Here is a sample of Alaska editorials:
Oct. 26, 2017
Ketchikan Daily News: We like it like that
It’s a done deal and one that Alaska likes.
No disrespect intended toward Ohio, but this is Alaska, not Ohio.
President Donald Trump asked Alaska’s senators whether an Obama-era decision affecting Alaska and Ohio - the renaming of Alaska’s tallest peak - should stand.
By all means, the duo responded.
Alaska overwhelmingly favored the peak being called Denali, a name given to it years ago by Alaska’s Athabascans.
It had more recently acquired the name Mount McKinley, after President William McKinley, who was born in Ohio. McKinley wasn’t even president when the mountain peak acquired his name; he was a political candidate.
The McKinley name came about because a gold prospector got into an argument with two other prospectors and retaliated by naming the mountain after the champion of the gold standard - McKinley.
The name stuck until the 1970s when Alaska attempted to convince the federal government to make the peak’s official name Denali. It finally happened during the Obama administration.
And it’s what Alaskans prefer. For Trump, there’s no sense in revisiting that deal. It’s done.
___
Oct. 26, 2017
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner: UA president’s budget proposal should wake up Legislature
University of Alaska President Jim Johnsen’s words to the Board of Regents on Tuesday should be a warning - yet another one - to legislators about the impact of their inability to solve the state’s fiscal crisis.
“We all know the numbers. We know the facts, and though we have islands of educational excellence in Alaska, we really do not have a culture of education here. That needs to change.”
Yes, it does.
And it begins with the Alaska Legislature and Gov. Bill Walker.
President Johnsen made his stark remarks as he presented regents with four budget scenarios, all of which included a wage freeze for faculty and staff and three of which included a tuition increase, one of them at 12 percent. Two of the proposals had the university system short of what it needs to maintain at its present level, and the other two were of amounts that would allow for reinvestment.
The university needs to be able to reinvest. Really, though, the word should be “rebuild.”
The university system has taken a serious hit from the Legislature over the past five years, with state funding falling to $317 million this year from $378 million five years ago. The Board of Regents asked the Legislature and Gov. Walker for $341 million for the current year but ultimately received $317 million.
The steady erosion in state support caused President Johnsen to create a long-range fiscal management plan, which he has called “Strategic Pathways.” The changes and reductions called for in that program have largely been completed, yet the funding outlook for the university remains bleak unless the governor and Legislature choose to change course. Will we be seeing a “Strategic Pathways 2.0,” with more cuts and further erosion of the university system?
Of the four proposed budget options, President Johnsen favored the third: asking the state again for $341 million, imposing a 5 percent tuition increase and freezing faculty and staff wages. The $341 million plus the estimated $16.1 million in additional revenue from tuition and fee increases would help cover projected increases to fixed costs such as maintenance and utilities and provide for investments in efforts such as increasing the number of graduates and further developing the Alaska workforce.
That option would also provide $7.4 million, a small amount that would be reinvested in the university or added to reserves or both
President Johnsen did the only thing he could - and should - do, which is to advocate for additional resources for the university that he leads without going too far.
The members of the Board of Regents are, like President Johnsen, acutely aware of the state’s massive fiscal problem. For years, they’ve watched state funding to the university decrease.
The regents will adopt a proposed budget at their next meeting, Nov. 9-10, in Anchorage. That proposal, of course, is just that, a proposal. It’s up to the governor and Legislature to decide what to do with it.
What they should do is begin rebuilding the university. And to do so means first getting the state’s long-term fiscal health in order by approving a comprehensive fiscal package that includes a restructuring of the Alaska Permanent Fund, raising additional revenue and, where proved appropriate, additional budget reductions.
Alaska has options for responding to its fiscal crisis without causing further harm to an essential institution such as the University of Alaska.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.