensure that they align with the broader goals of promoting impartiality and inclusivity in Alaska’s public education system.

But the fact remains as open as the air we breathe, in Alaska, the education system is controlled by one entity, and one entity alone, and that is NEA-Alaska.

Michael Tavoliero writes for Must Read Alaska.

JUNEAU — A prolonged filibuster by the Alaska House minority did stop a ban on transgender girls competing in girls’ sports from passing the House in a 22-18 vote Sunday night.

Lawmakers spent more than 17 hours cumulatively discussing the bill in the final week of the legislative session, which must end on Wednesday.

Republicans in the House majority said the bill was a priority — enough so that they were willing to delay conversations on energy and education legislation broadly seen as the top concerns of the session.

The measure, proponents said, would protect women’s sports by ensuring cisgender women are not forced to compete against transgender women, who they said can be stronger despite mixed evidence on the matter.

Democrats and independents in the minority worked to stall the bill by proposing 87 amendments during floor sessions on Thursday and Saturday — all of which were voted down. On Sunday, lawmakers spent a final hour debating the bill before taking a vote on its final passage around 9 p.m.

All 20 Republicans in the House majority voted in favor of adopting the bill. Many of them did so without making a single public comment about why they supported it and whether they thought it was a good use of the House’s time as the end-of-session deadline fast approaches.

The majority Republicans were joined in supporting the bill by Rep. David Eastman, a Wasilla Republican who caucuses with neither the majority nor the minority. Rep. Dan Ortiz, a Ketchikan independent, was the only minority member who voted in favor of the bill.

Following the vote, Ortiz said it was the hardest vote of his legislative career, which began in 2015.

“I have not struggled over any vote I have taken in 10 years more than I struggled over that vote. That was tough,” said Ortiz, who was a longtime teacher and coach.

Senate leaders have long said the bill will not be considered in the chamber this year, meaning the House’s effort was largely meant to send a message, rather than an attempt to enact the legislation. Alaska already prohibits by regulation high school transgender athletes from joining girls’ teams. The bill, sponsored by Eagle River Republican Rep. Jamie Allard, would have enshrined that ban in state statute and expanded it to all teams from kindergarten through university.

Allard said minority members would “intentionally provide misinformation” on the bill, including by speaking about how its enforcement could lead schools to conduct genital examinations when the sex of an athlete is called into question.

Allard called that “gross,” “absolutely insane” and a “scare tactic.”

[Alaska House spends 12 hours debating transgender athletes as session deadline looms]

Lawmakers in the minority said that the bill would violate the Alaska constitution’s privacy clause; that it would not achieve its stated intent of protecting girls’ and women’s sports; that it would further marginalize the small population of transgender youth in Alaska; and that it seeks to solve a problem that does not exist, because there are no known issues currently arising from the participation of transgender athletes in Alaska.

“I’m astounded that just spent days on bill 183 that is unquestionably unconstitutional,” said Rep. Louise Stutes, a Kodiak Republican who caucuses with the minority.

“There is not one instance of these issues addressed in this bill happening in Alaska today,” said Stutes. “I can tell you what is happening, however. There are questions about energy, education funding, public safety, public employees’ retirement, to name just a few issues that we have not adequately addressed.”

“I would say that we have failed in how we just spent our last few days,” said Stutes.

Rep. CJ McCormick, a Bethel Democrat who caucuses with the majority, said the bill “is not reflective of the views of the state.”

McCormick later said “being in this majority sometimes can be like a hostile environment.” He said that the vote was “a bridge too far” that would impact his decision on whether to join a similar caucus in future years. McCormick is one of three non-Republican majority members who represent rural districts. Their decision to join House Republicans last year in forming a majority ended a days-long stalemate over the leadership of the divided House. All three members voted against the bill.

Rep. Alyse Galvin, an Anchorage independent, said the bill would cause “huge pain” to transgender Alaskans, including her daughter, who is transgender.

“I talked to my colleagues in the majority and they tell me that they personally don’t feel that my trans daughter is any threat — or any trans Alaskan is a threat or worthy of being hated. But at the same time, they say that this bill is a priority for their constituents,” said Galvin.

Rep. Andrew Gray, an Anchorage Democrat, said many people had “hoped this bill would not make it to the floor.”

“We tried very hard to stop it. But we couldn’t,” he said.