At 1:58 p.m. on Monday, March 13, the Dunleavy administration posted a public notice online that the state salary commission would meet two days later in the Atwood Building.

The meeting was illegal. It should never have been scheduled or held. The law requires 20-day notice. And the message about the meeting went to people who would be fired from the body by the day of the meeting.

But on March 15, the Dunleavy administration claimed that because the new members, four of them appointed to the commission that day, showed up at the Atwood Building, the law requiring public notice could be ignored.

The state law establishing the State Officers Compensation Commission requires that “Notice of a meeting shall be mailed to each member at least 20 days before the date scheduled for the meeting.”

There is no provision to allow a commission to waive that notice requirement.

There was no agenda and no information March 13 about what would be done at the illegal meeting, just a statement that unidentifed “amendments” would be discussed two days later at 1 p.m.

At 10:03 a.m. on the day the illegal meeting was announced, Commission Chairman Kurt Olson emailed his resignation to Kate Sheehan, the Dunleavy administration official who serves as the staff to the commission. According to email screenshots published by the Alaska Landmine, Olson knew he was to be replaced.

At 10:17 a.m., Sheehan informed others in the Dunleavy administration about Olson’s resignation and said “I have noticed the meeting for Wednesday at 1 p.m.,” despite the 20-day requirement in state law.

Larry Persily, publisher of the Wrangell Sentinel and a member of the commission, said he learned of the meeting by email on March 13 and made plans to attend. He said there was no agenda or information given to him that day.

The next day, March 14, Gov. Mike Dunleavy sent letters to Persily and two other members—Carrigan Grigsby and Arnye Randall—that he was firing them from their volunteer positions and thanking them for their “dedicated service.”

The fifth member of the commission, Lee Cruise, a former Dunleavy campaign worker, had been removed a week earlier after he was given a job as a “policy analyst” in the revenue department by commissioner-designee Adam Crum. Cruise and Crum were among the many co-treasurers of the Dunleavy reelection campaign.

During his time on the commission, Cruise had been deadset against any significant raises for legislators and favored cutting their pay.

Dunleavy said the removal of Cruise from the commission did not lead to Dunleavy removing the other four members of the board on March 13-14 in advance of the March 15 meeting.

In a press conference this week, Dunleavy claimed that firing the commissioners and replacing them on the day of the meeting was part of a normal process. He refused to give a straight answer on why he fired them.

The thrust of his meandering monologue was that he had the right to fire them and he didn’t have to explain himself.

“It’s a combination of two things,” he said, when asked whether the departure of Cruise precipitated the removal of the other members. “One is we’re reviewing all of our boards and commissions. This is a second term.”

He never got to the second thing.

“So we’re reviewing a lot of our boards and commissions, say, they have three-year terms. Regents, for example, at the university have eight-year terms. Some boards and commissions they could be removed at any time, replaced at any time. But no, that’s an executive decision that’s actually based on the Constitution and law and how we can operate with our boards and commissions so.”

“I know that some want to believe there’s some nefarious or dark reason why the members of the commission were removed, but again, as I explained earlier. All, the statute, Constitution, regs, you name it, were followed, have been followed, will be followed. And as far as the public process goes, that begins with the commission. But in the end it ends with the Legislature where these compensation concepts now lie.”

“And so, no, there was no nefarious, no wheel and deal, whatever some may what to imply,” Dunleavy said.

Dunleavy misrepresented the process, downplaying the role of the commission. The law is set up so that raises approved by the commission will go into effect unless a new law is enacted to overturn the commission’s action.

Because of that high hurdle, it’s not a typical advisory board, but one of the most powerful in state government.

Dunleavy never said why he fired the commission, but the situation is not hard to interpret.

Dunleavy did not agree with the commission report submitted to the Legislature Jan. 24, because that made it politically impossible to get the Legislature to approve raises for Dunleavy and his top staff members. Dunleavy fired the commission and filled it with members who gave him what he wanted in 15 minutes.

On March 10, Dunleavy appointed Republican activist Donald Handeland, another co-treasurer of the Dunleavy campaign, to replace Cruise.

On March 15, with all former members of the commission out of the way, Dunleavy appointed four new members to the panel on the same day the group was to meet for the first time, two of them selected by Dunleavy and one each from nominations by the Senate president and House speaker.

After the new commission members appointed that day exchanged introductions and elected Handeland as chair—with no discussion—the first order of business was to try to make the meeting legal.

“Is there a motion to waive the ratification notice? Handeland asked.

The proper word should have been notification.

Duff Mitchell, named that day by Dunleavy, spoke up: “Mr. Chairman, I move that we ratify the commission, that the commission has waived the 20-day notice to the commission members in AS 39.23.500 (c).”

Miles Baker, a former Dunleavy employee named to the commission that day by Dunleavy, seconded the motion. There was no discussion. The new commission voted 5-0 to waive the 20-day public notice requirement, never explaining to the public why the law had not been followed.

Kate Sheehan, the state director of personnel and labor relations, claimed that by attending the meeting, the five new members had automatically legalized the meeting, a dubious claim.

“By coming into the meeting it was essentially waived that you needed a 20-day notice requirement, but we would like it ratified on the record that you have waived it,” Sheehan said.

If that interpretation is correct, the law and state regulations would mention that members of this commission are allowed to waive public notice requirements spelled out in state law.

There is no provision in AS 39.23.500 that allows a waiver of the 20-day notice requirement, which is as much a safeguard for the public as well as for the commission members.

The meeting was not made legal by that vote, though the Dunleavy administration claims otherwise.

While there was no agenda for the meeting, Handeland announced “there is an understanding that a member” is going to propose raising legislative salaries to $84,000.

Handeland had met Sheehan and a Department of Law employee earlier this day and was told about the $84,000 idea, one that the governor’s appointees had agreed on in advance.

Your contributions help support independent analysis and political commentary by Alaska reporter and author Dermot Cole. Thank you for reading and for your support. Either click here to use PayPal or send checks to: Dermot Cole, Box 10673, Fairbanks, AK 99710-0673