It’s about accountability — and the apparent desire to avoid it.Recent media reports have covered the Alaska Permanent Fund Corp.’s suggestion that it be exempt from certain accountability mechanisms typically associated with governmental entities. The APFC may try to get out from under Alaska’s Open Meetings Act and procurement code requirements. While compliance may be annoying, those public protections exist for a reason.
I am an ardent supporter of transparency when it comes to public agencies and quasi-public entities like APFC and others. Far too often, the mere mention of the word “litigation” or “personnel matter” is sufficient to move a meeting into executive session or severely redact documents prior to public release. These rationales for invoking confidentiality for an otherwise public process need to be defined with greater clarity and with the goal of limiting their use. I urge you to join me in opposing APFC’s attempt to expand them.
While we’re on the subject, here’s one more comment about the APFC. On what planet does it make sense that there is no confirmation process for the governor’s appointment of public members to the APFC Board of Trustees (AS 37.13.050)? It is long past due for these appointments to be made subject to the same legislative confirmation procedures used for the governor’s cabinet, the University of Alaska Board of Regents and virtually every other state board and commission.
— Ted Moninski
Anchorage
Have something on your mind? Send to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Letters under 200 words have the best chance of being published. Writers should disclose any personal or professional connections with the subjects of their letters. Letters are edited for accuracy, clarity and length.