Opinon, Volume 8 number 5, May 2006 Penny for Your Thoughts, Nickel for Your Legacy The splintering of voter populations allows them to be manipulated toward outcomes that are sometimes not in their community’s best interest. The divided are quickly conquered, while those who are supposed to represent their interests sometimes seek questionable goals. Murkowski’s proposed gas and oil contracts1 are examples of this manipulative approach that’s allowed those trusted with our representation to abandon their greatest duties, instead acting in the favor of corporations and political parties. A variation of taxation without representation emerges. Governor Murkowski’s gas line contract is an open-ended deal that gives away our proverbial farm. The contract has no start date, no mandate of completion, demands hundreds of millions of dollars in state money in advance, and insists that the gas contract be linked to oil revenues so far below current world market standards that the proposed oil terms simply do not make sense. The producers are already receiving sweetheart revenue rates from us, by admission of the legislature’s own consultants. In addition to these questionable provisions, Mr. Murkowski’s contract would freeze revenue collection rates for decades to come, a blatant violation of our state’s constitution. The contract further states that if Rep. Eric Croft’s gas lease initiative passes this November, and holders of leases are taxed for not developing those leases, that the state will pay their penalties for them. To call this provision absurd is an understatement. No wonder Frank wanted this contract held in confidence! With such provisions, it’s understandable that some critics have already reached conclusions critical of the gas contract. According to a memo2 from the former commissioner of Alaska’s Department of Natural Resources, Tom Irwin, there were serious questions concerning the applicability of the stranded gas act to gas fields in question. Mr. Irwin wrote that Mr. Murkowski had stated to the Valdez Chamber of Commerce that the gas in question was now “unstranded.” It appears provisions within the stranded gas act were used to conceal the contract’s specifics from the public. Mr. Irwin’s expression of his competence and sense of duty resulted in his high-profile resignation, and the subsequent resignations of a number of his former staff in protest of the governor‘s treatment of Mr. Irwin‘s conscientious conduct. Murkowski apparently holds the code of silence in higher regard than he does integrity and competence. Perhaps he’s better suited to serve the interests of BP, Exxon, and Conoco Phillips than those of Alaskans. The lead attorney and consultant for the state in this matter, from the firm of Morrison & Foerster, of Washington, D.C., is Robert H. Loeffler. His firm is the highest paid in this process, with Mr. Loeffler collecting $545/hour. Some remember Mr. Loeffler from his handling of the state’s interests in the TAPS settlement in 1985: a settlement that has, three times now, been cited by the state Regulatory Commission of Alaska as resulting in unreasonable tariffs, now amounting to the state paying over twice what the RCA has indicated are fair market rates for oil transport in the pipeline; $3.98/barrel, instead of $1.96/barrel. It can be safely stated that the TAPS settlement has resulted in a loss of at least $2 billion dollars in royalties and tax payments to the State of Alaska, and possibly as much as $6 billion. Now Mr. Loeffler apparently represents Alaska again, negotiating Murkowski’s contract that includes provisions to hog-tie the regulatory commission that has criticized the TAPS settlement, and that otherwise watches over Alaska’s interests. Is this a conflict of interest for Mr. Loeffler? The draft contract would limit a state watchdog agency that was critical of a major settlement in which he represented the state. Now Mr. Loeffler apparently promotes a new and flawed agreement, while collecting $545/hour in fees. People rarely enter into such open-ended and self-endangering contracts with family members, let alone Big Businesses with histories of getting as much as they can for as little as possible. Even a brief consideration of the loose ends in this document brings the game “Russian roulette” to mind. The passing seasons will remove Murkowski from office, and history will remember him for his disservice to this state.3 But there are many legislators who have lost their paths in execution of their duties. I advocate that if your legislator backed this contract, then they no longer represent the interests of their constituencies, and should be removed from office at the earliest opportunity! Their support of this contract amounts to an assault on Alaska’s constitution. Author’s Note: There is a nonpartisan voter solidarity movement forming in this state. It has the potential to create a legislature more apt to abide by their constitutional obligations. For information, please call 907.457.1230 or 907.456.3475. 1. The contract is available for review on line at www.gov.state.ak.us/gasline/. 2. The memo was a formal request for legal advice from Tomas Irwin, former commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, dated October 20, 2005 and addressed to David W. Marquez, attorney general. It is available on line at www.adn.com/static/files/pdf/102505/memo.pdf. 3. The comment period on the contract has already begun. To make a comment, go to the state website at www.phxurs.com/commador/comment.asp. | ||
 | | |
