OPINION: Defining the process of removing Anchorage’s mayor isn’t political

In early May, I introduced an ordinance that would provide a pathway for the Anchorage Assembly to start a process for removal of a mayor and members of elected boards in the Municipality for breach of the public trust. Shortly after, Anchorage Daily News ran a fair and accurate story, detailing the proposed process and the rationale behind it. The ADN’s editorial page then followed up with a gross mischaracterization of the ordinance, which omitted several key elements outlined in the paper’s own news article.

Please allow me to correct the record. This mayor has routinely violated the municipal code, then attempted to hide his actions from the public. However, I did not introduce this ordinance in an attempt to remove Mayor Dave Bronson, and I have no intention to propose removing him based on his previous actions. This is a warning. It’s a tool to get his attention in the hopes that from here forward, he follows municipal code. Some are referring to this as “Constant’s coup.” That is false, and I am happy to state on the record that I will not attempt to use this ordinance to remove the mayor based on past behavior.

While the editorial board was correct that I am attempting to codify a process to remove a mayor or elected board member, what it failed to state is that Anchorage Charter specifically tasks the Assembly with codifying this process, and that this is a process involving much more than a vote by the Assembly. The process already exists for removal of Assembly and School Board members. This process is fulfilling a directive clearly stated in Anchorage Municipal Charter section 7.01(b): “the assembly by ordinance shall establish procedures for removal of elected officials for breach of the public trust, including provision for notice, a complete statement of the charge, a public hearing conducted by an impartial hearing officer, and judicial review.”

The editorial was also deceptive in implying that my ordinance simply allows eight members of the Assembly to vote to remove the mayor. That is factually incorrect, something the editorial board well knows, because the paper’s news section published an article detailing the proposed process, which is based on the codified process of removing Assembly and Anchorage School Board members.

If the ordinance were to pass, a majority of the body could vote to start the process. The grounds for removal would be based on 13 reasons, including things like perjury, falsification of records, nepotism and accepting cash from an entity in business with the Municipality. While the editorial called these reasons “vaguely defined,” they are in fact legal terms with decades, and in many cases centuries, of precedent defining them. They are also already established in municipal code as reasons to remove an elected official. The editorial board wrongly asserted that a “substantial breach would be whatever eight members of the Assembly decide it is,” and likened it to a recall, where a breach of trust is defined by voters, not by an actual threshold. In fact, a substantial breach would be defined by an attorney and then heard by an investigative hearing officer, not the Assembly, and would be based on legal precedent.

Once the Assembly determines a reason, the municipal attorney — a position appointed by the mayor — or a third-party attorney would review the Assembly’s argument to determine whether it is legally sufficient. This was omitted from the ADN’s editorial. If the attorney found the grounds sufficient, it would then move to a hearing presided over by a mutually agreed upon independent hearing officer who would evaluate all the evidence put forth and write a recommendation to the Assembly on whether the mayor should be removed.

During the fact-finding process, the Municipality would fund an attorney for the mayor as an important due process protection that does not exist today. Again, these steps in the process were not mentioned in the editorial.

Finally, after an attorney reviews the claims and if the hearing officer investigating the evidence finds cause, a supermajority of the Assembly could vote to remove the mayor.

My clashes with the mayor have been well-documented. Yes, this ordinance is intended to be a check and balance on mayors like Dave Bronson. There are several documented examples of the mayor violating municipal code.

The Bronson administration’s lying about shutting off fluoridation to the municipal water supply, attempting to cut the video feed during an assembly meeting, removing security and asking APD to stop enforcing the law and providing protection to the Assembly during a contentious meeting, illegally firing the Chief Equity Officer and disregarding the Assembly-approved budget are all specific and documented acts. Perhaps the ADN’s editorial board put it best in a March editorial titled “A mayor’s office that lies to you.” I introduced this ordinance because, like the ADN editorial board, I find trusting this administration difficult.

The ADN editorial board got that right. However, before and after that editorial, the board has framed the relationship between the mayor’s office and Assembly as mutually petty, as two sides taking relentless shots at each other. That is not what this is. We have a dishonest mayor who is violating the code, and the Assembly is the only backstop other than a recall, which is a lengthy, expensive process that is very rarely successful. In April, the ADN editorial board published an editorial titled, “Will the feud between the Bronson administration and the Assembly ever hit bottom?” The editorial framed it as a “both sides” issue, but if you look through the past year of editorials, you will see the board has regularly criticized the Bronson administration for bad acting. This is not a childish feud or a power grab. This is about protecting residents of Anchorage.

Additionally, regardless of who is mayor, the municipal charter directs the Assembly to establish such a process. If this ordinance were to pass, the previous missteps by Bronson and his administration would be water under the bridge to me. We would start with a clean slate. Mayor Bronson simply must faithfully discharge his sworn duty to uphold the code.

I understand this ordinance is controversial. I anticipated some people would disagree with it and Bronson supporters would paint it as an anti-democratic power grab. What I don’t understand is the ADN editorial board attempting to gin up the public by omitting numerous highly relevant facts about the ordinance that either it knew based on coverage from the paper’s own reporting, or it should have known. The board should have honestly laid out the facts, then provided an argument against the ordinance. When the ADN’s editorials put forth information in such an irresponsible and misleading manner, they are no better than the screeds offered by a right-wing propaganda blog.

Christopher Constant is a member of the Anchorage Assembly and a candidate for Alaska’s seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. He lives in Anchorage.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.