Talk of Alaska; Democratic Vision for Alaska

From a PR and the Alaska Public Radio Network Live and across the state you can hear from and talk to the people who make news in Alaska on Talk of Alaska. This program is made possible with support from member stations and from Alaska. It's all within your reach. From Juneau Here's Dave Donaldson. Good morning. It's Talk of Alaska from Juneau today and I am Dave Donalson and we've just said everything twice we've heard a lot this year about the Republicans vision for the state. The commitment to Alaska agenda put out by the House and Senate majorities at the start of this year's legislative session. But there is another vision the one from Democrats and we're going to take a look at that today. The minorities this year are more than the loyal opposition people in here to try to block anything from happening instead they appear to be part of the process often offering a fresh look at any number of issues facing the state. Joining me at the phone this morning are you know Senator Jim Duncan the Senate minority leader and Representative Gene could be in the House minority leader.

Good morning both of you. Good morning. Good to have you here. Morning everyone Alaska. Your calls are toll free 1 800 4 7 8 8 2 5 5. That's 1 800 4 7 8. Talk give us a call. And while we're waiting for the for the lines to light up let me ask you both about that appearance. Do you feel a part of the process this year. It looks that way at least from the from from the outside going in but are you really anybody listening to to the to the minority this year. Well we want to be part of the process and we should be part of the process on the Senate side not speak justice inside. Things have been really pretty slow there's been some committee work but there's been nothing major on the floor yet. But I think we have clearly laid out to the majority what we believe are the important issues to be addressed and that we want to participate in getting those before the Senate body and and resolve this session among those being subsistence. We believe that issue does need to be addressed and been resolved and taken to the voters in November of 1998.

The whole area of child child protective services that the governor has put forward in his Smart Start program children's health program Fair an equitable foundation formula funding. As well as a responsible approach to overall spending so we think that the minority has an important role to play that there are always two sides to every issue and we need to be sure that the other side is heard. And as these bills move through committee and as they come to floor we'll be offering our views and hoping to have some impact on the process now. Now the House and Senate majorities are similar but there are some very noticeable distinct differences. How do you feel about being included in what's going on right this year. I think we realize that we have a role to play and we're trying to do it in a little bit more forceful manner this year but do it in a statesman like manner when we're trying to open up the process. I think we've made an issue that I think people have talked about it and recognize

that what's wrong with debating these issues out in public rather than everything behind closed doors and excuse me will continue to make issues on that but there are there are things out there that they need our votes to solve because the majority is not always agreed on everything. And subsistence is one I think education funding might be one. So we're going to continue to push those issues as best we can and let people know that look at you don't have to have a majority vote in the in the era of a unanimous vote in the majority to pass something that there are 40 of us out there. Let's put everybody out there let everybody's vote count and see if we pass something. You mentioned the that they need your votes on on a lot of issues they will need your votes on the budget when it comes it comes through presuming that they use the budget reserve financing method they've used in the past. What will be on online your adjournment.

What are what are your or is it too early perhaps for your caucus priorities. What what do you think has to be done to get you on board with that final vote of the session. Well first off the Senate side will look at different between a Senate minority and House Minority devoted you're talking about what they finally get our vote the final analysis is a three quarters vote to access the constitution but a reserve fund on the Senate side they have three quarters without the minority so our role is a little bit different than on the House side where they don't have a three quarters vote last year because Senator Kelly was ill and not present during the last few days of session. This Senate minority also had a three quarters vote we do expect that to happen this year so we need to be working a process early and letting a majority know exactly what our priorities are and what we think needs to be part of that final German package and coordinate very carefully and very closely with the House minority with Representative Weiner and his membership because they do have that three quarters hammer and I think a recount of those. You know just very quickly again I believe subsistence needs to be addressed to stretch their session I'm very pessimistic that it will happen I think we're probably looking at a special session on that.

I believe that the governor's approach to quality education quality school initiative needs to be evaluated and move forward as well as a foundation for me to rewrite and adequate funding for education and the child preventive services program. And I believe that we do need to do something in the area of deferred maintenance now I think we have to be careful and cautious that we don't use a financing approach that takes away our savings account to construct a reserve fund is being proposed by the majority 1.5 billion dollar hit on that fund may not be the best way to go but we do need to begin to address our deferred maintenance so there's a number of issues I think and I believe the Senate minority believes needs a BNF final package and very carefully will work closely with majority trying to get those going. But courting very carefully is represented been in the House minority. You know I guess I'd add that there there are issues out there that we all want to take care of. Subsistence is certainly one. Am I prepared to tie that to a three quarter vote. I don't think I'm prepared to tie anything to a three quarter vote today. One it's not a budget issue it's separate so I hate to sort of hold the budget

hostage for a separate issue but when it all comes down the last day they sort of do all meld together. But things that I think have to be hit subsistence gasline which is a bipartisan issue. But it's one that we actually brought to the forefront a couple of years ago and it's one that I hope would make some major steps on kids. Child protection. That's part of the budget issue governors got a proposal out there I think a lot of things in there that has bipartisan support so we'll see where we come with that. And then education both in funding for the operating budget. Everybody recognizes we've gone 10 years on this program now this formula with only one year given in any kind increase for inflation proofing a lot of school districts are really hurting. And programs are hurting and kids are not getting instruction they deserve so I think this legislature needs to deal with that issue. And that's the second part of education is also the capital costs of that. The

majority has it they did it with their deferred maintenance plan that Governor a little different way with the tobacco tax but it's an issue we've got to address. Let's go to the phones to number 1 800 4 7 8 2 5 5 800 4 7 8 talk our first caller this morning is from Tampa. Good morning you're on the air. Yeah. Good morning. Senator Representative thank you very much for being on the program. I have to express my my concerns I I feel that this is that nothing important going to get done this legislative session. I don't really think it matters whether you're a Democratic majority or Republican majority I feel like the majority is forced to kind of be lemmings to to the leadership in whatever party is in power. You're forced to vote along with whatever the leadership says to do otherwise they do nasty things like they take away maybe one of your aides or something like that which happened last year. I see a lot of pet legislation got introduced last year and this year already like

Senator Lott a green gun bill and in our signed bill and all that sort of thing. And again nothing's going to get done. The capital improvements need for our school that this isn't going to get solved I just don't see anything happening and I have a lot of preparation with the system in general and nothing important going to get done this year any more than it did last year. I mean it's going to continue to be deferred and our schools are going to continue to crumble in the foundation. For me the prize is going to get fixed and we're going to have probably some more reproductive legislation that really you know that's still important for people reproductive rights and you know I am extremely frustrated as a taxpayer and I don't I don't know what the answer is. Well let me say it hear the frustration in a lady's voice. And a lot of people in Alaska are frustrated with the politics. And it's it's a hard one to say you know this isn't true because I don't think it is all true what she's saying. But people have to stand at the plate and say if that's the way I really feel

I have to change the people that are there that's where people can make a difference. They can't give up. You know it comes next November they have to say I have been frustrated this whole year and I'm going to make a change and I'm going to go out there and help people. That's democracy so please don't give up. You know I'm not. I am going to give up I always vote and I always am very strong and active in politics I just think it's really frustrating like I said I don't think it matters if it was a majority were in the majority of the big bully and they have their pet things in there that think that they're going to push through and the minority is going to have very much impact that's my perception now. You've been in the minority I know you more hope from your perspective but from mine there isn't much hope for or any of it. So anyway that's all I have to say but thank you for being on the air. Thanks for calling. And next caller is from Anchorage Anchorage Good morning you're on the air. Hi this is Mary and I. I want to

echo some of what the previous caller said. But I'm also one of the things I'm very concerned with is the reproductive rights issue and have seen this onslaught from the Republicans trying to co-opt women's rights to safe abortion and even to get any kind of birth control from some insurance companies and I would really be interested in knowing what what that. How would they have foreseen as a way to undercut this or somehow assist women getting reproductive rights and all that might have stopped there. Thanks. Thank you. OK Dave this kind of ties into the previous question I can understand why the lady who called previously and this lady are pretty pessimistic about what's going to happen here really is that the leadership the majority who sets the agenda and puts to go puts their agenda forward when a minority don't have that ability.

Our role is to try to influence that agenda and try to moderate that agenda to a great extent sometimes were successful sometimes were not so it is a frustrating process in the area of reproductive rights. You know I would say that this majority both sides both the House and the Senate are not pro-choice. They are their agenda has been to limit those rights and limit that choice for women. They did that last year with a couple pieces of legislation is as I'm sure the car recalls they were vetoed by the governor and they had the votes to override that veto. Finally it took the court stepping in and saying that the legislation you passed. Will not take place it just below violate and violate some rights of individuals and individual rights but they're about that again this year there is the one proposal just recently introduced on the House side that would not allow contraceptive devices I guess a prescription to be issued to minors under the age of 18. And there is the attempt by one of the representatives and that bill I think has passed the House to change the order in which Medicaid dollars are used for for abortions so it puts

it at the low end of the scale so that poorer women ladies under a certain income would not have that available so they keep on this they keep this onslaught on and they keep going and they're being successful because they control a majority. They have they set the agenda. They put those bill forward with those bills forward and unfortunately in many cases majority Locsin and votes with that legislation and then votes to override a veto that together again. So it's a serious matter Rip's it could be his answer I think was right on the way to change that is change to assent to general to represent people if people are really concerned about it. Well I think one thing I'd add is that I don't think it's always the leadership. People following the leadership have contended here for a year that the leadership is not being able to lead in this majority and it's the extremists elements and that majority that are really forcing these things. I don't honestly believe that some of the leadership and some of the moderate people in the Republican Party agree with some of these bills but they did they get locked in the lemmings

scenario was sort of accurate you know but wasn't the leader I think. Representative Phillips is sometimes back in the middle of the pack following somebody else. We talk about Scott Ogun as being Captain Chaos here and leading us down the road. And yet speaker Phillips is trying to get the problem solved so I think the problem is they've got a radical majority of radical group in there. They're being more stronger more false more forceful in their caucus and it's leading him and they're not listening to some of their more moderate leaders. Part of the responsibility of being a speaker or President provide leadership and not advocate that leadership to the members of your of your caucus and to provide some direction I think that isn't happening in many cases unfortunately I have to agree. Let me let me ask you so far as the the other side of this issue also is that there is a bill that's been introduced by Representative Croft and I think this one of the Senate side almost a bill that would require the insurance companies to

pay for. Medically prescribed contraceptive devices Senator prof says that's that's another awfully good way to cut down on the need for abortions is to provide that as it's been co-sponsored I believe by the by Speaker Philips I know that there is there are both sides of the aisle a lot of different different people coming from that. Is it do you anticipate it's running into this same as you refer to this extremist element that's that's in there or is this thing look like it's going to happen. Well that would be an interesting one to watch and see which one which direction it goes because I think that that bill is contrary to some of the other bills that that have been introduced and direction they're trying to go. So maybe we look at the end of the session to see if that becomes law and that'll that'll be one issue to see if the leadership was able to carry the day. And it may be a couple reasons that doesn't happen one because of the extremist element it represents could be talking about it may get that bill in the committee and lock it up and not let it move in a second maybe because it is a good idea. That

is a good idea that came out of the Democratic minority and unfortunately politics often play a very heavy role and the majority that the Republicans are in charge don't want to give credit to represent of Croft who is up for re-election or to Cinderella's that often happens also. Our phone number 1 800 4 7 8 1 800 4 7 8 8 2 5 5. Give us a call we're with Senator Jim Duncan and Saudi's Representative Gene could be the minority leaders of the House and Senate. And let's go back to the phones and our caller is from Juneau. Good morning. Good morning. I just want to tell the two previous callers and that that indeed there is hope because if you look at the election returns from the last election the turnout in districts like Scott of NS and in some of the other one rail belt districts where some of these right wing

extremists were elected the turnouts are abysmal. And I think it behooves all of us Democrats to get out and work this year at the precinct level and if these women are not Democrats they should be and if they're not they at least can help campaign. My suggestion is to talk to all your neighbors find out who supports the same views you do. Make sure they all get out and vote and better yet get them all working on the campaign with you to get reasonable decent people elected to the legislature instead of these right wing screwball extremists. Because you know the fact is in spite of Mr. Owens insistence that he represents the majority of people he does not and and the same goes with a lot of other folks that's it's a very small minority of people that are preventing the people from the law of Alaska from voting on the subsistence constitutional amendment.

And it's a very small minority of people elected by a very small but vocal minority in these in these districts we need to replace these folks. The only way we're going to do it is to get the bodies out knocking on doors and talking over people's kitchen tables and getting people that normally don't vote to the polls and we need to do that and we need to energize those folks and perhaps Jim and Jean can tell us some ways we can do things at the local level to to encourage good people to run for office and put up with it with the right wing attacks are going to get and get them into office to provide some help because for one thing Jim won't be there next year. He's going to be in Congress I hope and and. Representing us instead of you know. And I just think that we you know people need to stop ringing their hands and get out and take some action and start working now and trying to find a good candidate

to run against this person in their district and get them out there start working now to get that person elected because that's what we have to do and we have to do it. The state cannot stand any more of the stuff. And I'll hang on let me answer. OK well give a brief answer Dave. First of all I think there is room for hope also I mean I do believe that there are people out there who are beginning to see that some of the policies being developed by the leadership are not policies that they agree with and hopefully we'll see some changes in the next election and I think the House of Representatives there's a real opportunity to change the leadership to change the majorities next time. But there's also reason to be concerned and I just one mission is very carefully very quickly. You know one the reasons that we have the type of legislature we have now is because of reapportionment that happened in the early 1990s under Governor hiccup when those districts are drawn pretty well to do come up with a conservative legislature. If you look across the state we have pretty moderate mayors elected in most of the communities but we have a very conservative legislature.

Why. Because of the way the districts are drawn now reapportion becomes again the year 2000. I'm assuming that we're going to have a Democratic governor and so I would think that those districts might change but the Republicans in charge also realize that. And I think the public should weigh in on the issue of whether or not we should change how reapportion is done because they're proposing a constitutional amendment that would take reapportionment out of the governor's hands and put it into the hands of the legislature put reapportion into the hands of people who career depends on how the districts are drawn. And that's a very critical issue that has not been discussed yet by the public this session. I think that costume it's a real mistake. It politicizes the reapportionment process to a much greater extent is now. But it's a power grab by the Republican leadership because they will maintain their majority clear through the first 10 years of the next century. OK. Next caller is from Wainwright. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Roger. And I dream about presenting a bug from a

crash site. Both are yes are the premier surprised Kurtzer That's a town for a home environment a Russian foreign trade. It's a foreign policy for most of the brain. OK let me let me ask is this going to get down to the Alaska legislature and the state government. Trenton's disappearance Laverick called and distribution system. Supreme self-assertion international commission.

Do you know of systems commission commissions in the world of commerce or the commission and commissioners. OK let me ask direct question for our guest this morning. For certain services to strike up a conversation or our conversation on their work force of systems like the international commerce you know we have to go in conferences. Do not want to comment. OK. OK well let me let me let me continue or it seems

he's going yours and that is distancing. And I've gotten the impression that there is not from the from the majority's yet there is not a clear direction a firm fitted course of what's going to happen there. Although there are sort of leaning in different directions. But is there a minority answer for subsistence is it. Is it simply accept the task force and get on with the other work of the session or there is there or is there a plan to come for the minorities on this. You know I'm not sure that we will give a different proposal. In fact I don't think we will. It's an issue that's been around for a long time. We put a group of people together. Nobody is ever going to agree on exactly the wording of any of this. There are always going to be feelings of apprehension. But I think what has to happen is one the people of Alaska have to be the final decision. They have to have a vote. We have to put the

governor through his task force have said he made a recommendation on how to do it. I don't see a better way. There will be native people who say I'll be a better way they'll be other people say don't do anything at all. We have an issue that has been with us so long and the consequences of losing control of managing the state is they're so strong. I mean it's absolutely are going to lose control of our managed our fishery which means our commercial fisheries which means our sport fisheries which means the whole kit and caboodle we have to let the people of Alaska. Make the final decision. Even if we don't agree even if somebody doesn't agree with the wording that exactly it's on it. I think we have to let them do it. And I said and I believe this will be the issue that if the if the majority does not let the people of Alaska speak on it they will stand up and say enough is enough you have to trust in us and you people don't. And I think

for us inside the Senate minority you know we're in a position where we're saying the people have to be on a vote on something this year this November. And I would guess that the majority of not all the minority on the Senate side is saying that the real preference is what needs to be put before the voters that he needs based press preference or some other approach just isn't going to satisfy our concerns or our needs. I believe what the majority are moving towards is not is not a constitutional amendment but it's a rewrite of state law and then try to force Senator Stevens to rewrite and Milka and to really you know if you want to use the term gut Anoka I think that is what they're moving towards a state law that will not comply with Anelka. And then Wolf they'll say to the congressional delegation you know rewrite of Milkha only going to be acceptable with the vast majority of people in rural Alaska Native Alaskans. But I think that's what you're moving towards. Do you but you do both of you expect to see something. Whether we pass the test or not of the congressional tester not you expect to see

something at all to come out of the majorities this year. Well you know I'm not I'm pretty pessimistic I think it's going to be pretty difficult for them to get people together unless it's a very weak approach one that does not. As I said them in our constitution does force the changes in Iraq and I don't think that will be acceptable I don't think that will will solve the problem. I don't believe from what I heard Senator Stephen say it wasn't quite as strong if insurgency was a said clearly he will not go back he does not believe he can go back in and change an OCHA to make it comply with state law. We need change our state constitution to make it comply with the world preference in America so I guess my response to that is I think something may come out but I don't think it's all the problem. If if that's what happens and they just pass a bill that does that. That bill obviously be vetoed I have no doubt in my mind by the governor and the governor needs to immediately call us right back into a special session once the session is over and. We need a vote on the floor of each but if we can't get to a vote in

in the public on the ballot we need a vote at least on the floor so that people can last count who is where on this issue and that will be my position there. And if we get called back into a special session which I actually expect that will be the way it will go I do not expect us to get it solved or next session and and I hope it doesn't get tied in with all these other it with the budget and everything else because I don't want to. I don't think we should be trading anything here. This is an issue that stand on its on its own. Dave you know so ironic about this is that the majority some of the majority or many a majority saying they don't want to allow the people to vote on this or to speak on this because it's a constitutional amendment that deals with the world that the other subsystems are saying no we don't want to people speak on it but at the same time they're saying well the people should speak on an advisory vote on the death penalty or the people should speak on whether we want to elect an attorney general or whether we want to change our reporting process or whether we want to confirm judges in a state.

It's ironic It amazes me that they're saying those are major public policy issues that people need to be able to speak on. But probably the top public policy issue in this state needs resolve that are subsistence. They're not willing to let people speak on. And I heard the hearings this year that they came from Bethel. There were some from from Catch a can of various other parts of the state and there was an awful lot of native objection to the taskforce plan a concerning subsistence. And people frankly saying we prefer we prefer federal management because they have more confidence in the federal managers and they do and people involved in state politics as well. Are there elements within the minorities that also agree with this or are the minorities United pretty much it behind a rural state a state solution. Let me say that we have not in our minority taken any vote on it at all.

Obviously we don't vote in caucus. The wishes of other people in the native community their thoughts and desires have been discussed in our caucus. We know that for example Sitka community was just on the radio here the other day in a community there said well they have federal control we know that's out there and places. I think as an overall we think in our caucus that that is mistaken that you may have good decisions right now out of a Democratic administration but what are you going to do when you have a James Watt back in there and you know that they should not depend on the federal government to protect them. We can do a better job of protecting ourselves. All of us even though we fight about it at times here so well. Well we've not said so completely. If in is in town. You know I know that our caucus is having discussions with them this afternoon. We'd like them to stand up to the plate actually and and tell us how they feel exactly

on a taskforce proposal I know they they have some guiding principles they have some I think real problems on how everything was done and that sometimes they feel like they weren't brought in to them to the mics and everything in the till all the discussions. But the bottom line is I'm hopeful that they will when all is said and done come out and say we're willing to go with this. We want to solve the problem. We don't want to fight it out. Just briefed on it if I can. You know I don't. I can understand why certain people are saying they'd rather have federal management state management we have to provide resources to our department Fish and Game and others to manage effectively and so they're saying we get better made from the federal government I can understand that. I do think in the long run though that the real preference will be supportive and would be acceptable to the vast majority of rural Alaska and Adams for example we have a caucus either or scenario Adams who represents a great part of role of speech and for the Senate a couple weeks ago advocating for real preference in explaining what it needs

to be done. So I think that's where probably the Senate minority comes down. I think we have to take a break here for a moment. And while we're awake give us a call number 1 800 4 7 8 talk. You're listening to TALK OF ALASKA on the Alaska Public Radio Network. Today's talk of Alaska comes to you from NPR ran the Alaska Public Radio Network. It's made possible by AT&T Alaska. It's all within your reach. And with the support of listeners like you who belong to this a PR and member station your business or organization can also underwrite public radio programming from NPR and call 1 800 7 5 2 8 PR and with us is going to urge the banks. Thanks.

We're back. This is Talk of Alaska. In Alaska Public Radio Network I'm here this morning with you know Senator Jim Duncan and Belges representative Jean Kubina the minority leaders of the House and Senate are me in that order to see the Senate in the house. Number is 1 800 4 7 8. Talk give us a call we're talking about the minorities and what they expect from this year's session. Let's go back to the phones. Our callers from Soto of Yeah good morning you're on the air. Oh yeah I've got I have two questions. OK go ahead I'd like to address. First off it's clear under the United States Constitution that the federal government does have the authority and the obligation to the people of the country to manage the land that the federal government on. However the federal government does not have the authority under the Constitution to establish public policy within the state. And it appears that who has the harvest rights

of wild resources in the on the public lands the federal public lands would be a public policy decision or public policy issue as opposed to a wildlife management issue and has nothing to do with the property of the United States and so I'd like you to address particular issue as to whether or not we're talking about a wildlife management issue with respect to subsistence on public lands federal public lands in Alaska or we're publicly talking about a public policy issue and the other question as it's been mentioned that there are dire consequences to a federal takeover of Fish and Wildlife Management on the federal lands in Alaska by the federal government. I'd like to have somebody tell me just what those dire consequences might be. OK. Well let me start with the second one. Things that I have read and I can tell you I was not here before we were a state but I think that

I have read certainly indicate that one of the biggest problems we had was the federal government manage and our resources. How would you like it if we had people Fish and Game people here federal people that were making decisions here. Making maybe good decisions for biological reason and so on managing our fish. And then people in Washington D.C. who overturned those who have the right. That's what happened before we were state. That's what I believe. They have the possibility of happening again. You know I think we should have the right here at the local level just as I believe in a lot of state issues as much as we can we should let the local level decide issues that don't affect the whole state. We should have state management of it here. I'm not sure how to answer the first question whether it's a management decision or a public policy decision. I do know that the federal government has supremacy over states it seems like we have tried in court

to change things around every every every time we get there we're losing lawsuits in court. Everything that I'm getting from lawyers all over the place it's indicating that we're not going to win this battle importantly we need to find a way to win it out of court. Well let me see if I can respond to and let me take the first one. The first part of your question first whether it's a wildlife management policy or public policy I think it's both. Why they were talking about both things they were talking about who's going to manage our fish and game. Resources and estate will be the federal government or state government and I believe people want to beat a stake over most people do. There are some who are saying federal money might be better but I think for most people it's statement. Management local control represents could be I was saying I think it also is a public policy issue right. It is a public policy issue as to whether we have a rural preference a real priority or whether we have federal money where we have state management. That's why I think it's important for the voters the citizens of this state to be involved in this public policy decision that it should not be tied up in some legislative committee

by one legislator from a certain area the state who doesn't want to people to speak. It should be brought forth people to state because it's both. It's a fish and wildlife management issue and it's a major public policy issue in this state that needs to be resolved. On the second part of that question I do believe it's a real economic question at this point not just to the right of rural Alaska and native Alaskans to have a subsistence lifestyle as they should have I think they should have that but it's also a real economic question. Federal management I know the commercial fishermen the state are very concerned about what would happen to them. And they're in commercial fisheries in the economy of the state. If it if they fell under federal management. That's why I believe that groups such as the Chamber of Commerce in the state Chamber of Commerce have gone on record with resolutions saying we need to resolve this issue because they realize of the D economic consequences could come to the state if we don't do. Let's go a caller from Fairbanks Good morning. Fairbanks color there. OK you're on the air go ahead.

I have a couple of questions. We hear a lot about education funding as a priority for both the majority and the minority. And I really applaud that I've got two kids in school and I think the education programs in Alaska are really good. That's the priority for education doesn't seem to extend to the University of Alaska. It just seems like when everybody talks about it the university is conspicuously left out of the priority. I'm especially interested in programs that make the university a lang great university that defined it defines it as a language university like mining the agricultural forestry experiment station they cooperated extension service these programs are being gutted because of a constantly eroding budget for the whole university. My questions are Where does the university and post-secondary education fit in your priorities and what do you believe is the value of agricultural and forestry experimentation and the Cooperative Extension Service.

And should these be continued in the state. Well let me begin today if I can. I think that the lady has asked a very good question. I think university is very important in this state and I've served in the legislature for a number of years and when I served on the House Finance Committees and Senate Finance Committees I was often in charge of the university budget and I always worked hard to be sure we had adequate funding there. Unfortunately under the present leadership where they've had the arbitrary reduction goals target goals of reducing certain amount of general fund spending per year 50 million dollars one year and only five million dollars whatever the figures were. The university has not received adequate level funding in fact we've seen a deterioration and eroding of the low funding for the university system and as a result we've seen certain programs lose accreditation We've seen certain programs not offered a longer We've seen certain divisions it just can't operate efficiently so I think we need to make the university a priority. And I think the leadership. I mean what surprises me is the chairman of the co-chair of the House Finance Committee is from Fairbanks where the university is very important.

President of the Senate is from Fairbanks but still that university system continues to lose support monetary. Now the governor this year has asked for a modest increase of about three and a half million dollars as I recall and I think that should be supported and that should be should be funded. We need to strengthen our system. And I do believe that the extension service programs. Those types of agriculture programs are important in this state to do it or we should not be set aside. They should also be supported but in general I think over the past few years the university system has taken a decrease in funding and that has hurt their ability to deliver programs. A caller say that you had a second question also about the experiment. OK. Well let me add. So I think part of the problem is that the legislature over the years at the university sort of unique in that the constitution gives them more more flexibility in their budget and other places. I think the legislature has sort of

felt over the years that they've given direction for money to be spent in a certain way and then it doesn't get spent in a certain way that they wanted it to be. And so it comes back the next year and the majority here is feeling a little frustrated about it so their response is to cut their budget to try to teach them a lesson. Of course when you cut the budget it just complicates things more. There is though that in these times I think the university system has to look at their administrative level we've got some interesting documents recently from faculty members and from. Professor groups about the costs of the statewide administrative level and I think the Board of Regents has opened their eyes opening their eyes to analyzing some of that because I agree with one thing this money just as I do in K-12. This money that we're putting in the system needs to work its way down to the students. But that's what were the main goal is to provide education and training for these

kids and our young people and the university needs to make sure that they're doing the best they can in doing that. Let me change the topic a bit here. Yesterday the governor presented a pill that will take the first steps towards the construction of a gas pipeline from the North Slope. Could be you know in some ways you get the legislature interested in this project. Two years ago in a speech that you made on the House floor and you've been one of the major backers of it ever since this bill that was presented yesterday does this put the state where it needs to be right now and do you see any problems with this this project as as it's introduced here going forward. Actually I'm starting to feel better about the project you go through ups and downs I think with this project but I do hear some real interest from some major players and putting together a structure an owner structure that would build this project.

I think that some of the oil companies and I'm going to name a couple. Arkel I believe is making a real good faith effort to put together that structure. Phillips Petroleum Yukon Pacific and I believe there are some companies outside of Alaska and maybe International that are ready willing and able to stand up to the bat. I think things are starting to move. I think some people recognize with some of what's going on the Kyoto agreements about having to cut down on CO2. Natural gas is great. Burning clean burning fuel. So I think we're I think we're starting to move the governor's bill does two things. That I think are real important to happen this year. One is that we have the ability to set up the structure so that next year we come back we're not talking to individual companies. We're talking to a group of people that want to build it. A group of companies that want to build it too. It's it gives the governor in essence permission to go out there and negotiate a contract so that the companies will

know what my tax liability is going to be 25 years down the line. There are some pitfalls there we've got to make sure we protect the communities along the pipeline that they are also taking care of we want to make sure we're not giving away you know more than we need to give away. But I am starting to get an STD that this project may be starting to work its way towards being reality. Let's go back to the phones. Clam Gulch. You're on the air go ahead. Hey good morning. Hi how you doing. OK. Go ahead you're on the air. OK I'm I'm having trouble hearing you guys over the phone a little bit but I'll just go ahead. Can you hear me OK. Just fine. I've got a background and then I got a question for you. Last year the legislature addressed a resolution to the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the National Guard for elimination in Cook Inlet an oil company permit. And if this was an opportunity to apply

the knowledge that we've gained over this over the last years it was an Old Firm it five years past renewal time and the legislature passed this resolution unanimously. And and given that and the opportunity that that that that the legislature passed away with very little passed by on with very little debate. Why should I trust any of you people to look out for the public trust doctrine and take care of the water to cook and then I'll hang up and listen. Well I mean that's an interesting question I got I got to say I'd have to go back and review that resolution I'm not sure what all of it said off top my head I'm not sure what all it said or what what the resolve causes were in that resolution if it passed unanimously. It often surprised me when a resolution passes unanimously it must of been pretty well put together at least we thought it was I know my staff and I'm very concerned about protecting the water and air quality in this state as as many other

Democrats are and it would seem highly unlikely to me that anything that was that onerous is being referred to by this list or would pass you unanimous I know that on the Senate side and on the Democrat on the House side there are Democrats who look at these resolutions even though they're just messages to the federal government they're not binding or anything they look at those very carefully to be sure there's not some type of onerous language in it so I go to say to the caller I'd have to go back look at that resolution read it again look at the research papers I know I had an I'm sure option of community head before I can get a real clear answer as to as to what happened on that but I guess I'd only add that. You know. My caucus talks a lot about environmental issues because we recognize that we're the ones that have to speak up and say something. We also recognize that we're a resource development state we're not against it we just want to do it right so that so that we are protected along the way. I personally don't recall what was in that resolution either but it gentleman wants to call my office and I'd certainly review it and see if there was something in

there that we should've passed. Our next caller is from Homer. Good morning good morning. You're on the air. Thank you. Well I'm a 35 year Democratic voter 60 year old person. The people here today saying that the voters need to be involved in the making a decision on the subsistence thing but what we need to be involved is we need to be involved in the wording of a constitutional amendment if that's what it's going to be the idea that we're going to be given a constitutional manner. We have no involvement whatsoever with five or six that are 25 or 50 or 200 people got together and decided this is going to be the constitutional amendment. I don't like. The way to do it I don't think that's getting the voters involved I think that's playing tricks on the public. But what the question I have to ask is I wonder how come the Democrats don't seem to be able to say I mean they want us to vote on this

constitutional issue as far as assistance goes but as far as I'm baking what the Constitution says as far as putting any truck in it and the American system. That's our guiding light as a constitution and then the laws have to be in conformance with the Constitution. And what are we going to do every time the federal government wants to pass another law to the states that the people in the state are going to have to change their state Constitution to conform with the federal law. I don't think that's the way the system works gentleman. And I would like to have a response as to how. How come the Democrats don't seem to pay any attention to the Constitution the constitutional rights of the people as pertains to certain issues and law enforcement. For instance the so-called criminalization of marijuana that doesn't exist in a state that the laws of state versus Raven that's a Supreme Court ruling. Why don't we pay attention to the prostitution ruling. Maybe I could just that a couple of answers real quickly and ribs you could beat up sure I want to first of all in the

language of the Constitution Amendment I do believe the voter should do people should be involved in helping put that language together but they can't be involved unless the Republican leadership is as willing to bring that before a committee hearing and allow the public to participate and testify on it. That he's exactly right. There's a process to follow a taskforce made a recommendation. We shouldn't take that just carte blanc and put that language on the ballot necessarily. Maybe what we end up with but there should be a hearing process through the committee structure in this legislature to involve the public. That's exactly what needs to happen and I agree with the caller. Secondly I think the Democrats do uphold the Constitution both the state constitution and the federal constitution and we're not recommending a divider like the constitution we're recommending that we asked the voters of this state do you want to change the Constitution. We're not trying to go against the Constitution. But I do believe the way you find to resolve this issue is let the voters tell us clearly let the voters decide clearly. Do we want to have a real preference or not. Do we want to end our Constitution or do we not. If the voters say yes we've solved the problem but they say no then that means that Senator Stevens has to go back on the federal level and change and change the

language get in and look at us right now are causing us the difficulty causing us to problem so you know I don't have any disagreement with the caller in the fact that the public should be involved in writing and I believe they should be and that can happen if the Republicans will bring that to a hearing in a process. And secondly we should be supporting the constitution and I think Democrats have been supporting the Constitution the state constitution in the federal Constitution were only advocating that that in order to resolve this problem the people need to be able to have the opportunity to vote on whether they want to change the constitution or not. Well I agree with Duncan wholeheartedly about having the hearings I mean that is the committee process there were hearings held around the state on this and we've had hearings for a long time but that when you get ready to put something up before the people I agree wholeheartedly that that Scott should be having public hearings right now and his resources committee and not saying I'm going I'm going to go check privately with my committee members to see what we can put together. That's certainly

no public process of putting together a bill. You know I'm not I in some respects consider the Democrats the conservative party you know in Alaska when you're talking about the Constitution. I mean you look at some of the proposals that are out there right now that are trying to change the constitution totally politicize our system and Senator Duncan spoke to them earlier whether it's the attorney general whether it's reapportionment confirm the legislature be involved in writing the regulations for crying out loud if the people could imagine what what our system would be if say for five of those passed would be in real trouble. With that one question has not come up that I wanted to ask each of you about the majority of the budget Nobody's calling about the budget. Today the majority has set a goal of cutting another 50 million dollars from from state

spending on operating capital budgets this year and that's on top of the 130 million dollars they've cut in the last two years. Your reaction Senator. You've you've seen but it's coming. Finance Committee an awful lot in your years here. Is the state able to handle another 50 million dollar cuts what's your reaction to this. What is very difficult for the state to have another $15 cut. I am you know I don't advocate we have a ballooning and growing bureaucracy I don't think anyone does we need to have control over government spending but we need to recognize that there's a certain level of government services that need to be provided in programs that need to be addressed. You know spending in this state per capita is lower than it was 20 years ago. We're spending less per capita on our citizens than we did 20 years ago so government spending has been controlled it has been reduced. But we can't just set an arbitrary goal of reduction as majorities are doing and then at the same time turn our backs on our educational system and on our children. We have to try to control government spending but recognize are certain priorities that need to be addressed such as

protecting our children because of domestic violence cases and child abuse cases are going on. Be sure to have adequate health care for children in low income children for pregnant women and do we have a good quality educational system and it's funded to deliver quality education so I think controlling government spending and reducing if we can is is right we should try to do that I think is what a public wants but I think the public also wants some quality in the services and we need to set our priorities correctly I'm not sure police have done it. You know what happens is. People get elected and they go out and their whole campaign thing is I'm going to cut the budget and people back home sit there and say that's a good idea you know I don't want to pay taxes and this guy's going to go in there cut the budget. The problem is it's not looking at the long term. I honestly believe the long term we are creating huge problems. Education is just one I mean we've got schools that are cutting back programs et cetera.

I mean we got into that before. You don't see that problem today. But you're going to see it when those kids are graduating from high school then the problem's going to be out there with the maintenance on our road. We've cut back maintenance on our roads every year since Republicans have been in control. When are we seeing the problem. We're starting to see it now because we want now they propose one and a half billion dollars in deferred maintenance deferred maintenance. It's money that they have not put in the operating budget they have deferred it year after year. And so the problem becomes worse if you go out and put a coat of paint on your house you're going to protect it. But if you don't pretty soon you've got roof would rot. And look what happens. That's what we're doing we're we're we're doing a short term political fix that says I'm keeping my budget my promise I'm cutting the budget. You're damaging the state in the long term it's going to cost far more dollars. OK this does not end the story we got about 30 seconds left here. The idea though is that do you recognize that there

is a fiscal gap the spending needs to be cut. Well there is a fiscal gap but let me say very clearly that the Republicans long term financial plan five years of cutting doesn't solve the fiscal gap. After five years that gap starts growing dramatically again so they're not solving the problem long term they're not looking for a long term solution. They do represent community said they're doing a short term political fix because I think it'll get them re-elected. And if it's going if it's to let's address the the gap I mean let's address the gap it's hard to say there's there's a political there's hard to say there's a budget gap out there when we have three and a half billion dollars sitting in our Constitution but let's address the real issue I guess and I think they're skirting it OK. That's all the time we have. Thank you Senator Duncan representative could be in it we'll have the majority. March the 10th speaker Gail Phillips and Senate President Mike Miller. Next week talk of Alaska will be the tenth anniversary of the statewide call in with the governor.

We have Tony Knowles Steve Cooper and Wally Huichol with us. Today's program was produced a k t o f him and you know by Paula Dobbin our engineer was Jeff Brown for the Alaska Public Radio Network I'm Dave Donaldson. Have a good day. Talk of Alaska is made possible today by AT&T Alaska. It's all within your reach. And by the 30 member stations of the Alaska Public Radio Network this program is a production of a PR ad which is soley responsible for its content views expressed are those of the participants and are not necessarily those of APRA on this station or its underwriters cassette copies are available by calling 2 7 7 2 7 7 6.

Imagine living in a large cabin somewhere down the river from chicken or up the coast from public radio can become a very good friend. Imagine practically an entire village totaled around a single radio listening to hear how their basketball team is doing at the big tournaments. No it happens all sorts of things happen because of Alaska's public radio stations. People stay connected in public broadcasting in Alaska and fill them in the blanks. Hi this is Geo beach. You've heard me read my commentaries and stories at the end of the radio news but the most important stories I read are to children reading aloud to your children is the absolute best predictor of future academic success. Now that's good news. But most of all reading is really fun and it's just the beginning of a great story. Opening the world of books together with your children this message is sponsored by the Alaska children's trust 1 800 4 7 8 22 21.

This is a PR in the Alaska Public Radio Network. Good morning from the Alaska Public Radio Network. I'm Peter Kenyon and this is a live statewide call in program with Governor Steve Cooper. Good morning. From the Alaska Public Radio Network this is a live statewide call in program featuring Governor Walter Nichols. You tuned into the Alaska Public Radio network statewide call in show with the governor. I'm Dave Donaldson. With me here in Juneau is Governor Tony Knowles Good morning sir. Good morning how are you Dave. Doing great it's a beautiful spring morning here I expect. You know why didn't you tell me that this was going to be the Christmas carol session. Well you're going to start off talk a polo and just lead us all I think it's a great

idea. From a PR ad the Alaska Public Radio Network's live in across the state you can hear from and talk to the people who make news in Alaska on Talk of Alaska. Today's program celebrates the 10th anniversary of the statewide call ins with the governor. It's made possible with support from NPR and member stations and as it has been for 10 years from AT&T Alaska it's all within your reach. From Juno Here's Dave Donaldson. Good morning. We're going to take today's talk of Alaska to discuss something that we at a PR Inn are pretty proud of. This is the 10th anniversary of our monthly call in with the governor. The chance that we've given you over the past decade to talk directly with the man you've chosen to run the state. And I think we'll find that the people may change but the issues remain. Our guests today are the other people who have participated in this show over the past decade.

Former Governor Steve Cooper in Washington good morning sir. Good morning today. And former governor Walter Huichol in Hawaii this morning good morning. Good morning Dave. And Governor Tony Knowles with me in the studio here in Juneau. Hi Dave. I want to introduce one other guest for just a few minutes this morning. The original host of this program Peter Kenyon Peter joins us today from the U.S. Capitol in Washington where he's working for National Public Radio. Good morning Peter. You know Dave how you doing. Doing great. Peter got a quick question for you. Where did the idea for this monthly call in come from how did it start. I was afraid you're going to ask me that you know I'm not entirely sure but I believe it came out of the candidate come as we used to call him before the elections and a lot of the candidates showed up for that and it turned out to have a great response and so we decided well why not. I want to do it every month for the good. Is there any any problems getting it started I would tend to think that the governor at that

time probably enjoyed having it. Well let me tell you it was pretty different in those days if we had a Democratic governor with a southern accent pretty young guy and everybody thought it was going to be kind of liberal but he turned out middle of the road even kind of to the right on some issues. I was going up there these days. Well we have a Democratic governor with a kind of a Midwestern southern accent. Everybody thought was going to be pretty liberal and it turned out to be pretty middle of the road on most issues gee whiz things don't change do they Peter. Yeah you know in those days we're talking about things like subsistence and their industry and yeah you of all all we're talking about now I guess is subsistence in the oil industry. So Peter I know you've got a lot to do for NPR and I do appreciate your getting this program started. And my guess is going to be a pretty busy day in the capital after the president's speech this morning. It sounds like you've got. Pretty full House to say I don't the governor send which everybody well thanks for taking the time to join us. Oh Heidi it's great hearing you all the time. You haven't changed either. Thanks Governor. Before we get to

the calls today let's find out just where our guests are and what they're up to Governor Cooper. We've reached you in Washington D.C. What are you doing now. Well Dana I'm representing some Alaska clients in Washington. The Northern forum which I'm still only connected to has a lot of business that needs to be attended to in Washington. So I'm doing that and I'm also representing some other Alaska companies here instead of commuting back and forth to Washington from acreage and I got a little place here and I'm commuting cred so I'm not sure it makes much difference. I guess this being where you are you probably have a pretty good chance to keep up with the issues in Alaska that I guess you're still pretty much a part of the politics here aren't you. Well somewhat removed level not much

involved with state issues per se. Take a hand in some of the international and federal issues from time to time. As for his state issues are concerned. My my belief is once you're out you're out. Well you're not forgotten governor. Nicole in Maui is it this morning. Mallory will be back a week from Saturday. Somebody said to me last week that you have been retired and I told them they didn't know what they were talking about because I don't believe you're ever going to retire for anything what what are you up to nowadays. Well basically I had run my own company were still very much involved in the northern form of music to the north and I think they will know that the secretary general of the Northern form of work started it and. That's taking a point a bit of my time. We've got a pretty good international organization there and we'll have the annual meeting

this year in Anchorage I think in September. Look forward to going that to that it sounds like it's going to be a really exciting event that would be quite quite an exciting thing. First retiring is concerned a member from one of the older son told me one day he said I want to be returned. That's not my dad. I don't believe it is even you would know what to do either. Right. And Governor Knowles good morning here. Seems like seems like we just just did this recently haven't we. Yes it does and if I could just comment on the. The humility that had the two former governors are shown number one I'm just thankful every single day for all of the work they've done on the many issues that I face all the time and I appreciate all of the work they did but their continued counsel and certainly the pioneering efforts that both

Governor had was given. Cooper did with regards to the northern forum and establishing some relations is as we are involved with the global economy and important relationships business wise is it as well as international political relationships with with Russia and with other countries where their work is paying off in spades and I appreciate their continued work and I have broke remember a little bit on some of those. Devilishly complicated issues like subsistence and they've been a great help in leadership. You've started your own approach to the statewide call and that a year or so ago with your open door sessions where people can actually come talk to you face to face or on video conference now what. What kind of response are you getting are you are you is that though that seems to be going over quite well also doesn't that that has helped.

It's something that I did as mayor and just give everyone an opportunity to watch their few minutes to bring up issues. It has been enormously helpful in terms of giving people the opportunity that otherwise would have a difficult time perhaps in working through their departments or all of the different levels of contact that you have with your state government to be able to talk directly is a continuation of and face to face is part of what this program is all about. And actually we should all blame Governor Cooper for it because by starting it out than a PR in just tags every during election season tags every candidate are you going to continue this and of course they'll say there was no way out was there. True should we be your place in history at least is assured for that. I made the statement about this program a little a couple weeks ago we started working on this that the more things change the more they stay the same and our

producer Tim Tatton has put together a piece briefly here of what people have talked about during the past teen years and who has called in over the past two years I think you might enjoy all three of you might enjoy listening to this and we're going to start this with the first call in February. Nineteen eighty eight. Let's take a listen. I want it up and the guy I mean I want to get a point. We've got to go know where you're calling from and go ahead with your question to the radio on your phone when you turn it down other way to get a lot of feedback. Well Governor welcome to the program. Well I'm glad that we that we set up a proper community Peter for people to call in on a regular basis. We've been trying to work on for quite some time and. I'm very happy that we can finally put it together. Governor Michel one of the monkeys. The poor thing I was playing at the

Port Lincoln from. OK thank you for the profit motive incorporate them up with educating even if you think. Well of me you think at the pointy end of the property. What if anything is doing to reopen the newly created National Park. But here's the thing live in Alaska that is for time and if nothing is being done for makers majority of the people in the state including myself are not conform to wildlife do you not hunt or crap like the few that wildlife without killing it. No representation or voice in the power of the decisions affecting the wild Lamb of Alaska. You know all the things she's going to redress this imbalance and would you be willing to support something like equal people representation and if they for it gave her income from the game using the morning Governor.

Yes how are you. I wanted to add a couple buttons do you support her limitation on 0 8 and that will work both in the House and Senate. Yes you know that morning I've got a question on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that they're conducting over public hearings throughout Alaska on the proposed that the environmental impact statement subsistence management for the federal public lands in Alaska do you feel that joyed ministration would be in support of subsistence management cooperative agreements between Alaska Native organizations in those regions. Good morning Governor. Thinking from our community. Happy to laugh after a solution against the current level of. I'm wondering how you're going if you can talk. Go ahead please. Good morning Governor Wiley. You're on the air go ahead. OK good morning. Thank you Governor. My name is Philip I'm from home or I get cocky regarding Senate bill 330. Oh and I don't mind going to school get retirement Bethel is on the line.

No please go ahead. Are all schools I think are going to resist the voucher type of schools. I'm coming from you know good morning Mike and I don't I'm not. I think the police department. I'm the governor. COOPER What are you doing. You know ending to begin with me and then come home. I think we can. It would be an escapade income to make sure that we don't have to go. You have a short quota system for helping Black-Eyed have a goal to lemonade about 50 percent of the boats will result in only 75 percent of the help deck and losing their job. Thank you seek our next caller is from Point Hope. Welcome Point Hope you're on the air with Governor Steve Cooper. I just wondered are you aware of the cost of living up here under slope and the hardship we're Congress. It's really up here. The slope annoy you. Are you helping if I do something for our people up here you know when we are here people are weak.

We have a call now from all the way up and gamble. Go ahead gamble. We still have two fishing boats out in the Bering Sea somewhere around the island. OK if they are wondering if going to work on the right helicopter or National Guard helicopter a goal to. Fly around because we have lost our. City. I'll check on it as soon as I get out of the right out of this radio program. It's still a call in and a lot of those issues still sound very much like that we're talking about right now governors our toll free number would like to keep you calling our toll free number this morning it hasn't changed in 10 years 1 800 4 7 8 talk. That's 1 800 4 7 8 8 2 5 5. Give us a call get three governors on the line this time

and let me ask all three of you a question to get started this morning while the well first calls are coming and you have all three had to deal with the legislature. Let me start with Governor Cooper. Do you feel that it was easier working with the second floor during your term than it seems to be for for governor Hitler and also for the for governor Knowles now or is it pretty much about the same same sort of dynamics going on there. Well I really don't have much of a basis for comparison. And I knew I know that working with the legislature regard. Of how the party situation shakes out is always a little difficult. Legislature is a body always wants to do different things in the third floor does and so it's a matter of compromise and talking to the right people in the facetiously say from time to time a little threats in the force. It doesn't hurt a bit but it's always a pretty contentious relationship between the legislature and the governor's office next week.

That doesn't that doesn't seem to change party to party it's the contention there. Yeah I think that's correct. I think it would be the same with with the governor in the in the both houses of the legislature in the same party they'd still be at each other's throats. You had you had Democrats in running at least the House of Representatives your first two years Republicans the second of the past term to serve as governor. Did you see any difference. I can say that I covered pretty well I was governor of then ran as an independent. And whether you're an independent whether you're Republican or Democrat the governor's office has goals many times those are not quite acceptable to the legislative level. And it takes. It gave no process.

Found out that politics are important and parties are important. It generally gets down to the idea and the individual. Many times you'll have people from a Democratic Party supporting you and Republicans won't the other time to be some of the Republican 40 unit Democrats won't. And so nothing ever changes. But if I found out this in the extended period of time of over time 25 years in the governor's office different times two different times. If you have gold and it's pretty clear to the legislature where you're headed. That journey gives you a good upstart. Did you expect the relationship that you have with the current legislature when you were running for office before the day that you actually met them. Any surprises here are you. Did you find pretty much what you were anticipating.

Our system of government is checks and balances so whether it's at the local level where I had the chance to serve as both an assembly and assemblyman and then as a mayor it follows through the state government that you are going to have different responsibilities so that there there will be a certain amount of tension. I think Gov.. Cooper framed it correctly. Although he he did serve as the legendary chair of the House Finance Committee so he was on both sides of it. But as governor he said you need to set forward priorities and it's the the power of ideas that they give you the authority to move forward and if you can't so either the elected officials or the public on the idea is you need to go back and refocus you need priorities and bring it forward in the system works. Our phone number at 1 800 4 7 8. Talk 800 4 7 8 8 2 5 5 our first caller is from Anchorage. Good morning you're on the line. On the air.

Good morning Governor. You know which one to answer go ahead governor's historical moment it is wonder how many times a person can say that. This is Steve from Anchorage I'd like to take you. I like to ask you about something that really spans the terms of all three of you. Back when Governor Cooper was was governor he vetoed out of the road out consumer protection as a as an activity of the Department of Law. Now Governor Schickel and the legislature during that period turned around and put back a little bit of money but really did not create a renew and create recreate a full fledged consumer protection agency. Now since that time right to the present moment. Alaskans are still losing millions of dollars to consumer fraud estimated want to have a permanent fund

check for a family of four. It's like a hidden tax we have. We have this unique status status as the only agency as the only state without a consumer protection agency in the whole United States including the territories. Well what I'm wondering is how given the tremendous economic loss to consumers and to the small business community the hundreds and hundreds of calls that are received by non-governmental agencies about these problems why isn't how is it that consumer protection and the enforcement of the laws that are on the books has lost its political currency how is it that no governor in recent time has decided to make this an important issue and used his or her in the future bully pulpit do to push for a return of consumer protection to the government to the

Department of Law and the horsemen of the laws to the state governor Governor Knowles. Well hey you go first. Hi Steve. And you've always championed consumer protection and I appreciate that. Although I would take exception on behalf of other governors and in in in as we practice it today can consumer protection is very much a both a visible but a priority. And I say that even though there may not be a consumer protection division I think we have to move beyond creating departments of something it is clearly as part of the enforcement of our laws. What our attorney general of that whole department all the system attorney generals look to enforce. We are actively involved with. And I can think of several examples of where that there have been some schemes of fraud schemes that have

prayed up. Different citizens of the state that have been exposed. But the fact the matter that we also have priorities in regards to child abuse. We also have a domestic violence and so we do try in place in terms of where the resources are placed. Those kinds of priorities but the laws are enforced it is the responsibility the entire law enforcement mechanism to go after people that break the law. Governor Cooper is the caller correct in that the consumer protection as a as a separate entity was or was this done away with during your term. And can you tell us what was behind that. I remember that when we were in a situation where we had a very substantial budget deficit.

Oil prices were at about $12. Yeah it sure did and I did propose that that be one of the programs that was this was discontinued. It was a skeleton of a program at that time. My view was if we're not going to do it right let's get let's let's don't do it at all. As a practical matter I believe some people say you don't want to know Jim Hayes so you don't play or banks very able prosecutor of the people's interests here. I mean I think you have to do your job well or or get rid of the legislation that put you in that business. I don't think that the Glee doing away with consumer protection is a separate section that the attorney general's office would stop going after people that were engaging in illegal unconscionable

practices. But understaffed. Yeah we were going to call there were some. Well I'm a great believer in consumer protection I think it's vitally necessary. I think both Governor Cooper covered that. But here's where you run into problems. You know Al got down to $10 a barrel when I was governor and everybody wanted to cut the budget cut the budget. And so we instituted part of that Cooper program back. But I think it's an educational process for the government has a responsibility to do things to protect those people out there from. It takes a little bit of money to do that. So when it comes to the legislative decision or a governmental decision or the governor's office what can you cut and what can't you cut with a great leader putting that consumer protection back in there. But then where do you get the money from. So you can't just say cut the

budget. You've got to face reality. We're not a poor state. We've got lots of money and we've got to sell an Alaskan public on what is necessary and what are the priorities. One two three four five. Being bringing up this issue of cutting the budget and the volatility of our our revenue base of oil as I recall Governor tickle the issue of the fiscal gap came up first during your your last administration. Get a cover what sort of budgets Did you have during your term. Was it you. Obviously you had to cut also because you had some low prices but were they with this worry about fiscal gaps and worry about legislatures that wanted to cut the budget as a bigger concern then. Well it wasn't so much a pointed concern. It appeared to me that five or six years ago there began to be a movement to

cut the budget in order to make the government smaller and weaker. That was more of an area logical fleeing than something that was dependent and that actually reflected the fiscal realities. If you if you look back on my years in office I think what you'll find is we had a pretty with that was that state spending remained. And almost filmic at a constant level for four years. No jumping up and down depending on revenues the budget was almost the same for four years. Actually that's what we wanted to do we want to do have a a state spending plea in glance was that was relatively dependable easy and one that was what steady and didn't jump up and down

and then we were able to accomplish that. A lot of it was just pure luck. But nevertheless that was a result we were after then I think of the first attempts at cutting the budget and actually came in and I remember with your your administration caning coming from the people that accompany you into into the office. Is it is it still need to be done is there more need to be cut or do you see that perhaps we've reached a level of stability and start dealing with things like talk about that because we're not a poor state. We've got to allocate our priorities. Enter enter revenues. And so when you have 22 billion dollars in the bank when you have it. Budget reserve account. When you have these things. The reason we were giving those revenues prior to statehood two hundred and three million acres of land 90 10 and everything so we could pay the bill that the

federal government had been paid and what we have to do and it takes it takes you know a lot of effort and that's why I mean after years came up with the idea for the community dividend program and that is we're each individual will get their dividend and then the growth that dividend whatever led one to do would be given to the area in which individuals live lives even though they had a hundred people in distancing that they got their dividend Stephenville it would get a hundred dividends to match that. And in seven or 10 years they'd be about the same. What I'm I want to say is that yes we have to have responsibility in government. That just isn't a natural thing in the government seemed to be the American way of doing things. But in Alaska where we have different obligations than any

state the Union we not only have a regulatory state we have to manage it like an owner. And that takes some time and takes some money and some responsibility. So I'm I'm proud to say that I'm glad I live in Alaska. It's probably one of the greatest state in the union. It has a lot of resources. It has a lot of capital. It has a lot of obligations and maintenance. Some of those things like that are things that are going to catch up. We have to face it and I don't care who is down there in June to help them. GOVERNOR No need help trying to make that work. I'd be glad to help because we are not poor we're just thinking poor and I've said many times though to be as rich as we were before brutal day when we are rich in spirit. You know where does it go from here. All this concern about the fiscal problems. I don't know that. Have anything to add from the wisdom and insight that

Governor Cooper and Governor Hickenlooper have eloquently stated in terms of the direction and I think that both of them bring to the discussion of the the need for stability in a long term direction from the executive branch and so I just joined joined them in reflect on their good comments. We have to take a brief break here. While we're away. Give us a call at 1 800 4 7 8 8 2 5 5. This is Talk of Alaska. On the Alaska Public Radio Network. Today's talk of Alaska comes to you from NPR and the Alaska Public Radio Network. It's made possible by AT&T alas com. It's all within your reach. And with the support of listeners like you who belong to this a PR and member station your business or organization can also underwrite public radio programming from APRA on call 1 800 7 5 to 8 PR and.

Just like a love love love never. Dies. It's one thing I wish you could be. The last kiss the way now that

he's so little anyway. Hard of his hearing. They were all very well off. They were Alaska. That's the question I suppose. I would like to make one one quick statement here about the governor's call and we are doing the 10th anniversary right now. We are recognizing that it's been 10 continuous years of every single month having the government front of the microphones until this month actually the program is taking a hiatus for a few months here. And I want to explain to the public why and also let everybody you know that the people who are also joining me here know why this is the first time since we've had it that a governor has declared for re-election and we have obligations to provide fair coverage equal coverage to other candidates and

we was a very difficult decision for us to make because on one hand the governor does make news and that's the purpose that the news department puts on the program. The second set is that we have to give everybody some sort of equal access and to put the governor on. Every month we would have to put each of his candidates at least offer them time to be each of his opponents time to be on every month. Quite frankly Governor knows we couldn't afford it if it got to that point. That and I think that you know we had some long talks with your staff and we had a lot of long talks among ourselves and so we will we will put them on hold however we do anticipate your taking part in other programs such as this one and set other programs that we do have planned it's not like we're going to disavow you for the next next nine months but we hope that the November of 98 we will have you back perhaps that will be it will be a good one. So to say that just so that everybody in the public understands all where and why and what's happening on this. Let's go back to the phones 1 800 4 7 8 TALK 1 800 4 7 8 2 5

5 our caller is from Deering. Good morning you're on the air. Hi good morning. Governors MARTIN much doing good and I have a question. Declining revenues will that affect our future. Getting a lot of hearing gearing. Governor knows the answer to that is no. We have in continuation of programs begun by Governor Cooper and Governor heckle. We are committed to putting the honey bucket in the Museum of the year 2005. This year we'll be spending a record amount of both state and federal dollars some 53 million dollars in in regards to that. The only caveat that I would put to that is that it is becoming more and more aware and apparent that we also must develop the jobs and economic opportunities in rural Alaska so that the maintenance of the

systems that are put in to which are so essential to the life and safety and health of rural Alaska. But we have to address that as we develop the you know the utilities that are that are so much needed but the answer to the issue enduring is that if they're on their way over here. Well you were also very very instrumental in getting all the infrastructure of a great aid in and brought into that brought into some sort of a current standards. Is this a problem that can be solved. You know I'm a great believer that we need that capital investment move really curious point Oprah villager or where. And the simplicity of just simple water has to be have to be faced. I think it's sort of a tragedy we all try to do everything we can but it's a tragedy

that we've allowed some of these villages to go for years and years and years with the bare necessities. Well we do have enough money to do it. It's a case the case of allocation. So if we can get the people in the areas like Anchorage Fairbanks places maybe they haven't really been out in the in the country to see some of the villages. We have leaders we have to face the fact to get that done. And anything I could do to help any governor regards a political party to make that happen. I would do it if you did this in the CIS I believe it began under under you and on a lot of the infrastructure of rural Alaska. Have you seen enough to put it that way have you seen a satisfactory change in conditions not seen and yet you go up in Hooper Bay and see that man you see the lack

of even simple transportation system. You see people in epic field theory they're having honey bucket we've come up with some ideas to what we have to do collectively is face the issue and get the job done. We have the resources to do it. And it's going to take not just the political party it's going to take it. People who laugh could make that work. And then when you do that you'll start to create the economic base of governor of the no talk about it so that people can go to work so they can get off so they can live a decent life. I'm ashamed of what we've accomplished. Lack of accomplished accomplish many very upper. How about you. Yeah it's I mean it's been a problem out player for a lot of years not only is it a problem in terms of funding for appropriate water and sewer systems it's a problem of engineering. Every village is not a lie.

The soil conditions are different. The water sources are different. Some systems work other systems don't. We've got disasters in some of the projects that we've had in the villages others were just fine some were cost efficient Some are too expensive for words it would be good to have some standards that would reduce costs and of course the reduction in cost would allow more projects to be put out into the villages more villages could benefit if we had a reduction in cost. We're lucky that Ted Stevens is where he is because he's a. Become a source of major funding for many of these projects and it's good to slee that the state is also pitching in in participating as with match funding for those projects. It's something we've got to try comment one more time on this certainly.

Governor Cooper really hit the nail on the head. You know you go to Washington or you go to Seattle or go to someplace and talk about a thing like this will always give you a fix for the way we do it in Oklahoma City. But what people are talking about it's very unique out there. There's some places you have to do it different than others. There's someplace you might have to have a community well in the community but to wash clothes and stuff like that in and it isn't just a one picks idea. And so I'm glad Governor Cooper brought that up because vitally important but it's solvable. Let's go to our next caller from St. Paul Island. Good morning. Ronnie you're on the air go ahead. Yeah good morning Governor. My name is Gregory pray and see you're from St. Paul. Lascars good to hear that. So hopefully one of you might have an idea or can be of some help to me here

seeing that the president in our last hour overcrowded and the prisoners are being sent out of state causes undue stress to our parents. We are unable to visit or to go and see and correct them in any way we can. And they're so far away and most of us cannot afford it. At one time I wrote a letter to Governor knows pertaining to this here. Is it possible or legal. It's needing to be given the authority to try and to incarcerate people. The way I feel we could do it seeing that we are a regional corporation. We probably could reason nicely pigeon and take care of the people within that region. Can you help me on this yr. Heaven knows.

Just address a couple of points that are brought up first of all we do say and right now approximately two hundred and sixty prisoners that have been incarcerated in Arizona and we've done that because we have a court ruled a number of years ago that Alaska prisons are overcrowded. There was a settlement known as the Cleary settlement but we are in the process now of having to address the issue of how are we going to approach. Housing our prisoners. Two issues one and you should always never talk about building more prisons without talk about prevention programs in terms of shutting off the flow of of creating prisoners but that's a different issue. We'll call that smart startle as people get on that a different time. But in regards to a regional system where people that need to who are being incarcerated you need to think about rehabilitation. And that oftentimes is done best where the person has access

to family to the place who were that they will live once they are released from prison and we do have a statewide system we're looking for additions to Bethel. We are looking to additions to Sutton Anchorage and also the North Slope Borough has brought in some recommendations that they have one in Kearse ration. So we these are some areas that we will take a look at. We will of course all Alaskans live under the same laws. So you know we will we will address it in that manner but I think a regional state wide prison system is the approach to go. We are currently considering the changing of the Fort Greely base to the part of that prison system and all of those are on the table as we look at addressing that issue. Governor Cooper didn't the Clery decision come down during your administration dealing with prison overcrowding and putting putting some court controls on that and trying to remember the

date of that decision. Well the Clery decision was an ongoing piece a lot of litigation that just went on for years and years and years it was going on when I was on the on the board of Alaska legal services and that was a long time ago. It was. It just stays in the air. I don't know if it's ever been settled out once and for all or not but it was just an ongoing piece of legislation or litigation. And it is based on federal rulings rulings of the federal courts that the states have to comply with certain certain minimal requirements as to their prison systems and sometimes those requirements get right down to small details on and frankly a little difficult. It kind of straight jacketed. Quite a bit of planning processes that were that were

attempted in terms of the prison system for a long time. More prominently what's happened in the past is there that in the past 10 12 15 years that there's been a great outcry to put more people in prison for longer periods of time and for more different offenses than ever before. Sometimes that's worked. I mean crime rates are down. Arguably that's because a lot of people who commit those crimes are in the in the prison system on the other hand it puts you in a place where Governor has to think about continually continually constructing new prisons there's no end to it. And I boy I don't envy the job. It's a it's a situation that's true all over America. And the prison systems in

every state for at risk prisoners have been shipped all over the place. Some felons are having to be in heaven to be released in places like Florida and fairly dangerous people by the way so this is not a problem that's confined to Alaska it's everywhere. Yeah I have been told here. I got a note here that says that you may have to leave before the end of the program you have a later point Mormon. Great great well in that case let me ask a question that we can get to you here on I do want your thoughts on the subsistence issue. It's it's something that has been around for an awfully long time and so let me ask you Governor hit all year you you had a task force that the plans were rejected by the legislature. The problem is there when you arrived it was there when you left and we've still got it today on how to deal with subsistence and federal management.

Do you see any results coming to be too divisive for the state to solve. Not I think we can face it. And that's the reason we brought in a nonpartisan group governor Ammons order because that is the study and we came up with a point system that was totally legal that would have kept the man it would have satisfied the management would have given in time of time in the first to give them sort of a priority to the people who have lived up out there in the local river systems and was sorry enough because it wasn't my ideal it was our idea. Got it worked out for them and they didn't accept it. But we can I believe get to the point where in times in the Senate the people that live on the river system has first call on that resource. Now that sounds like a big constitutional amendment. The point system is the one that would have made that work and I don't think we should

ever in my opinion just welcome the federal government to come in and manage that resource. They don't want to do it and they can't do it as well as we can. What's the solution. Maybe maybe the solution is to let the American pardon me that the Alaskan people know exactly what the problem is and let them vote on the issue. OK thank you for joining us we hang on as long as you can as long as you would like to but we do understand that you had a previous commitment here. Governor Cooper let me ask you whether the recent round of subsistence problems began with the case which is when you were when you were governor and I believe you tried also with special sessions and various attempts to get it started. What do you think in this. Is there a solution out there. Well what you have is diametrically opposed views all strongly held. And frankly I

mean I say this now that I'm not a practicing lawyer anymore and I think the problem was that the judiciary stuck their nose in the political problem. There had been a political solution worked out in the late mid to late 70s a lot of people didn't like it but it worked. And though the court came along and not that. Right out of the saddle and now there's a situation where the only solution at least in my judgment is to pass a constitutional amendment allowing for subsistence. Or rural preference for various reasons people you know two thirds of the legislature hasn't seen fit to approve of that and it's going to be a difficult fight if if it takes place today. So boy I don't know what's going to happen to that one. Seems like we never quite bring any issue to closure in Alaska we just keep fighting that's been going on for 20 years better than

20 years. That's right that the political system was was working until the mid terms that it simply wasn't didn't meet the court's approval. Well I agree with Justice Rabinowitz who basically said Look the courts got no business interfering with this. This was a legitimately political law issue solved by political means in the legislature. I think he was right no other four judges were wrong. I don't know so I think Governor Cooper brings up a great point in that there was a system in place worked on by statute and one other point is to bring up that that was challenged by an initiative. And in 1982 the question of rural preference was brought to the ballot the initiative was to do away with that law and it failed by a rather substantial margin so not only was it a process worked out through elected representatives that struggled through a legislative hearing in solution and

with the governor's support. But it also went in front of a vote of the people. So Alaskans were very much in tune and aligned with managing all Fish and Game resources in this state with a rural preference until the court in 1000. 9 to be diplomatic here. I got into the problem and I think a note Governor hiccups saying that it may well be time that the Alaska public be allowed to weigh into it now Governor Cooper's support on the governor Hammond strongly supports that. That also is my position on it. It also is the congressional telling takes his position on it and any polls show that the public widely supports being allowed to vote on it and so we're we're within just a I think we're within grasp of of I think being able to resolve the issue. I appreciate the optimism I have not heard that kind of help to miss him very many places recently around the

Capitol. Let's go back to the phone lines. Callers from Sitka. Good morning. You know I thank you for the opportunity. All right my question is if you're going to do Mary and Governor you know right now you are governor Governor Tickell has had to leave the governor or the governor here also I understand the governors are concerned about economic well-being and they're not I come from a close. Ask a community and the issue of course and talk about it than I have here in my hand the Alaska economic trance which the January issue from the Alaska Department of Labor. And on page one they have a pie chart of the employment and the focus of this is mainly about the mill but they don't even mention jobs in the fishing industry they mention the fishing industry cursory but they have no jobs here according to the I sure report the institute for social economic

research are reporting one thousand ninety four where they said that there were 800 crew jobs and how that fishery alone. And according to the north Pacific Council analysis 90 percent of those projects were going to be lost I think that analysis was a little under the mark I think more than 90 percent of the jobs have been lost. And what's happening here in conjunction with the Department of Labor two consecutive administrations they had one ministration out and in all the ministration apparently is the economic disappearing coast of Alaska fisherman including you know the economic cleansing of the record. And I just want to know why this is happening why I you know why ignore the importance of the seasonal employment in Kosovo ask. You know this is one point that is very important and you know is education has been economically disappeared by the policies of the state of Alaska under two administrations on this issue. I would like to be here the governor's comments on it. Thank you very much

for the opportunity. Well Matt frankly I don't agree with your analysis and I would question the figures that you presented as being reflective of what is happening. And I say in regard to the fisheries of coastal communities there's been a great deal done with with in the ground fish industry and in the I have to speak of for the sailfish and the how of it to look and see if the if the policies that the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council the federal body that deals with the waters from three to 200 miles how they are addressing the employment and benefits to Alaskans and and I'm not sure that the results are quite as clear cut is as you would have them represent the first as in the Citgo area. And knowing that. The bank and from city of Fisher from Citgo

is on the North Pacific Fishery Council has I think expressed the concerns in the desire to make sure that the policies do benefit the local fisheries the development of the state fisheries for cod within the three mile area of the emerging fisheries that we have looked to for sea cucumbers and sea urchins and clams is all part of I think a a growing positive direction in terms of developing fisheries so it is not being ignored. There are some I think some not. Total agreement on the direction has been taken but a feeling that we are moving forward in the bank and is the director of the largest certain ization in Alaska to benefit from the creation of obvious for them she purposely ignores the effects of individuals in the city.

Because of that. But just check out page one of the Department of Labor's report I mean fusion isn't even on the pie chart you know it. There might be some technical explanation for that but you know we here and I agree with the problem we hear constantly about the 400 million ploy and their effect on the economic stability of a ticket but the 800 pound that criminate in the millions. Not your talent to criminate fished out a ticket there are residents of it and the twenty five hundred crewmen that lived in the region that shopped and worked out of the secure region that lived in Southeast Alaska. OK we're going to have to interrupt I'm sorry but our time is up and I mean to cut anybody off at all here and I think this is perhaps something that we can get or can get get another look at. But unfortunately that is all the time that we have today. I want to thank you Governor COOPER Governor has already left got a clipper thank you very much. Well it's a pleasure to be with you by the way.

And Governor Knowles thank you. Thank you Steve. Good. Good to hear your voice. Thanks for what you do. This is Alaska Public Radio Network. I'm Dave Donaldson. Our engineers were Jeff Brown and Tim Tomlin casein producer was Tim Tatton for talk of Alaska. Have a good day. This talk of Alaska 10th anniversary of the statewide call ends with the governor has been made possible by AT&T Alaska. It's all within your reach and by the 30 member stations of the Alaska Public Radio Network this program is a production of APRA ad which is soley responsible for its content use expressed are those of the

participants and are not necessarily those of a PR ran this station or its underwriters. Cassette copies are available by calling 2 7 7 2 7 7 6. There are 30 public radio stations scattered across Alaska. Sometimes the stations are the only ones some Alaskans have with the other Alaskans and the outside world. Imagine living in a log cabin somewhere down the river from chicken for up the coast from Huna. And it's been a few weeks since you've seen or talked to anyone. Public radio can become a very good friend. Imagine practically an entire village huddled around a single radio listening to hear how their basketball team is doing at the big tournaments. I know. It happens all sorts of things happen because of Alaska's public radio

stations. People stay connected to public broadcasting in Alaska and filled in the blank. This is a PR in the Alaska Public Radio Network. This is Jeff. We lost the talkback line that you'll be calling us on that.