Alaska 2000: Part 1, Arctic State - An Opportunity. Part 2, Government: Parent or Partner

Alaska the state is both a state of mind and an opportunity. But what about the Alaska of the future. Will it be a state of becoming or state of has been Commonwealth north in conjunction with Cotyledon invited a group of Alaskans to focus on the opportunities of the future. Three members from the group join with moderator George SULLIVAN In a look at Alaska 2000. Good evening. You already stated that many splendored thing it's a special place a state of mind and a comparable opportunity. It's where East meets West needed meets newcomer science meets ancient tradition and tomorrow comes over the Pacific Rim. Alaska's environment and people have forged a remarkable history. Poised on this very soul of the 21st century. As a young richly endowed strategically located this Arctic state looks forward to the year 2000 with confident urgency and hope to start this six part series and comment on the state of the state whose being is

becoming whose present is prologue or three of Alaska's dream Dewar's. T.J. Sardi young entrepreneur head of his own plumbing company. Confident in his private enterprise. Frustrated by the state's bigness power and overwhelming presence the troubled about the future. Ron Bertsch lawyer strategist community leader with law firms in Washington D.C. Juneau and Anchorage visionary an activist investor and a negotiator and Gleneagles advocate of the Impossible Dream hands on help of tough causes. National international and architect of the revival and redirection of Alaska's only private university Alaska Pacific University. Each of the panelists will make their opening statement. What is the future opportunity of the Arctic state. Dr. oles Well I think it's urgent. The exciting and unpredictable. We have the resources to create one of the most marvelous spots in the world and

make our contribution to the rest of the nation and the world. Or we could really blow it. We could be suffocated by government dependence by the suffusion of wealth. We could be indifferent to the Pacific and the future. All I know is the key to that future will not be defined by natural resources George but by human resources. We have the power and the capacity to make that future. As we will. Thank you. I have I have trouble with that. Glenn when you say we have the power. I'm not so sure that we're in a position or have the mentality to deal with that. I look at Alaska I see a lot of conflict. I see what to me is essentially a socialist state. The state has the land and it wants to keep that land it has the lot of control over the transportation facilities in this state that it has created a structure of multiplied

Layard's subsidies that that don't give us a true picture of our industry or of our lifestyle choices. I think we've created for ourselves what's essentially a economic and social Vietnam where we've created a set of dilemmas that we're going to have a great deal of difficulty dealing with. We for instance we ask our private sector to to drive our economy to take the lead to show the initiative. But the private sector doesn't really have the resources to deal with it nor are they free in terms of state policy to actively take the lead. We're coming out of Freewheelin right now do you have a say on this. I think that Glenn and T.J. have defined the contradiction usko fierce individualism on one hand and then dependence on federal and state government probably greater than the citizens of any other state. I think we have the ability to resolve that paradox and form a new partnership between the private sector and the state using our base our geographic

location our resources. But probably most importantly as Glenn has pointed out ourselves. Alaska is the last melting pot. Anchorage is a very interesting microcosm that we have 3000 Koreans living up here 11000 Latinos from somewhere else except for Native Americans or from outside. We we can define ourselves and to define ourselves early on as a global international community working together on common dreams. We have to overcome certain ironies that exist up here. I we have the irony of inviting the dreamer but then distrusting his dream inviting freedom embracing it but frustrating its realisation. I think Alaska gives us the freedom to define ourselves as individuals. I could stand up to morrow and say I'm a brain surgeon until I goofed my second to the bottom and nobody questions me. But we seem to have an inability to dream collectively and say you're a lawyer. My client my clients would dispute that.

I think the world is afraid of dying and a good friend of ours. Bob you could tell the world is dying but it's dying to get better. And I think that nationwide were fearful of being the first generation to leave our children less of a legacy less of an opportunity than than we had. And I think we're the first generation since this country was formed that's fearful that we must begin now to eliminate the polarization that is exemplified by Glenn and T.J. and to define our goals and dream collectively. We're going to be doomed to be chronic under-achievers a stunted giant if you will living in a tiny cave and unable to get out. If we can embrace those dreams and work toward them I think we can set an example for the rest of the world. And I guess the question is how do we make the best future possible for our children our children's children. Well I think that's right Ron and that's a concern I know that we all share and how can we help shape the future for the year 2000. Well it will be the best possible. What are Alaska's prime assets and their major options.

Who wants that. Lead off. I happen to have an agenda that's doable and not only doable but but mandatory at it it takes into account our geographic location and our resources and the ability of our people to get things done. There's some things that are dictated by where we are now. We have to open up an East-West corridor. We can't continue to look to the lower 48 as our own market for resources. We have a wonderful opportunity as the world gets out of federal ownership to leave that will move to Canada and Siberia and have a rail link that starts in New York ends up in Paris and start looking toward the Pacific Rim which is our natural market. We have to build roads both east west north south Alaska right now is like one of these all connect the dots postals where nothing makes sense you have a resource here. People here and something else here you look at it doesn't make sense but when you start putting in corridors those are the lines that make the picture makes sense. We have to develop deep water ports and start developing our Outer Continental Shelf. We have over half the outer continental shelf as you know in the United States in Alaska we have tin tungsten

gold oil and gas there. We have to convince the federal government to include fish as a staple in children in school Dions and Alaska bottom fishing industry would then develop in conjunction with our development of ports. We have to develop hydroelectricity which is clean and cheap and export our hydrocarbons and use hydro here for our own energy needs. We should be exporting coal now. We should be putting in the infrastructure for the exploitation of coal. We should be capturing our tidal power. You know we've been talking for years about crossing to the clinic or the easiest way to do it is to put it over low heat turbines that would capture the tidal power and the cooking that and fuel Anchorage for millennia. These are all things that are doable. He keeps talking I'm going to have a laugh but I am jes anxious over there to tell you that we should do it. Get out of thoughts and ideas. My my my my first question a question of who is it who is the we. Is the way is it. Is it the state government. Because the state really has as a handle on it.

When I look at Alaska and what we know with the resources and when I look at our location there's a lot of talk about how unique our location is in terms of the Pacific. I see and know and I see basically an unexplored state I see is that we don't really know what's out there yet it's unknown. I see our geographic location is something that we all sense is significant but we don't really have the answer we don't know where that's going to go. That's the excitement for me in Alaska because there are unknowns and we don't know how they're going to manifest themselves. The possibilities are almost beyond imagination. And that that gives me hope because if if those possibilities are beyond the answers I see presently within the community then then there's there's there's hope for something really creative in the future. Glen's got to go. You're not just going to piggyback on what both of them have said namely it has to do with attitude and responsibility and

partnership. I think that our apprehension about the drop in oil of $5 and so on you know sends a kind of a ripple of panic through people that have been that have been blessed with the opportunity really to forge a future that's almost unparalleled Georgian history. We're at the right place connecting Asia and Alaska Asia and America. We are at the right time. It's almost I don't want to get heavily theological here but it's almost as though the audience saved Alaska for this moment of history. We are the energy being not only of the free world but in the wider sense of the orchestration of the needs of the world. We have in miniature a global village. We are in fact in that sense. Shrunk in space expanded in space shrunken time and put in a special place with a special mission. I think the sense of personal responsibility which is what I think T.J. you're worried about worries me. I think if if everything seems to be given by the government or by the law and or even

by God then it tends to minimize the sense of that critical personal responsibility which we have to tap and develop. But we are a global village. That's a fact. It's one world. What do you mean by that global village. I mean that we're a village in the sense that we have roots and interconnection is the only place I know where you can walk down the road and go and meet the governor and the senator and shakers and movers in a sense that makes it a village. We know everyone and that ought to be the root of trust and confidence and partnership in that sense it's a village but we're also global. As Ron has said we're at the crossroads not only in the north but the link of Asian America. But if you take a space view of the world we're really on Main Street. We're where the traffic flows and for all of those reasons. With the new technology and communications we can ricochet not only what we have to share with the world but the input and the impact of that world on us. I think it

makes the future yeasty and uncertain but highly exciting and promising since we can make a tremendous difference because of our size and our location place T.J.. Well we can you know that the question is whether we will. Alaska is is the opportunities are overwhelming. They're all here and there's a perception of that. But I and I'm sure dreams will be realized in Alaska. The question that comes to my mind is whose dreams have been realized whose dreams are going to be realized. I don't see within our our. Our structure the framework or the foundation with which to take advantage of of of those opportunities. I see. I see. I see us concentrating on our shoelaces when others are looking at the horizon.

I see public policy concentrating and keeping things concentrated in the hands of the state. The wealth the resources and I and the state I see defensive for defensive decisions you create in the public sector look at us. I don't mean to be self-serving but I mean you're here. You could have been a lot of other places with your talent. And so when you picked up something that wasn't really I don't think you were a plumber or trader. You picked up something and moved. Right. I don't know what your roots are but certainly in terms of your law firms and wherever everywhere else where else could this have been possible. My friends thought I bombed out. You know when I came up here from Kent State they said what I said is because that's what tomorrow is. It's where the future is coming over the Pacific Rim and spades and tough as it is. And different Georgia about Europe I guess you really I couldn't help it all but I would. But surely what you what you did George to really

create a city of the future here in your tenure in the city is excellent. Where in the world could a city be transformed in that short a time. Under the leadership of a single man I can't think of a place where you can when you think you are saying is is what you're saying and that is whatever we do you can use on our neighbor. We can't act in a vacuum. There are 400000 of us and we're one if you want to call it a global village fine it is a city you know I speak in my own personal testimony my own personal experience I came to Alaska 18 years ago. I think one of the things that's wrong right now is that we don't have enough faith in ourselves. I need it here. I was not going to change just a little hi tech is quite a word in the computer deal and you know we want to be talking about the year 2000 and give me in your opinion what was the year 2000 is going to mean to us in this type of category.

There are some who are looking at our dwindling oil revenues and the uncertainty of oil and gas revenues say we should be putting our money into high tech development. We should be attracting high tech up here. We should be looking at the impact of the emerging world of science will have on our native corporations and we shouldn't be worrying about developing oil and gas revenues that's one scenario. That's one scenario. I think it's a frightening scenario. I think it's trying to make a superset of a sow's ear. We are what we are and we have the resources that we have. I think that we have to use our university system both public and private to capture the best and the brightest minds and see what they can bring to the state and I think Glenn has been a leader in trying to do that but I think to shift the emphasis and try to make ourselves another Silicon Valley makes no sense for our lives. Thank you. Go ahead. No I was just going to observe that I think it's phenomenal that T.J. was talking about this just before we came on the air that it's phenomenal that some of our native

corporations which have the deepest roots historically and that we tend to think of as traditional have been taking the leadership the North Slope in communications and so on in some of the high tech fields. Again I see the Native Corporations and what they have done with their Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act as as may be the single greatest example of of group initiative and creativity that that was an Alaska dream and that they have pushed that Alaska dream a long way towards realization. I think that's a tremendous thing and that's the private sector that's exciting. You know in spades. Well Glenn my reservations should use me about where that's going to go. Is that going to remain a private sector drive. Well what will be the power play of the future. Do you think plan will ask what that will allow it. No I think you know of course I wasn't here. But the our Constitution puts a high priority on individual initiative and invests that initiative with the governor. I've never been anywhere that

the governor has such authority and power. And I think it was designed so that it would be possible for leadership to make an impact you know from the top as well as from the bottom. And I think we have the mechanism at the government level with a strong governor to make you know decisive direction determination clear allocation of priority to be sure. In recent days all of that is modified by consensus in the legislature but we are designed to be able to put in place new changes in dramatic form. Obviously I have a hang not a hang up. That's my responsibility. That the people's capacity to respond to that kind of leadership is defined by their level goals of understanding and of competence and I think we have a chance in our new and young educational systems to build into our young coming on the sense of that mission and future of the year 2000 and prepare them for it.

Do you think in the year 2000 we'll be in a better position insofar as our dealing with the federal government of having our own role here to say are we still going to have the clamor in the holler and he has eyes on us from now. I of course I'm a great I'm a great believer. I don't know whether it was an illustration on whether the archbishop might not appreciate this but when I was a kid at Cornell and trying to work with religious groups and so on we had a very wise Catholic bishop up at Rochester and we were trying to bring some interfaith communication together. And we were having some difficulty because the attitudes of cooperation were there. I went to see him once and I said you know can you do anything about helping us facilitate this cooperation. He said Don't ask me because if you ask me I may have to give you you know a position that maybe it creates some problems for you. He said do it in the spirit of trust and love. And let's go now. This is my feeling about the promise of the future. Let's not let's not worry about Washington so much. Let's do some of these things and if we

do I'm a wash. You know nature abhors a vacuum and sort of human nature. We have a vacuum up here of power and of opportunity. And if we don't exercise it if we don't flesh it out Washington and every other cotton pickin person is going to be wanting to do you know to row our boat if we take the lead the federal government will fall. That's my view. If we define a goal work at a jointly federal government will follow government as an institution particularly large government response. It doesn't initiate if we initiate it will respect counter-puncher. They don't have any meaning. You keep talking about we and you and you're not defining the way in. And I think I think the problem in this state is we're not looking at who we are and what we are and what our what our public policies reflect. And when you look at it and it describes a we that is basically governmental and being governmental it's defensive it it it it. It cuts creativity off but

it does not allow the expansion and the initiative. It's confinement in its offensive. But D.J. who is the government the genius of our government you know who is it Pogo said we've met the enemy and they is us the government we are the government. This is a government of the people for the people by the people for the people. Now we pick we pick our legislators. We pick the governor. And we have a chance to change. And who are desperate to pick this panel anyway. They've got a lot of. The field of. Television in the year 2000. Are we going to be in a position of instant perhaps even televised personal communications. Is it going to be like the good old days or we're going to be a new era. What what do you think Ron on this. I think so George. I think one of the experiments is going out is your ability to speak to your legislature on telephone television I think

that by having network thinking by pulling people closer together through satellite communication through some of the new innovations a lot of the issues that we're bogged down with now are going to be gone. We're fighting on whether to move the capital. We have a whole country to build on a whole world to connect. And I think I think having the ability to have worth thinking or return Alaska to what it is what it was when I was here two decades ago and probably what it was when when you were born here George. And that is you can leave your suitcase on the main street in Fairbanks on Second Avenue and you can to me for people watching. I think we are all going to grow closer together. I think the shrillness of our rhetoric on issues like D2 are behind us. I perceive that there's a genuine sense of people wanting to pull behind our current governor. There's a lot of unfortunate things happening in June but I've never seen a governor elected in Alaska previously with as much of a mandate for let's put the nonsense behind us and let's go forward as a state together.

I don't think that's going to happen. I think we're kidding ourselves there. I don't think the mandates there. You know look at it you know we have a paranoia with regard to today you know we don't trust anything that comes out of there. We there's there's a conflict we ask ourselves what are our individual dreams and where are we going with those. And then we see the way those are reflected in public policy and we ask ourselves what happened. I don't think any governor is going to get the kind of mandate it takes to drive the economy. The that is that the kind of thing the drain. We're talking about here of building things involve risk. Government cannot be in the risk business. You see they you know they invested some money in gold and they lost some money in the gold investments from the pension fund. It hits the front page. You know if that was a private sector problem

everybody would see that as just part of the ball game. But but for government it's not. Thereby you limit what the government government can do. Yeah I agree. But we also because of the nature of our government have the capacity to have the gov to encourage the governor and the legislature to franchise the private sector to move from the state of rhetoric to the state of action. George you are generous by introducing it says Dream Dewars. But I would like to believe that that's the key to the future of Alaska. Dreams are important. Fairy dust cloud nine until they ratchet it into place. The government here in Alaska. Maybe not the federal government the government here in Alaska can ratchet into place a new role in franchise for the private sector to liberate. There isn't any reason why the state ought to go into banking. The state can franchise our banks with the opportunity to perform the goals and objectives they want. There isn't any reason for this state

to replicate structures as you were talking about to perform things that the private sector ought to perform. I make the observation just speaking clear that there isn't any reason why the state of Alaska should have a state policy that forbids state help to a private higher institution of higher education. All of the other states do but it leaves the state than with a single virtually monolithic state supported system that never will ever get. That doesn't have to wholly with what he's saying about Rodriguez T.J.. No not again. We need a gas pipeline. The state shouldn't build the gas pipeline. But the state should franchise the gas pipeline and then if it makes sense the risk takers come right and they blow the gas pipeline. You know if it belongs a tidewater because of flexible markets private industry will be there but the states will the States role has to be as a franchise holder and franchise Granter not as a builder. Right.

I agree with that. I agree with that. That's the role. The question is how do we get there from here. Are we going to be able to achieve that. You know it's something and I don't think we're going to be able to achieve it until we take a hard look at what we are in this state. He didn't get the last word in. I we're getting down to two. We know how fast this has gone and the excitement of it. That's right. Let's end the talking about possibilities. What do you have in mind for the state in the year 2000 the way of impossible possibility Glenn. Well I'm really run. Wrap that up. We're going to harness the tide with it with recycling and non-polluting energies. We're going to develop coal slurry and pipeline time transmission of coal slurry with water out of our vast resources. We're going to be farming in a new GM of politics. And on that level at the intellectual level of the governor is going to have a commissioner on the future. There's going to be a lie to the critical opportunities of the rarity of any higher you know the educational system is going to demonstrate a new kind of public

private partnership that hasn't been developed anywhere. We're going to have simultaneous language translation translation. We're going to make this a free port so that our geographic location in terms of the cross cultural links your corridors will be open and free. We will join you in at the spiritual level. We're going to illustrate that you can be scientific and religious without being sectarian or secular. We're going to do it. I hate to interrupt but we're going to have a performing guy that. All right. All. Right. T.J. we have a minute left and I have to wind up the last 30 second I think I have to it. I've already given my punctually. Okay great. Thanks A.J. I guess I. I see. I see you are going to change the structure. That's that's my hope. I know that we're going to make it up. We're going to the state is going to get out of the real estate business. It's going to transfer that to the private sector it's going to sell a railroad is going get rid of the ferry system. It's got to stop subsidizing our business out of business and it's going to stop subsidizing our lifestyles both in Anchorage

and in the bush. They're going to give that we're going to replace our Darwinian evolution and let it go. Thank you T.J.. This is the first program of a seven part series Alaska 2000. Thank you doctor. T.J. Sardi and Ron Birch it sounds as if the Arctic state will still be a land of opportunity and individualism in the year 2000. Please join us next week 7:30 for the second program in Alaska. Two thousand government Parador pardoner Alaska's rethink the role of government with some interesting results. Thank you and good evening. Government has always played a key role in Alaska.

And Alaskans have always complained about that. But what about you ask the future government the parent. Or partner. Commonwealth nor in conjunction with them in light of three Alaskan's to rethink the government of the future. Join with moderator Jake Sullivan. You know look at Alaska 2000. We have to be concerned about the future. Someone once said because we'll spend the rest of our lives there for those Alaskans who live out their years in this state. There is concern as well as hope for the future. Tonight's panel members are Ralph moody. Judge Alaska's superior court since 1963 and a resident of our state since 1946. Fred Chye Alaska representative for the secretary of energy Alaska residents in 1959 and a member of the anchorage assembly since 1975 and additionally is Millot Kellar president a private consulting firm. Alaska resident since 1963 very active in civic affairs and vice president of the

Chamber of Commerce we have. The. First question I think will go to you. What will be the key change in government by the year 2000. I think the biggest change that we'll see by the year 2000 is that there will be significant limitations placed on government spending as opposed to any limits that exist today. And I believe these are going to come about as a result of some dramatic changes that will occur in some of the things that we take for granted nowadays. One is the role of the permanent fund plays in the hopes that we have in the future. We believe that the permanent fund will be diminished and may not even exist in the year 2000. Personal income taxes will also have been re-imposed and present a significant burden on the public by the year 2000. The the lack of money or the amount of money that the government spends

to drive the economy will be less significant a factor in 2000 than it is now. And many of the conflicts that we've seen between the collective bargaining with the public employees were a good part or the majority of the government spending goes will still being in existence but because of the reduced and the additional limitations that have been placed on the government those conflicts will not be as substantial as they are now. Well thanks a lot. I'm going to be back to you in a little while I'm sure to ask you some questions on some of the points that you've raised in the next Fred. What major changes do you see for the year 2000. Well George I think you'll see local government predominating over state government I think you're going to see a shift them and a power balance between state government and local government. You're going to see more emphasis on planning and zoning on a local basis you're going to see more emphasis on schools. You're going to see a diminished emphasis by the overall state government on those factors. I

think you're going to see also the native corporations will become a dominant factor. And you will see more and more local governments in the bush you will have a grid of local governments that will be more or less operating as Autonomy's again. The de-emphasis of the state government towards favoring local government I think basically you'll see when you go to this type of a local autonomy you'll see a diminishment of subsistence. I think subsistence will be an issue that will pretty well fade into history really because with local government and local development and that calls for modernization and things of that sort. Thanks Fred. These are changes of course that people have been thinking of that might happen and it sounds Of course like you expect them sooner probably than later. Judge Moody what forecast Do you have for the year 2000. Well I don't I get any question that Alaska is now and in the future

is going to be the storehouse for strategic minerals and the energy of the nation and that's going to develop quite fast in the next 20 years and it's going to have a great impact upon not only trade in the Pacific area with Japan and possibly Russia in the sky and certainly affect us from the standpoint of the defense of the United States and Alaska with the Soviet Union and government is going to stand here in connection with the plans that were given to them in a controlled and D2. There's going to be a conflict between the federal and state government over the resources and taxing of the resources. And it would certainly be a continuation of the two groups of development and those seeking to preserve the assets and Alaska and that's where they're going to be used. And if so to what extent. Fine thank you very much. George M. Sullivan Arena will be here in the year

2000 boys are probably in large a great deal. Well it will be. I hope we have the funds for that. That's not on the script here. Oh thank you. Well as I told you we're going to have an interesting program here today. You said that this evening you said that you thought that the personal income tax would be in effect by the year 2000. Hopefully I'll still be here in the year 2000 hopefully are wrong. But would you like to expand on that a little bit and what that's going to do with the relationship between the government and the people. The the reason I believe that the tax personal income taxes will be re-imposed and not only reimposed but represent a substantial increase in burden over what we had ever had in the past in terms of Alaska personal income tax. Is that in order to avoid having that happen. The state would have and local governments would have to be doing things right now today to forestall the need to have new sources of revenue and that action isn't taking

place and doesn't appear that it is going to take place the legislature local officials have shown no inclination of doing this. That's going to bring about a need to re-impose taxes as a means to finance government because the source of revenue that we depend on now will have diminished substantially by the year 2000. Can you foresee the development of minerals in Alaska that might forestall that. Re-imposing I mean dramatic breakthrough or an exploration what will develop. Right now there isn't anything that can take the place of oil that we know of and I don't think by the year 2000 that for example the price of oil. The only thing that could change would be if the world got into a much more difficult straits than it is in right now which has other implications as well. But there's nothing fish and minerals timber nothing can take the place of oil. You have a double edged sword there because you're also going to have a problem with the federal government. You're going to see more

controls being imposed on the state by the federal government you know the old story about the blue eyed Arabs and getting all that money up there. The Congress is going to be passing all kinds of situations are funneling money out of Alaska into the national treasury. So it's not only the depletion of oil it's going to hurt us. It's the attitude that the Congress is going to have towards Alaska as a state. Well we can. We're going to have to control that attitude too by irresponsible use of our resources and money in the next 20 years. By year 2000 we're going to have to establish a real reasonable policy. Everybody is going to be at our back door trying to get it. I think Judge you'd stated you felt that the state federal nations are pretty grim for the years 2000. Do you see any bright spots on the horizon. I think you see some bright spots. I would I would certainly hope that by the year 2000 that we have developed methods of having really legitimate an instructive campaign for the election public officials rather than spending millions of dollars and getting lots of propaganda said anything regarding people

to build the desire to have good government and I would hope that by the year 2000 you could do something you know you raise an interesting point. You know what the electronic media being what it is today. I think that's going to have a predominant place in the future as far as selecting people and candidates for office. I think the electronic overall system is going to play a big portion of it is going to be more public participation which we don't have today. The public hearing is not the answer to all of our problems. So I think the future is going to develop a lot of things that's going to encourage more public participation and of the public hearings as you get so many times that people are either not interested or vested interest you never hear from the public. Well I think you're right. Most hearings are the vested interests of people who are there to get something for themselves. A small group of people and it's very seldom that people who's really out working and who is going to benefit talk had much to say about it and unfortunately that's true. And I would certainly hope we are able to devise through the electronic system and through some method whereby we can cut

down on the cost of all this and still get people to run for office and to put themselves up for the public to do public service. Fred don't you think though that that that much of that is going to be related to the public regaining control of the government not through the elected representative process but through placing limitations on the government so that more people can make a sacrifice to serve in public. That's right and that's one of the problems we're going to have to solve. But going on in the 2000 era is to rethink our concept of what is fairness and what is people's individual right. You can spend million dollar exercising individual right to not accomplish anything. And I think we're going to have to weigh the rights and duties in life. Right but you know a big problem you have is everybody is busy today. There's so many things going on vying for the public's attention we're not going to be busy in year 2000. Well it could be just as busy

but the point is that you know people don't have time to go to a public hearing. People don't have time to sit down and go into every detail at briefings before a local government will elect faithful. That's right. But what's the electronic media when it will be it'll enable a chance for someone to sit at home and possibly vote out of his home on various issues that are before an assembly chamber on TV can pass his vote. He can be an advisory type thing. Is doing it now in the States which is a system that that allows the viewer at home to participate in a local assembly meeting. These are things that could come about that will induce the public to get into more of government participation than we have now. Fred you're kind of in a kind of you're an expert on the local government and if there is to be a shift in power between the local government and the state government by the year 2000 who will benefit and what will the effects be on the public interest between the state and the local. Well the benefit will definitely accrue Cruta to the local government more so than the states because you will have more autonomy and more

control on the local basis and you'll have more to say about your schools you'll have more to say about your roads and things of that sort. Right now it can be very frustrating because there's a level constituent has great access to local representatives but he doesn't really have too much access to his legislative contacts. They are more remote and he's less apt to talk to him. But you know what you do politically and politically it affects a lot of what the federal and state government there is a God there. So if you were the helm director in the right direction you know you can spend lots of time and money and resources doing nothing because there's been no planning and the people in the. I do not think a lot of these these dynamics are going to be based on how much money the government has and where it's coming from. Right now the our state constitution is designed around having a decentralized form of government but because the state government has all of the wealth

of most local government autonomy I think it's shifted away into the state because that so much of it is keyed to how much money is going to be available. And as a result legislators are now making many decisions that are much more appropriate for local government. Your predictions equate less state money with reform and efficiency in government I believe a little earlier. What reforms do you see in place by the year 2000. Well I think it's essential that there that some of the basic framework that we and some of the assumptions we have about the role of government Alaska will change. And I think it will change as we adopt a much more realistic attitude about what the role of the private sector and what's the appropriate role the public sector the private sector will be much larger in the year 2000 it and the government will be less influential part of our lives I think that's going to be the key.

The key point is the private sector takeover and that will mean by the private sector developing this type of an attitude that you're going to have just those services that the constituent wants and no others. In other words roads and public safety and things of that sort the things that his taxes go for the services will be provided. I think the frills that we're providing to many of these social programs and all these wonderful giveaways and grants that we get into I think those are going to be a thing of the past particularly if we get into a bind as you were saying a building where our money dries up and we have to go to a taxation system. Well you know there's a difference between basic protection police protection water and sugar and whatnot. And the other issue you're talking about and I think that's certainly from the standpoint of police protecting people in Alaska in particular you're going to in areas where you're now not develop they develop they're going to have more restrictions and fine and they're going to have to pay money for police protection they're going at it for sure and more government but more government in those fields is not bad when it's done efficiently.

It's more the government fields here. Ralph we've talked a little bit on the federal government state government local government and I was wondering we might take a look at the international scene. You had mentioned I believe Soviet Russia. Do you think Alaska will have a relationship with the Soviet Union or any other Pacific Rim country by the year 2000. In what category would be kind of a hybrid kind of a nation state or do. How do you envision the way partially communistic now. Well well I leave it to someone else to make that say in May maybe 2000 might be easier to make that the Soviet flag the rest up in Hillside one to guess how you far because you came up. Getting here. QUESTION On that there's no question that we're going to be engaged in a trade with the Pacific Rim and some from the standpoint of Russian food don't trade with them we're going to be recipients of much defense consideration and project for the year 2000. We have a much better relationship with Russia and we now have today.

I think that is one of the great breakthroughs that will take place because I am personally convinced that this that this struggle with the Soviet Union won't be a worse struggle but it will be an economic struggle. Actually as Karl Marx thought I'd much rather say that the only problem is I think you forecasted the victory on the wrong side. I think the Soviet Union will change by the year 2000 and adopt a more conventional economic system which will which will actually bring about a substantial change. Remember all of the leaders that followed Stalin will be gone by then there will be new leadership by the year 2000. And having them as a as an economic force comparable to China or Japan this close to Alaska I think opens up a lot of opportunities for trade and for peace breaking out. Well it sounds good Fred. I think that it probably if you're looking in that direction you're probably going to be looking at the far east more so than Russia. I mean you're

probably looking at trade with Japan and people Korea people were doing trade with now this is all a buildup. What we're doing now is really a foundation to something that's going to happen 20 years from now we're going to have our coal being exploited to those countries and whatnot. So I think our main focus if we're going to talk about that type of an operation is going to be the new Japan. But I agree I would agree with military if we can solve the world situation by trade who are the norm and we are looking at what not to close right but with Russia will be competing with them because they chosen providers. Yeah. They don't like it. So we'll be in a real heavy competitive mode with Russia. But that doesn't make you fight unnecessary. Well I don't know. And the economic market as well let's switch over to another one Fred you mentioned something here the kind of. Interests me and your George and Sullivan Arena and they stay off the grid of local government units by the year 2000. What do you got to come to that. It's got to be big. Tell the people what the year 2000 and the grid a government is going to be.

Every place you have you have a grouping and like in the bush you have a community you're going to have that community seeking its own autonomy its own local government they're going to want to have their own say and they're going to be wanting the state to pass the money to them and they'll disperse the money and they'll make the decisions how would be spent. We have statewide planning and zoning I think will have an overall statewide planning and zoning not planning on zoning but a planning situation of where the state will determine how much money goes to each one of these local governments and then they'll pull back and from then on it's a governance problem in other words they'll take the pool of money they get the federal law be it from local taxes and redistribute that by some formula where all of these governments will participate in sharing revenue sharing and they will have the decision making capability. So I don't agree with that. I think I agree with you that the local governments will grow and become more important but I think the state won't have the kind of revenue go through this redistribution mechanism that the governments will grow because of the

success of the of corporations and the success of resource development and that the towns in the rural areas will grow and develop their own wherewithal. Well and we don't need the state which I think will be a vast improvement over the way things are now. I would disagree with that because what you're doing what you're doing is creating sectionalism you're going to have each local village having an income of its own and separating that income from anybody except the sectionalism. We have a little income problem right now. We call it a tax base in the developed parts of the state right now. But that's exactly what it is that's what you do is our own little income right. You'll have a trade and we're saying we're taking anchorages from this why should we pay state tax to the state we'll just tax and keep it right and it won't come the said. But that's one that we really have to solve and that they need areas such as North Slope where they they have state limits their tax base is now what you're going to have and as I said the asset in that

locality do not want to share it with the other state and the state's going to have faith in that. And I think that's a good thing I do by the way. Know the unorganized borough's be organized by then well I think you will be in an organized God. Yeah that's what I was getting to I don't think you'll have that problem at all. Well we have 16 years and nine months to the year 2000 so we've got to go on to another question. Because time is going along. I think Millot you stressed on spending but what delimits mean for the for the type of government spending that you envision in the future less loan money less capital spending. Would you like to expand on that a little bit. Well the government or the state government just won't have the money and therefore that the needs are going to be met by our economic system. And I think that's going to change it to entirely change our orientation rather than looking at the government as being the place for wealth to be accumulated and redistributed. We're going to look to our natural resources because that's really what we have to build an economic system with and that will bring about a conventional economic system which we don't have in Alaska right now

but which the rest of the United States does have. Your Honor you're an expert on many many subjects but this one of course is right down your alley and Bullecourt systems look like in the year 2000. I think Samal judges are going to ask something new and exciting. Lots of people would agree that I'm an expert on this subject because every time I'm like to say anything Catholic people disagree with the very nature I the court system the family has got to make some changes in this form I had to administer justice just too slow. Without getting into the question of the of the quantity of it I think the quality of the quantity and how it's done. We're going to have to beat up the system if it just cannot survive in this if we don't it's not me and you judge and you face it. And they go in and say hey do something about it. And we are we do that. They just figure it out. But we're also going to have to get the permissiveness out of the judicial system we've become lax and we've become very liberal.

I don't want to get into this argument. You're talking about present we're talking about the year 2005 already 2000 but I've had five in a queue is the reason I interrupted I'm sorry. And by 2000 I think you can see it more conservative but you know how you can use that in your closing statement to defend that and of course throughout that I mean the court reflects the side that we do because you get a chance to kick us out of a script and you're good enough and you've never could take anyone out except this pay share. But we have said and people should look at it and I think they kicked the air out and they tried. I'm going to go over to you. No these two ever debated over here pretty heavy and where the time is running short here and I want to get a final break through scenarios of predictions of change of government by the year 2000. Can you give us a minute on that. I disagreed with our our Resource Committee in one significant area and that is that our committee generally agreed that we would have a gradual change from the president to the year 2000.

I don't agree with that. I think we are going to go through a substantial boom and bust period between now and the year 2000 and the bust being the thing that eventually brings about the reforms that I think will make us a better place in the year 2000 a much better place than we are now. And I think the most one of the most important things that will happen is that I believe we will have a constitutional convention in 1990 1982 as one will vote on it and I think the dynamics for having the convention will be there in 1992 that weren't here in 1982 and that is that we will have re-imposed income taxes on people the permanent fund will be on in very serious trouble and we will recognize that the Constitution has to be changed to provide a mechanism for the government to be brought under control and the private sector to grow. Ralph what do you have to say for the kind of the too though. Well you know the press has

a great sway public opinion to the campaigns and in everyday life but particularly in electing people to represent us and their respective governments I think that something will be worked out whereby responsible people many responsible people will put themselves up to hold public office they won't have to pay exorbitant amounts of money later on. There should be enough to pay to discourage people who really just know it can get in there for the best interests of government. I think and I think that's needed and I think it's coming. Then Assemblyman wealthy like Fred Child have no edge over anyone else that try to get your child to your club imagine. I think I think George what you're going to see you're going to see a more conservative government in the year 2000 your approaches are going to be more in the conservative veins. I think you're going to see it also in the judiciary. I think you're going to see a lot of changes between now and then that will go towards a conservative trend. I think you're going to see the private sector be a dominant factor. I think you're going to see private

initiative take over more and more which will bring when you have private initiative you're going to have people thinking for themselves a little more you're going to have more aggressiveness I think you're going to see a labor organization that dominance will fade somewhat. They will not be as strong then as they are now. I think you're going to see the private sector be the dominating thing with a very conservative attitude overall. And Alaska's going to be at the forefront for all of this for the year 2000. And George I'm so in the rain all right good. Thank you. This sounds good enough to stick around for I think folks and I like most of their predictions. This is all the time we have tonight and I want to thank Judge Moody and Fred Chye and Millot Keller for focusing on the future government in Alaska. Please join us next week for the third program in the series of Alaska 2000 population. But Alaska be a city state Alaska predict population trends and forecasts what those trends will mean for urban and

rural communities. Thank. You.