Opinions

Coffey looks inconsistent on city labor law

The field for Anchorage's mayoral race seems to be set, assuming of course no 11th hour contenders throw their hat in the ring. Meanwhile, one candidate, Dan Coffey, seems unable to decide which side he was on regarding one of the most contentious issues the Anchorage Assembly has ever faced: AO 37.

AO 37, a 2013 ordinance, changed the rules regarding how the city manages its employees. Unions contended that it went too far and stripped them of crucial bargaining rights. Mayor Dan Sullivan, who has been an advocate of Dan Coffey's mayoral campaign, said that it was an important step in curbing labor costs within the Municipality of Anchorage.

For a while it seemed this was the only issue facing the city. A referendum to repeal the ordinance quickly garnered enough votes to make it onto the ballot, but then the question became -- which ballot?

The next available ballot was the most logical choice, there were many, however, including the mayor, against that idea. The Assembly voted 6-5 to put the repeal on the April 2014 ballot. In a controversial move, Sullivan vetoed that decision. Many on the Assembly questioned his ability to do such a thing, but the court later upheld the decision declaring, "The Mayor acted pursuant to his broadly construed veto authority that vests 'sweeping' powers in his position."

In another attempt to keep the repeal referendum off of the ballot, Assembly member Jennifer Johnston wrote a "compromise" ordinance and introduced it to the Assembly. The process became so convoluted, even Johnston voted against it. That measure passed the Assembly 7-4; however, Sullivan vetoed it as well. AO 37 eventually ended up on the November 2014 ballot, which the voters used to drive the final nail in AO 37's coffin.

Clearly the mayoral candidates are going to be questioned by the media and the public about their opinion of AO 37. Coffey seems to be on both sides of this issue.

In an October 2014 email responding to Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell's assertion that he supported the repeal of the ordinance Coffey said, "To be absolutely clear, I do NOT support the repeal of AO 37. In fact I have supported and contributed to the effort to support AO 37. "

ADVERTISEMENT

However, in an Anchorage Press interview last week Coffey was singing a different tune. He said, "Process matters. The process (that passed AO 37) in my judgment was flawed ... there wasn't time for the administration and the unions to work together, to listen to each other, and I don't mean in a public forum."

It's possible to argue that those two comments aren't contradictory. To do that, however, one would have to concede that Coffey supported AO 37 even though the process was "flawed." What kind of leadership style is that? How could you reasonably support an ordinance that was drafted through a clearly flawed process -- especially to support it enough to "contribute to the effort to support" the ordinance?

There are so many issues facing Anchorage in the coming years. What will downtown Anchorage look like? How will we combat the problems that have become so public lately surrounding the "bar break" hours after the bars let the masses out onto the downtown streets?

How about parks, trails and other types of recreation that define Anchorage as a place to live, work and play? All of these issues are important and the vision of the major contenders will be revealed in the next three months of this campaign.

However, the fight over AO 37 became more than just a debate over a particular ordinance or even a larger fight about the role of government in managing the labor force. It became a culture clash about what the public wants from the municipality, and Sullivan was soundly defeated, which helps us understand why Coffey would now criticize the process that AO 37, the ordinance that he "supported" and "contributed to the effort to support."

This ordinance took a toll on Anchorage voters. The process by which it was drafted, introduced and passed by the Assembly made many residents lose faith in the leadership of their city. Many people who took the trip to the Assembly meeting and mustered the courage to speak to their elected public servants were denied their right to speak by Assembly Chair Ernie Hall. Then they saw the ordinance that could have a strong impact on their livelihood passed into law without their input.

This mayoral election is going to be about a lot more than just the issues facing the city in the years to come. It will be a referendum on the type of leadership Anchorage voters want -- the Sullivan closed-doors and less-input model that we have seen from this current regime or something more open and transparent.

Where does Coffey stand on that issue? His answer seems to depend on who is asking the question.

Mike Dingman is a fifth-generation Alaskan born and raised in Anchorage. He is a former UAA student body president who has worked, studied and volunteered in Alaska politics since the late '90s.

The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, e-mail commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com

Mike Dingman

Mike Dingman is a fifth-generation Alaskan born and raised in Anchorage. He is a former UAA student body president and has worked, studied and volunteered in Alaska politics since the late '90s.

ADVERTISEMENT