The Permanent Fund coroporation extended the period for public comment on the proposed strategic plan “due to popular demand.”

That’s a stretcher no doubt, but let’s not quibble. It’s a good move, instigated by trustee Jason Brune, who agreed it was sensible to keep getting comments from the public until just before the next meeting of the trustees, February 15. He and a couple of other trustees asked for the two-week extension.

Alaskans now have ample opportunity to comment. Whether they will remains to be seen.

To read the strategic plan and submit a comment, click here.

Here are a few thoughts that occurred to me after my most recent blog post on this situation:

There has been no news coverage of the specifics in the strategic plan. That is one reason why there are only a couple of dozen public comments. Another is that the fund did little to publicize the public comment period.

The lack of news coverage bothers me.

I agree with the commenter on my blog who said hundreds of thousands of Alaskans care about nothing except the dividend. The blame for that is widespread. Some of it is due to politicians who grandstand on the dividend and never delve into the many decisions and choices facing Alaska’s fund.

Some of it is due to Alaska civic and political entities ranging from chambers of commerce and the University of Alaska to local governments that should see the danger in the dividend grandstanding, but never try to change the discussion.

Some of it is due to news organizations that cover the grandstanding politicians and never force the debate to go beyond the dividend, leaving us with a revolving door of repetitive blather that is just about useless.

Reporters cover the grandstanding politicians promising big dividends and the politicians are institutionally encouraged to keep grandstanding because they get news coverage. Reporters say they have to cover the grandstanding debate because that is what politicians like to talk about, knowing that this always works with voters who pay no attention to details.

The strategic plan contains some major ideas that deserve public discussion in Alaska. One is whether the fund should borrow billions to make more investments that could, if things work out well, lead to increase earnings. A second big item is to consider whether the fund should open offices in the Lower 48 or overseas. A third is the amorphous “alpha” idea of turning the corporation’s investment pros into overachievers.

There are many big questions unaddressed in the strategic plan, including the role of private equity investments and how Alaskans are unaware of what is being done in their name. The fund and its investment mix have never been so complex. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it does require informed and consistent oversight from the Legislature. The Legislature has neglected its duty.

Instead of simply assuming that private equity investments are appropriate and justified, taking the word of private equity investors and promoters, the fund should present a more balanced picture to Alaskans of the consequences. Private equity investments make up about $15 billion of the fund and there is no comprehensive public list of exactly what the money is invested in.

The focus on secrecy at the expense of transparency has to be addressed.

Here is the updated list of comments on the strategic plan as of February 1.

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.