Editor's note: This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity, however candidate answers and statements are transcribed in their entirety. The recording was provided by the Homer Chamber of Commerce and shared here with permission.
Homer Chamber of Commerce introduction: Today we’re going to be talking to the candidates running for Alaska state Senate District C office. And a good reminder, please mute your phones or turn it off if you haven’t done so yet. So with us tonight we have Carrie Harris, Heath Smith and Louise Stutes, so thank you all for coming up here tonight. We really appreciate you guys running for this important office….
This year we've added a media panel to help ask questions of the candidates through this, the event here. So, with us today, we have Delcenia Cosman from Homer Independent Press, and we have Michael Dukes with the Peninsula Radio Group. Thank you, guys, for joining us. To review their format, the candidates will start with a one-minute opening statement, and then you'll have a series of open-ended questions. You'll have 90 seconds to answer each of those questions, and we have a timer up front here….. We ask all the audience members to please be respectful of the candidates and remain quiet during debates so we can hear everyone's questions. As time allows, we will include questions submitted by the audience. I have some index cards and pins in the back, so if you ask a reader question, you can bring it on the front here, and we'll try to include those as we can. So, we're going to go ahead and begin tonight's evening with the candidates' opening statements. So, we're going to start on this end. Miss Harris, go ahead and give us a one-minute opening statement.
Opening statements, one-minute each:
Carrie Harris: I’m Carrie Harris. I lived down in Homer in 2014, and I moved up to my place in Anchor Point in 2015. Have a lot of goats up there, some dogs, and I pretty much just love the area. I'm running because I really don't feel the people's voice is being represented. When people come right out of the gate saying they're not going to represent you, why would you think anything less? I think it's time for the people to start taking control again of their Legislature. Legislators are public servants, not dictators.
Heath Smith: My name is Heath Smith. I was born in Anchorage and moved to Homer in 1974, so I've been around for a little bit. My wife was born right here in Homer, and all six of my children, and three of my grandchildren. So I'd like to say I got a little bit of skin in the game. And for me, the direction of the state has not been very favorable over the last decade. And I'm more concerned about what's in store for them than me at this point. But I certainly want this to be an Alaska that they can embrace, make a living in, and raise their families in, and that's what I'm focused on: is what is to come. And the record at this point shows that we're not going in a direction that's going to work for them. So I'm here to institute some change. Thank you.
Louise Stutes: I'm Louise Stutes, and I'm here from Kodiak, and I'm thankful to be here, and I appreciate the invitation. I'm married to a retired fisherman. I have been married for 33 years, I believe it is, and we had four children. One of them lives in Kodiak, and one of them lives over on the mainland. I have been in the Legislature for 12 years. I've had several different positions in the Legislature. I’m proud of our record. I've been in a bipartisan coalition for the last 10 years. We've managed to hold the line on a lot of things, financial, in the last four years. We've taken no money out of our savings, and I won't keep going on now, but I'm grateful to be here, and I appreciate the invitation.
Questions/Panelists/Audience members' section:
Homer Chamber of Commerce: For the first question, Senate District C includes communities with very different economies, needs, and political perspectives. As you traveled throughout the district during this campaign, what have you learned that has broadened or changed your understanding of the district, and has anything you heard caused you to reconsider one of your positions?
Louise Stutes: Thank you for the question. What I've heard is we have a lot of commonalities. We have a lack of affordable housing. We have energy problems. We need to come together. We have fishing issues that we're trying to address. What I've learned is, you the constituency, have a lot of information to help us do our job better. I'm really quite surprised at the commonalities we have between us, and I'm looking forward to working with you and bridging any gaps that we might have.
Heath Smith: Well, interestingly, you know I've been to Cordova and Seward and Kodiak, and clearly here, what I hear a lot of is the fact that the state is failing to fund some of the critical services that we require. And you talk to people that say that our schools are underfunded, that the DOT is underfunded, that the fisheries management is underfunded, that their PFD checks are underfunded. I mean, that's a long list of things that really they're mandated to do. And if that's the truth, then our current leadership has failed us. And there is a really, the reality is that we have only so much money to spend, and we have to put it across all those services. But there is an absence of a fiscal plan, and we tend to just fumble from year to year. And without that plan, there's no real clarity on what comes next year. It's just well, ‘we'll bring up the gavel and the problems next year and see what we can solve then.’ There's no long-term clarity, and that's what I hope to achieve: is that we have a plan that is sustainable and instills in Alaskans some confidence that we're doing it right and that people have confidence in that and the decisions we make.
Carrie Harris: Well, I haven't traveled a lot. I don't like campaign funds… I think it's disgusting. So, I have not traveled a lot. I have talked to a lot of people throughout the districts. There's a real big commonality in failure of representation. People are wanting their PFDs. They're worried. I have friends that are terrified about this energy situation. People are done with the trawl industry. It's time for that to end, and that's pretty much why I'm running.
Homer Chamber of Commerce: Alright, for the next question, Alaska has talked about the need for a long-term fiscal plan for many years. What specifically would you include in a fiscal plan that you would vote for, and what would you be willing or what would you be unwilling to include?
Heath Smith: Well, actually, I have to tell a story. Four years ago, I ran against Gary Stevens for the Senate. I was on a ferry ride with Senator Lisa Murkowski, who came up and chatted with me, and she said, ‘Isn't it interesting, Heath?’ That 22 years ago, when she was in the Alaska Legislature, her dad had appointed her to a fiscal plan working group, and they came up with the same tenets that the fiscal plan working group came up with four years ago, and they haven't done anything with it. So doing nothing is not an answer. And so that was over a quarter of a century ago that there was a realization that a fiscal plan was necessary for us to have confidence in the way that we conducted business. We as Alaskans deserve that. The people in the Legislature are our fiscal watchdogs. They are the ones that are supposed to take responsibility for how that is done. So, a plan is no good if you do nothing with it. So, I like Louise. I'm more than happy to work with whoever is elected to office in order to put a plan together that we can agree on. No matter how you cut up the Legislature, it is a very small margin between the majority and minority, which means that you're going to need bipartisan people on board in order to get anything done, and it has to be something that can go to the governor and get passed. So, I'm all in favor of us putting a plan together that works for everybody.
Carrie Harris: I would absolutely be willing to vote for the full PFD. That must be in there. The statutory formula has to be in there. That is money that goes directly into your local economies, and it's a big help for Alaskans. Yes, we do have to work across the aisles. That's pretty obvious. However, I'm not willing to sacrifice my constituents at all, and I'm pretty hard-headed. So I've got that. But with the fiscal plan, I think we need to take a really good look at our budget. I really do believe that we can cut it down dramatically, and it's got to go line by line. And ask: Is this a want, or is this a need? And we take out those wants, and then we look at the needs and ask how we can do them more efficiently.
Louise Stutes: Well certainly we need a fiscal plan. We absolutely need a fiscal plan. We need to address some of our huge issues, such as the PFD, we can't fight over it every year. We have to have a budget so we know what we have for our essential services, that Alaskans have said, ‘we want these services.’ We want a marine highway system. We want DOT services. We want these services, and without a fiscal plan, it's hard to plan for those services, as you can tell by driving down the road. Secondly, we need to reevaluate our oil tax situation. We need revenue. You can't do these things without revenue. That includes looking at the legacy fields. We have got to do something about our oil situation, closing the loophole. There's a lot of ways we need to address our revenue. Our revenue has decreased in the last 10 years. For this state, we're paying, 68% of our revenue is coming from the PFD. We have got to assess that. We can't continue on the route we're on without addressing that, including the PFD formula.
Homer Chamber of Commerce: The Legislature has spent considerable time debating the tax and regulatory framework needed to advance the Alaska LNG project, while Southwest Alaska communities continue to face more immediate concerns about its natural gas supply. What conditions would need to be met for you to support state policies intended to advance the North Slope gas pipeline, and what should the state do in the meantime to ensure reliable and affordable energy for Southcentral Alaska?
Carrie Harris: So there's been a…. I support the line 100%. Okay, I do not support closing the S-corp loophole. That'll harm more businesses than just oil. That affects your coffee shops and everything else. But I 100% support that 800-mile line and the $54-billion worth of construction contracts that come with it, but right now, right now we are at the point of an energy crisis. We're being told about rolling blackouts and days without energy. We have Denali Petroleum and Gas working the Susitna field right here in our backyard, and that field, it requires a 70-mile pipeline to hook right into Enstar. That's a century's worth of gas, and their price point is $10. That's lower cost for us here at home…I'm not saying don't go for that long pipeline. We should. That's a lot of construction contracts. We definitely should go after it, but we should be prioritizing our energy needs right now.
Louise Stutes: Make no mistake about it, I am a full supporter of the gas line. I was the facilitator between the Legislature and Glenn Farne, along with the governor, in setting up meetings for our legislators to get the information on what they need, so we can go forward with the gas line. Obviously, it didn't work out that well. The administration backed out at the last moment, but nonetheless, I am a supporter of the gas line. I think it's critical to moving Alaska forward with affordable energy. In the meantime, we got to start looking at tomorrow. We got to see if we can't encourage, whatever word you want to use, more gas production in Cook Inlet. And if they aren't finding more gas in Cook Inlet, we've got to start looking at importing gas because our members and our Alaskans have to know they're going to be able to stay warm this winter. This winter is immediate. The gas line is, what, four to six years away. I think that we need to work towards that, and it's going to be a priority in the next Legislature, next legislative session. But critical is making sure this year that our Alaskans are going to stay warm. Thank you.
Heath Smith: I went to the OGA conference up there in Anchorage, and it was interesting listening to Hex and Enstar and our different providers talk about gas. And there's a real reality that even though they're drilling new wells, they're still not keeping pace with the old supply that came out of the old wells, and so there is a decline. And they think that by the end of 2029, early 2030, that they will not be able to reasonably keep pace. They said that they have enough gas right now in reserve that they could, they could avoid rolling blackouts, but then it would reduce their reserves to a point that if anything catastrophic happened, then we would be in real trouble. This is a reality, regardless of what's in Cook Inlet. I think that is a, that is a resource that we need to absolutely tap and make sure goes forward. But this pipeline needs and has to happen for a lot of different reasons, and it's not just the benefit that we can stand to gain through having long-term stable gas supplies, but it's also the estimated $800 million in new revenue that it's going to produce off of the volumetric tax. For me, that project I do not want to see in two phases. I want to see it in one phase. I want to make sure it doesn't get to the valley, and then we're talking about some other option for export. We need to make sure that export facility is online and scheduled. We need some certainty when it comes to that.
Homer Chamber of Commerce: Now we'll kind of get into a PFD question. If maintaining the statutory PFD would require either significant reductions in state services or substantial new revenue, which would you choose? Protect the statutory dividend, reduce the dividend to protect services, or raise new revenue to fund both, and why?
Louise Stutes: So that's a multifaceted question. I think, insofar as a statutory PFD, we're working on a 40-year-old statutory, a 40-year-old statute. It just isn't applicable anymore. Right now, the majority, 68% of the state's revenue, is from the interest off the permanent fund corporation. So, I think that revenue is certainly in the picture. But I think that we have avenues of revenue. As I stated earlier, I think that everybody that is paying for our, let me rephrase that: If you want our oil, pay for it and pay fairly. We shouldn't have one company paying one price in insofar as taxes and another company paying another price. It should be fair across the board. That's revenue. We've had several good revenue bills in the body. One of them was an internet bill, cost Alaskans nothing, passed the House, passed the Senate, was vetoed. So, I think that, insofar as the statutory PFD, the statute needs to be reevaluated for our current revenue and where it's from. Thank you.
Heath Smith: Well, I think that you know it's been a, it's been a decade now since the statutory formula has been abandoned. A decade. So, if that needed to have been changed and still does after 10 years, why hasn't it been done, is the question that needs to be asked, and that's the question that needs to be asked. I mean, why hasn't it been done? And it's a difficult lift, right? I support…. If you've done your homework on the dividend and why it was instituted by Jay Hammond, there was a very specific reason, and that was to be a check and balance on government growth. Through what happened with the Walker administration, they have just basically turned it into a tax that they can take whatever they need, and then distribute whatever they feel like they can, what's left over. I 100% want our government to be healthy and capable of providing the services that we are mandated to serve, to supply. So, it's not a question of whether I support government and the role that we have with its people. It's about where we draw the line as far as what we're going to do with the money that we're provided, and what the accountability is on how it's used, and currently there's no accountability to that because they just take whatever they want, and so if it's 40 years old, if it's outdated, then why haven't they changed it? And I think the clear answer is because that if they changed it, they would have to stick to it, and if they have to stick to it, then it ties their hands in what they have available, and this all ties back to no fiscal plan, and without a plan, there's no way to put the guardrails on those things, and so the fiscal plan has to happen. It's past time, and we don't need to make excuses about it. So, I support a path back to a full PFD, but that means that we don't shut down $800 million in new revenue through projects that happen in the private sector.
Carrie Harris: Well, I support the full PFD being paid now, and I also support government cuts big time. We have so many redundancies. We have 53 school districts with 53 superintendents, with 53 HR departments, with 53 payroll departments. Those can be consolidated down to 10, and it doesn't touch the classroom funding. We have, we pay out a lot in Medicaid. Everybody needs a doctor, and in rural areas, we don't have enough doctors. I would very much support having the state hire physicians under a five-year contract, where we could recoup some of that Medicaid money, as well as bringing some of it back to the state, as well as being able to bill other insurances. I know I'm standing in the college, so you're not going to like this one. It's time to develop this land. The college has a lot of land, and it is time to develop it that could help with our housing security. If you guys would, there's UAA land right across from me that is very, very buildable, and there's zero excuse it's not being used. Okay, there's UAF land all the time that could be developed into housing, you can stack the grants from AIDEA and Alaska Housing, and bring in a residual income to the college, which will help support the college. It'll save the state money and correct housing, and there's a lot more.
Delcenia Cosman, Homer Independent Press (media panel): Changing tracks from our current list of questions. Americans nationwide are pushing back against data centers, and that opposition has come to Alaska as an East Coast company recently proposed building an underwater artificial intelligence data center in the Cook Inlet. The Anchorage Daily News reported that environmental groups and the Kenai Peninsula Borough have filed motions to intervene, citing a lack of consultation with neighboring communities and the possible harm a data center may cause to cook inlet salmon fisheries and endangered beluga whale population. Should the Legislature consider or preemptively adopt policy regulating AI data centers, and how far should the state take such legislation, and why?
Heath Smith: Well, DeepGreen thinks that they're going to put some kind of data center in Cook Inlet. I think it's crazy. I'm actually shocked that it even went through the FERC process, that they accepted the preliminary permitting application. But you know, State of Alaska, Alaska Energy, blah blah, whatever it is, has also entered into, to intervene on that as well. I don't see any conceivable way. And by the way, the public comment period is open right now until Nov. 2. So if you folks want to provide some kind of public comment for that, I would encourage you to do it. But anyway, sounds insane. It is insane, and there's no way that I would support something like that going into Cook Inlet.
Carrie Harris: Well, I'm going to agree with Heath on that. This is a no way, an absolute no way. And honestly, I think the Legislature needs to put a moratorium on the data centers until we know more about them. Till we have something set up, just show me something good that it brings. I have never heard anything good that a data center brings.
Louise Stutes: Well, this is one issue that we're all in agreement on. I certainly wouldn't condone or support having data centers in Cook Inlet. I don't think that we know enough about them, what the repercussions of having them are, what the cost is to you as a ratepayer is, what the effects of having one in your neighborhood are what the noise decibel is. There's way too many unknowns. I think at this point in time, and I certainly would support the Legislature putting some pretty significant sidebars on these issues before any data setter is put in a place where the public lives.
Michael Dukes, Peninsula Radio Group (media panel): As Heath pointed out earlier, the long-term fiscal plan and the fiscal policy working group in 2021 came up with a set of recommendations. Those were very similar to what Murkowski had, as Heath pointed out, 20 years earlier, yet none of those have been put forward. So, my question to you, because everyone here on the panel has mentioned a fiscal plan, what is your fiscal plan? Can you give us a brief outline of it? What would it look like, and what would it entail?
Carrie Harris: So, I can't give you a straight up fiscal plan. I don't have the budget, but I'm going to tell you, I would go over it literally line by line, cutting out the waste. That's the first thing it has got to entail. We have so much waste, and I've been told by other representatives, you know, we could only save $100 or $150 million out of the budget. If you can't see past $100 or $150 million, if you don't feel that that's worth saving, then you're never going to see the $10,000 or the $5,000. There's a project going on at the top of my road where the state forest service has made it driveway punch ready. They have done the work of a developer for three years up there and seriously increased the value of that land. But it's not, it's not going up for public auction. It's being given away. So, you know, that was three years’ worth of people up there working. That, no, that was a waste, that was a waste. And like I said, I am going over it line by line and actually put boots on the ground and look, because what a spreadsheet shows is not always what it actually is.
Louise Stutes: Well, a fiscal plan would consist of a multitude of things. Certainly, it's the Legislature's duty to make sure that their money is being spent appropriately, and we're getting the bang for the buck. So certainly, we would have to back up and reevaluate some of our departments. Again, we need a fiscal plan. We need to have a plan on how we're going to pay for our essential services that Alaskans deserve. We're going to have to reformat the PFD. You want a statutory PFD? You're going to, right now the way we are, you're going to get a statutory PFD for maybe two years, possibly three, and then your PFD is going to be zero, because the money is going to be gone. Add it up. The math doesn't work. We need to quit fighting on it, about it. We need to set an amount somehow, some way, where Alaskans can depend on a consistent PFD. We need to re-evaluate our revenue, whether it be oil taxes, whether it be the internet tax. We need to reevaluate where and how we’re getting our revenue, that's critical. So that would be my plan.
Heath Smith: It has been reported that we're facing nearly a $2 billion structural deficit. That's with a B. So, while Carrie's point is well taken in the sense that $150 million is significant, when we're talking about a structural deficit of that size, there's some real problems, and so we have to look at it as such. It's that's a pill you're not swallowing, and so there's some difficult decisions that are going to have to be made along the way, you know. So that's why delaying an $800 million in new revenue, even though it's three or four years out, is problematic for me because revenues are part of the problem. We don't have enough revenues. Our permanent fund right now, the value is almost $92 billion. That's awesome. A lot of legislators are on this waiting game. It's like, oh, all we have to do is get it to $100, $120, and then we're sitting pretty. But that's completely ignoring the private sector. Your private sector cannot be ignored because when your private sector is healthy, guess what? Your public sector is healthy. And so you can't just be focusing on just small things. There's much larger things, and that's the common folk that are involved in the private sector. And so, yes, the permanent fund has to ultimately be enshrined so that it doesn't become this political football year to year, I think everybody is exhausted about talking about that. So that's one of the things that needs to happen. But we have to address our revenues, and we have to address our expenses. And I agree that you know there's nothing wrong, government is not inherently efficient; it just isn't because of its scope and the expectation. But that doesn't mean that we can't do better, and so evaluating that to see where we can do better is always going to be important. So, I'm in favor of looking at it in a broad scope and finding how to improve and do something that's sustainable, and that the people can buy into because ultimately it's for you.
Homer Chamber of Commerce: Okay, we're going to ask about education now. Alaska continues to debate education funding, but the latest nation's report card shows Alaska students performing below national averages in both reading and mathematics, while Alaska is near the bottom on states in some measurements. Do Alaska schools primarily need additional funding, changes in how existing education dollars are spent, greater accountability for student outcomes, or some kind of combination? And what specific changes would you support, and how would you measure whether those changes are actually improving student achievement?
Louise Stutes: Well, let me start out by saying, education was a priority for the caucus that I was in, and I'm proud of it. And we accomplished a lot of things these last couple years. We increased the BSA by overriding a veto of the governor’s. We have done….that is our number one issue: is our education. We need to support our education. We need to support our kids. We need to move forward. I would say that our brick-and-mortar schools need to be healthy. Our homeschools need to be healthy. Our charter schools need to be healthy, they are not. Yes, I'm a full supporter of full funding education. You don't make it better by defunding it. That doesn't work. There may be some policy changes that need to happen. There may need to be some adjustments, but those kids are our resource, and they deserve a fair education, a good education, and we've been able to do that. We need to take a look at the teachers. We're losing our teachers. We're losing our teachers. We need to treat them how we want them to treat our children, and they don't have a retirement. We're the only state that does not have a defined benefits retirement plan for our public employees. Consequently, after five years, our teachers are gone. They collect their five-year money and they walk away. So, we need, yes, I'm a full supporter of funding our schools, and I think I hope we continue to do so.
Heath Smith: I'm a product of the public school system. I graduated right here from Homer High School, as did five of my six children, and hopefully my sixth. So, different phase of life, anyway. And actually, when I retired from UPS, I worked for them for 28 years, I retired last September, and I needed something to do, so I signed up to be a substitute teacher. So, I substituted at the high school, the middle school, which my son did not like, and I substituted at Chapman. And what I saw across the board are teachers and administrators that are dedicated to the education, a successful education, of our kids. So, I'm not here to talk about outcomes as much as I am to talk about the reality that we need our public schools to succeed, it is the foundation of what these kids will build on as they go out into the world, and the landscape of the world is changing, and how you account for that is going to be difficult. But regardless of that, I support a healthy school system. Education is a cornerstone of any child's youth, and it sets them up for whatever they can do in the future. So, the BSA probably needs a little work. There needs to be some fine tuning. I substituted with a gal in Anchor Point. She took her four kids and her husband and left the state at the end of this summer, and they lost them. I mean, that's a huge resource. And so, there is some question about the defined benefits, and because with the defined contribution, it's portable, so there's nothing keeping them here. So, we have to talk about what can happen, but the old defined benefits: $7.2 billion in unfunded liability. So how we pick up the ball on another one is problematic.
Carrie Harris: Well, I think we should prioritize our classrooms. The classrooms definitely need to be prioritized. And thank you for teaching. Anybody who can sit inside a room with 25 kids has got some extreme patience. You have some patience. But we can do some major cuts in the school, and it has to come from the administration because we're very top-heavy, and a lot of that could actually be passed on to the classroom, which would be a really good thing. Now, as far as defined benefits, absolutely not. They're called unfunded because the Legislature made a choice to take a holiday on paying their contributions to the defined benefit program. Now they followed the advice of actuaries, and it was bad advice. But that's why we are in this mess today, and I will never, ever, ever trust the Legislature not to do it again.
Homer Chamber of Commerce: Thank you. Well, the next question kind of relates to this, so I'll just ask it one more time for all of you guys. If you can respond to it more faster, Alaska continues to struggle with recruiting and retaining teachers, public safety officers, and other public employees, while the Legislature has debated restoring some of form of defined benefits retirement system. What changes would you support to Alaska's retirement system to improve recruitment and retention, and what safeguards would you require to protect the state from future unfunded pension liabilities?
Heath Smith: Well, you got to trust the Legislature in the end, and I hope that I can instill some of that trust, but regardless, I talked about the $7.2 billion. The state is on the hook for paying the interest on what that's supposed to earn for that defined benefit every year that it's not there. And if you look at seven and a quarter percent of five, of seven billion, that's a lot of money every year, and that's why currently the PERS and TERS are paying a premium. Our municipalities and school districts are right now paying, I mean, a lot of their current employees, except for those that have been there a long time, are getting 5% in the defined contribution, 5% to 7%. And TERS is collecting 12 and a half percent, and PERS is collecting 22%. So there, these municipalities and school districts are paying a premium on every single employee, and that is a huge financial millstone. So, we need to work on getting rid of that unfunded liability, so that it frees up all that money in those payrolls for them to increase pay, recruit, retain, however those things go. But I will say that you know, I am retired from UPS. I have a defined benefit. I understand the benefit of it. But the difference between my defined benefit and what the state will offer is that you cannot change the defined benefit with the state. When ours got in trouble, guess what? They went back, they were able to change the rules and structures so that was sustainable. But with the state, it is a guaranteed thing. You cannot amend. You cannot change. You cannot retract. And so those are things; those are differences. And so, we have to be very careful on how that gets structured, if it does.
Carrie Harris: Okay. Well, I think I just talked about the defined benefits, but how we recruit more young people into these positions, police is hard. I was a cop in Missouri. I moved up here in '99. I was a cop in Missouri. That is not a pleasant job….You'll meet people that you only hear stories about, thinking it's not real. Okay, it's real, and it is not a wonderful job. It's boring most of the time. But how we get our young people involved with this is we need to stop trying to recruit from outside and start recruiting in the classroom, because police work, fire work, that can be exciting and it can be extremely fulfilling. So, you start putting those kids in police cars, young, because you do that young, and you don't have them turning into drug addicts.
Louise Stutes: Thank you. Just because you have a defined benefits insurance, or excuse me, retirement, doesn't mean it has to break you, and it doesn't mean it has to break the state, and it doesn't mean we have to go back to the old way. We have that debt that we're paying off. The state is, and as are the municipalities. We had a bill, we had a great defined benefit bill that went through the Legislature this last year, passed both bodies. It had, it was renegotiated, it’s exactly, it's a template of a bill that's used in, I believe, six states. That is fluid. It's got lots of money in it. It's doing what it's supposed to do. We had actuarials, nationwide actuarials come out, come to Alaska, because we were looking for something to offer our public employees, and that plan did it. The bottom line is, you gotta, you want people to treat you well, you have to treat them well. I owned a business for 25 years. I created that type of thing for my business. I had a separate retirement. I never had to worry about hiring new people. They never quit. We need to start paying attention and treating our people the way we want them to treat our kids. So, I'm a full supporter of a defined benefit for our public employees. I think it's critical to keep them here.
Homer Chamber of Commerce: Let’s tackle the bycatch issue. So, there is considerable concern in Alaska about trawl fisheries, bycatch, and the potential effects on salmon, halibut, crab, and other species important to coastal communities. Much of Alaska's trawl fishing occurs in federal waters where the Legislature has limited direct authority, but what specific actions can the state of Alaska and the Legislature realistically take regarding trawling and bycatch, and what would you advocate for at the federal level?
Carrie Harris: Okay, I am very much against trawl. I will put forth bills to ban it, outright ban it. The majority of it might be done in the federal waters, but our three miles matter. That's our, that's our income here. People come here to fish; they don't come here to look at a river that they could have fished in 20 years ago. And we've trusted the science for 50 years, and we're closing rivers.
Louise Stutes: Thank you. It's not what would I do; it's what did I do. I am the only legislator that carried a trawl bill this year that passed both bodies and was put into effect. And what that bill did, it's called an electronic monitoring program on trawl vessels, and now when the trawl vessels are trawling in state waters; let me just add 94% of state waters are closed to trawling. But when trawl vessels are trawling in state waters, they are required to turn on their electronic monitoring system, which gives us immediate, 100% clarity and certainty on bycatch and retention of halibut and Chinook, and that is immediate information that goes directly to the agencies that are making the determinations and control our natural, our resource of fisheries. That's what our job is as a Legislature. Our job is to make sure the agencies, whether it be the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, whether it be the Board of Fish, whoever it is, that they have the proper information and proper tools to make the determinations that they're tasked to do. They're the experts. They are the experts on making those decisions, and our job is to give them the tools to make the decisions. And then I agree with them. I will support the decisions that are made by the experts.
Heath Smith: Well, just to clarify, House Bill 117, that was introduced by Louise Stutes, there, Representative Stutes in the House, did not have anything about electronic monitoring in it. That was introduced, that was amended in the Senate by Senator Wielechowski. So, it came back and passed through the House. There's no doubt about that, but it was not introduced by Representative Stutes. The reality here for me is that, for the trawl industry, Kodiak has a huge dependency on the tax revenues and the workforce that come out of the trawlers. People in Seward, you go to and talk to them, they just want it gone because people that have fished not just commercially, but they're charter captains, they're river guides, these people have seen huge declines in river closures, like Carrie said, and they're suffering, but they don't see any equality in the suffering when it comes to some other industries. And so they look at that and it does not make any sense. How can a trawl vessel catch 20,000 kings when you got the Yukon, the Kuskokwim, the Kenai River, the East Side setnetters, they can't catch one? And that's problematic to them to make sense. So, she's right that bottom trawling is against the law in Alaskan waters. In 94% of this space, the waters there, but the gear that's being fished is pelagic, which is a midwater trawl. And so while monitoring on board for the bycatch is one thing; it is not monitoring to make sure that those nets are not on the bottom of the ocean, and that's where we need to start drilling down on what's going on with the Board of Fish and the department of Fish and Game. There's three proposals that came before the Board of Fish. Fish and Game did not support them because they didn't say they had the funding. We need to make sure that the science side of it is funded, and that they can do the types of things that keep our water safe.
Michael Dukes, Peninsula Radio Group: The permanent fund dividend is a uniquely Alaskan mechanism, of course, because of the way we have a shared resource in the state due to the constitution. As has been alluded to, Gov. Hammond initially envisioned it as a way for Alaskans as co-owners to own and to receive a portion of that mineral wealth., and that was specifically after the Legislature in those first couple of years really ran through the money pretty quick, and he was concerned. The money came out, and for 35 years we did well with it, 40 years, right there, and then of course when the government started to get into a little bit of trouble, we started holding that money back. And there's been several solutions that have been offered here tonight, full PFD, down to changing the statute and everything else. So, my question to each one of you is: if you were in the Legislature, if you're elected, would you introduce a bill to fix the PFD, from whatever your perspective of fixing the PFD is, full PFD bill, or again, would you sponsor a bill amending the statutory amount? Would you make it a 50-50? What would be your maneuver as the sitting senator?
Louise Stutes: That's an interesting question. I certainly would have to pursue it, but I would definitely be interested in talking to other legislators on what would be the best way to do it. But I do, I would absolutely introduce a bill that would adjust the statutory PFD. I think it's critical. I think it's going to stop a lot of arguments. I think it's going to help the state move forward insofar as a fiscal plan. That's critical for this state. If we don't get a fiscal plan and quit arguing over the PFD, we're going to have the same thing for the next 20 years. That's the bottom line. It's all going to stem around having a fiscal plan that we can live with, and clearly having a static PFD that Alaskans can depend on. And it's not something that we're fighting over every year, is going to be a critical component of that and moving the state forward. So, yes.
Heath Smith: Well, I think that a standalone piece of legislation on that would be very difficult to pass. One, because there is no fiscal plan in place to support that finding, and so it's going to have to be a holistic approach in relationship to how, what we got for revenues, what our expenses are, what we're going to do to incentivize private sector, you know, investment and bring in more money to pay for those services by way of whatever can't be covered, what is currently being spent from the permanent fund dividend, right? So yes, I will support getting it done because that's part of my frustration. Why I'm running is that we have no fiscal plan, and part of that encompasses not knowing what we're doing with the permanent fund dividend. So, if that's just going to continue year to year, it's just going to create the uncertainty and this idea that ‘well, we're at whatever whim the Legislature chooses that we're at.’ So yes, I support legislation finally putting that to bed, and what that's going to look like really depends. And again, I want to be on a path back to a statutory PFD, but that cannot happen if we don't have a plan and if we're not making sure that we're doing the right things to get new revenues, like $800 million from a natural gas pipeline.
Carrie Harris: Hey, well, I am the full PFD supporter here, and I would introduce amendments to every bill to include the full statutory PFD in there, and I would also introduce a resolution to allow the people to vote on it, because again, there's 60 to 70% of our population says they want the full PFD, and when the PFD hits the budget reserve account, you take the people's half of it out, and you make your budget with what's left.
Michael Dukes, Peninsula Radio Group: Quick follow up on that because what he said it is a single subject bill, that's a tough thing. So, let's narrow the question down. A constitutional amendment can also, can only be a single subject bill. So, would each of you support a constitutional amendment to adjust the PFD to your point of view, a full PFD or a shortened PFD or a mid 50-50? Would each of you support a constitutional amendment to enshrine that so that the Alaskan people can have a voice in it with their vote?
Louise Stutes: No, I will not. I will not support a constitutional amendment for that. I don't think that the PFD belongs in the constitution. I would support having, just as Carrie said, how it first came about with the PFD and what they determined the statutory amount would be was they went to communities and they had community groups come together and talk about what they wanted, and then somebody from every one of those communities came together, and that's how they determined it. I'm all about involving the public. I am not about putting it in the constitution.
Heath Smith: I think putting it in the constitution, there is a public process to make that happen. So it would have to be voted on to be constitutionalized. So, I will say this: is that the only way that this is taken out of the Legislature's hands and settled for good is if it is constitutionalized. And so that's what people want to resolve. They don't want to revisit this. And if we're looking to put it to bed, then that is probably the only vehicle that puts it to bed. But there's a process to get there, and there is that public process that you will be able to hash that out. But again, it has to be part of a comprehensive fiscal plan that can make the case for it or not.
Carrie Harris: Votes are very scary for the Legislature, aren't they? Allowing the public to vote on this, saying regardless of what the budget is, allowing the public to vote on it. Yes, I will introduce a resolution to allow the public to vote for the full statutory PFD.
Delcenia Cosman, Homer Independent Press: On November 3, Alaskans will decide whether to repeal election reforms that voters approved in 2020, the open primary, ranked choice general elections and the campaign finance disclosure rules. A yes vote will throw out all three of these. A no vote will maintain them. Do you support ballot measure two, and why or why not?
Heath Smith: Thanks. Well, this is kind of a catch 22, right? I mean, all of us are registered Republicans, so if it weren't for ranked choice, maybe only one of us would be here, right? But I mean, I think that we can see after this experiment over the last four years or six, whatever it is, that there's some problems with the system, and I mean, we saw people wanted choice…We all know why you like it and why you don't like it. That doesn't need to be relitigated here. I think that it has shown why it is not the superior method to electing our officials. And so, I'm going to vote yes to repeal. And I think the nail in the coffin on that was when Tom Begich pulled out of the governor's race, so that tells you everything you need to know about why it doesn't really work as it's been reported.
Carrie Harris: There's a lot of gaming in this system. I don't support it currently. I'm not going to vote against, I'm not going to vote against number two, simply because I think, well, I don't like the campaign finance part of the bill. But I think the election reform should happen. It just should happen differently. I would prefer one vote, not four.
Louise Stutes: I support ranked choice voting. I think that it puts the choice in the hands of the people. In order for anybody to be in office, you have to have 50% plus one vote of the population. It takes the control away from the party and gives it to the people, and I think that's critical. In this particular case, it isn't just about ranked choice voting-it's about dark money. There are a lot of other issues that are concerning in this particular legislation, and so I am going to vote no in order to repeal ranked choice voting.
Homer Chamber of Commerce: Next question is about the marine highway system. The state now has moved forward with construction of a replacement for the Tustumena, which provides critical ferry service to communities throughout Southwest Alaska. This represents a major investment in the future for the Alaska Maritime Highway System. Looking beyond the Tustumena replacement, what do you believe should be the state's next priority for the marine highway system, and what changes would you support to provide a more reliable and financially stable ferry service to the coastal communities of District C?
Carrie Harris: I think it's really, I'm really glad we got some more federal money for this, but I think it's really important, and it's not talked about enough. I think it's really important to understand that an uninhabited area is an undefended area. Coastal communities depend on these ferries. If we do not have them, if we do not have a good marine highway system, then people leave because they have to, we have to get supplies in. We have to be able to travel, and if that is limited, then people leave. So, I support fully funding the ferry system and adding more routes.
Louise Stutes: Well, if you know me, you know I'm a ferry supporter. When I first came into office, when, let me rephrase that. When our current administration first came into office, his number one job was to get rid of the marine highway system, whether you know it or not. That is why his DOT commissioner took the job. That was the deal they made. We need our marine highway system, and they call it a highway system for a good reason. We have a new Tustumena being built, and right after that, the anticipation is a second mainliner being built. We need to service our rural communities. We need to know that we have dependable transportation. All of our vessels, they haven't been maintained. Look at some of our docks. Look at what just happened down in Skagway. We need to rebuild that system. Interestingly enough, in our transportation committee, it was discovered that the military depends heavily on the marine highway system. We had one of the officers from the base up in Fairbanks come and say, ‘If there's ever a disaster, they will be depending on our marine highway system.’ So I think that we have got to pay attention. We have got to put some state dollars in there. We are using federal dollars for state operations of the marine highway system. Those should be state dollars, and we should be using our federal dollars for capital improvements to that marine highway system.
Heath Smith: Yeah, I think that you know we have Seldovia across the bay, we have Kodiak, we have Cordova that depend heavily on the marine highway system, and you know that service goes dark for three and a half, four months for some of those folks, and that's a big deal. So, we need a ferry system that is dependable and year-round for these people. Cordova, I was talking to them, and they are just up in arms because how do they transport their kids for high school sports? They have to go from the ferry system to flying, and if you think that's cheap, go check the airline prices out of Homer, and we're on the road system, you know. And so I was in Kodiak, and I was talking to somebody. He said, ‘Yep, they canceled a sailing because one person did not show up.’ One person shut the whole thing down, and so we need a more robust system that provides the security and dependence that these coastal communities really have earned. They're part of the state, and I agree that we need year-round, we need to put some state dollars there. But then this comes back to like, well, where are those state dollars going to come from? Well, maybe some new revenue, like an $800 million a year in Alaska, you know, AKLNG pipeline.
Homer Chamber of Commerce: The Homer harbor expansion is moving through the federal Army Corps of Engineer process, and completing the project will eventually require significant local, state, and federal investment. What role should the state of Alaska play in funding the harbor expansion plan, and what criteria would you use when deciding among major harbor, road, ferry, and airport, and other infrastructure projects throughout our district?
Louise Stutes: Well, I happen to have a conversation with the harbormaster here, and we can start by increasing the harbor grant fund, which is now $5 million. Let's increase it to $10 million. That would be a good start. I worked with our Cordova, the city of Cordova, and they have a new harbor. It's beautiful. There, we can get grants. There are grants available. I think it's critical. Our coastal communities need our harbors for sustainability. That's part of our economic driver, and so I believe totally in it. I've been effective in Cordova with the harbor. I've been effective in Seward with their new dock that they have there, so it's a matter of working with your legislator and moving forward. There's availability of funds, and you just gotta find them.
Heath Smith: Well, interestingly, I was on the city council when we really started moving this forward, and so I'm a full supporter of that project, and understand the economic benefits that are going to happen to this community as a result of that. I was talking to the harbor master myself, just kind of catching up, and the public review, public comment period is closed. He said they only got like 30 some comments for that project, which I thought was kind of low. But anyway, the [U.S. Army] Corps is going to send their recommendation on to the Corps’ back in D.C. to the chief back there, and then they expect that a determination on whether to proceed will happen in November, and then they go into the next phase, and so it's exciting. And I think that you know we have the, what is it, the municipal harbor facilities grant fund with the state, and it has been sorely underfunded over time. When these municipalities inherited these harbors from the state, there was some expectation that the state would continue to help on providing these grants to help upgrade them, sustain them, and do the right things. They have not done that very much over the course of the last several years, so, and in fact there was some that were amended to be put in there this year that got shot down, and you know, it was it was like 10, almost $15 million. Almost 10, it was 15 and a half, 10 and a half million dollars, and then another amendment ballooned it to even more, almost $30 million, and then it was voted down. So, if the Legislature is not going to support the harbors, then that's problematic.
Carrie Harris: The Legislature should absolutely be supporting this harbor. This is an awesome project, and we should have state support on it. We should be, the harbors should be, the harbors, the marine highway system, it should be taking funds just like the highway department does. It should be there. And we can find it. I'm like the cheapest person on earth, I can find the money.
Homer Chamber of Commerce: Members of the Legislature have the responsibility of voting in joint session on many of the governor's appointments to state boards, commissions, and senior positions. What criteria would you use when deciding whether to confirm an appointee, and particularly to bodies such as board of fisheries, and where does and where decisions can significantly [have] economic impacts on this district?
Heath Smith: Well, that's a serious process because those recommendations are being forwarded to us to make sure that we do our due diligence to make sure that these people one are qualified, and committed and capable of acting in unbiased and objective ways. And so that means that there's a level of fairness that's committed to the process, and that their decision making will not be tainted in any way by any industry, special interest group, the list goes on, right? And so, I take that very seriously in that sense, and so those are going to be the qualifications that I'm going to look for as we look forward to appointing board members or commission members.
Carrie Harris: There's one qualification that matters. There's one special interest group that matters, and it's the people. If they can't represent the people. I don't want them there.
Louise Stutes: Thank you. I think it's a matter of doing your homework. You need to talk to every person that is in the process of being appointed. You need to talk to their communities. You need to talk to the people that they have had dealings with. It's a matter of doing your homework, and I do my homework. That's why we've had commissioners and appointees that have not been appointed, and I think that the Legislature is pretty cautious about their vetting of appointees.
Delcenia Cosman (Homer Independent Press): I have a follow up regarding education funding. Heath, I believe you mentioned something about reforming the Base Student Allocation if needed, or at least looking at if that was something that was necessary. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Do you support BSA reform, and how do you also support inflation proofing the BSA?
Heath Smith: Well, as much as we don't want to admit it, inflation is a real thing, right? And so, there's costs associated with that need to be accounted for. Yes, I think that, and I think the Legislature has looked at the BSA. It's not like they haven't considered that there might be some problematic components to that. So, I think that should be looked at. I really do. You know, Chapman, they lost almost 60 kids this year. What do you think that's going to do to their BSA next year? Do you think the cost of running that facility has gone down? Probably not. So that is an over penalization for a small school like that to lose that kind of population then expect that they're going to be able to run a facility, brick and mortar like that without some kind of fudge factor. And so maybe the facility side of the BSA needs to be stripped out and handled separately. But I think that we need to start getting creative, and that we can't just accept things as they are in relationship to ‘oh this is the way it's always been done.’ And you know our kids absolutely have to come first. Education is a foundational responsibility of government, and we need to be successful there. So, I'm open to looking at the BSA and seeing where we can improve it and how it gets us the best outcome.
Carrie Harris: I think we should prioritize the classroom, and I think we can give the BSA a little bump by removing the overhead.
Louise Stutes: Yes, I am a supporter of inflation-proofing the BSA. I think it's important. I think once again you will alleviate some of the argument that we have over how much are we going to give them? How are we going to do it? Do we give it to the BSA or do we give it to student transportation? If we inflation-proof it, that at least helps some, somewhat with the pink slips. It does. I'd like to, frankly, I'd like to see education forward funded, which would really help with the pink slips. I think that it would really take a lot of pressure off of what exists. I think again, as I've said, our education is, these kids are our resource, they deserve the best. And we need to do what we have to do to assure families that they have that opportunity, whether it be through charter schools, homeschools, or brick-and-mortar schools, they're not a one-size-fits-all. Some kids do really well homeschooled; other kids don't do so well, and they do better in brick-and-mortar schools. We owe that to our kids, absolutely.
Michael Dukes, Peninsula Radio Group: I was going to ask another question, but this has brought this to the forefront of my mind. There was an article in the New York Times here a couple weeks ago talking about the number of kids and the decline in enrollment nationwide. This is not strictly an Alaska problem, and a lot of it has to do with birth rates and other things. But here in Alaska, obviously, we've got an outmigration problem. Our birth rate is 1.9, which is one of the higher ones in the country, but still underneath the replacement rate, meaning we've got fewer kids, and it's projected, as it's declined over the last 10 years, is projected to decline even more. I understand we want to fund schools. I'm a full supporter of funding schools and education. But as those numbers continue to decline, as Heath just talked about, when 60 kids leave a school, or 3% or 5%, what is the plan from the state to try and help communities or districts solidify, consolidate down, and make the most of that money without trying to keep more spaces open that are actually needed? I mean, what is the plan from each of you to make that work? Because eventually we're in a crunch, and it's, again it's nationwide. How are we going to consolidate down and give them the best while still being able to live within those means of having to have a smaller footprint?
Carrie Harris: When we have kids leave, we make it smaller. That's how it works. Going forward, it's not going to work for today, but going forward, when you're building schools, when you're building new schools, you build those schools to be able to handle the population of students in a 20-mile radius. Neighborhood schools are nice, but they're expensive.
Louise Stutes: I think that's happening right now. I think that's happening right now, and I think each community that is facing it, they're not having fun doing it, closing their schools. But that's, they have to determine that. I don't believe that the state should be stepping in. I think that that's a local issue…You have a school board that can address that. I don't believe that that's where the state should be.
Heath Smith: Yeah, the revenues are going to kind of drive some of those discussions, and those revenues are going to be based on the population of students you have. Kodiak right now is talking about consolidating another one of their schools. This school district has now consolidated four, and there's talk of maybe Paul Banks happening, where I went to elementary school. I still have a little picture on the mural down there in the back, anyway. But the thing is, is that we become emotionally attached to certain things over time, and there's nothing wrong with that, except it's emotional, and change is never always that comfortable. But we have to be willing to roll with that. When I went to high school and what is now the middle school, we were crammed in there. It was like sardines moving through the hallways. We needed a bigger space, and we advocated for that. I was on, I was on the Ahoy, it was our little newspaper, and that was one of the things we wrote about a lot. And so they got this about a year or two after I graduated. And part of the projections were, that it was going, that our student population was going to expand. They even built that so they could expand off the wings. And guess what? The enrollment up there is the same as it was in 1984 when I graduated. So the thing is, is that things change. There's no real predictors out there, but we have to be able to respond to those changing conditions and accept the realities that surround those. So I agree with Louise and the state, I mean that's not as much up to them, as much as up to the local school districts to handle those types of issues.
Homer Chamber of Commerce: The Alaska Legislature has increasingly operated through multi-partisan coalitions. Would you be willing to join a Senate majority that included Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, if you believe doing so would give Senate District C greater influence over legislation, committee assignments, and the state budget? And what principles or issues would you be unwilling to compromise in order to join such a majority?
Louise Stutes: Absolutely, that's what has guided me my last 10 years being part of a bipartisan coalition. I always look and see where can I go to be the most effective for my district. That's my job. My job is to represent my district and bring the bacon home. So I'm going to go absolutely to wherever I am going to be the most effective and can work the most collaboratively with my coworkers for the benefit of my district. That's how I operate. That's how I have operated for 10 years, and that's why I've been as successful as I've been.
Heath Smith: Well, I will say bacon smells really good, and it tastes even better. But that cannot come at the cost of the health and welfare of the entire state. So, while I recognize the importance of representing my district, I also recognize the importance of representing this state, and you know nobody in the valley is going to look out for our interests. So, I have to do that. There's no doubt about that, but I will work with anybody and everybody that is willing to move this state forward. I should not have to join a caucus outside of my own in order to do that, and that's just the reality of it. You know, the Republicans have been the elected majority in Juneau for a good number of years. How many Democrats raise their hands and say, "I'll join that majority"? So I understand that this works one way very well, but it hasn't really worked the other way, and that's just state and fact. I'm not against working with, like I said, party doesn't matter in relationship to doing what's in the best interest of this state. So, I'm willing to work across whatever party line, but I'm a Republican, and so I'm not going to do anything that the Democrats wouldn't expect of themselves, and that’s stick with my caucus. But I will work with anybody and everybody, and that's a promise, to move this state forward.
Carrie Harris: Well, I'm a conservative. I'm a Republican. I won't work with anybody and everybody to move the state forward. I will not sacrifice my constituents. Period. If it's a good bill, where it's good for my constituents, where they say ‘we want this,’ I'll vote for it. If they say no, everybody else, it's a no.
Audience member question: The Kenai Peninsula Borough is growing its population of seniors while the population of youth declines. The influx of retirees has caused both a housing and medical crunch. How would you solve this?
Heath Smith: That's a great question because there is the population not only has been, but is projected to even grow more, and this has been part of the reason that our hospital has tried to produce and provide services on a different level. But more to Nona's question, I mean, a lot of this has to do with transportation, I think, and the mobility of an older generation and how they can get to the services that are required in order for them to continue to have a quality of life that is important. And so I think there are grants out there to help provide some transportation services, and we need to make sure that there's definitely, that we're helping facilitate that where we can. And you know even Kodiak has a transportation system, so that's great. But the Kenai Peninsula needs more than one, that's expanded and more dependable for that, for those folks that have really laid the groundwork for this generation.
Carrie Harris: I don't like getting older at all. I'm not liking the aches and pains. I'm not liking the, a little bit of unsteadiness now and then at all. Me and ice have fought big time. We are getting older here, and that sucks. It beats the alternative. But I believe, you know, we do need more patient care, and there is a way that I think that we can encourage more younger people to come through property taxes if we were to have people pay property taxes for 20 years and then they would be eliminated. That would save people from, that would save older people from worrying about whether their property taxes is going to exceed what they're bringing in, but it would also encourage people, younger people, to put down roots because they know their taxes would be over within 20 years. Now that is not going to come and close up shop and end property taxes because people will develop more if we do that. And I also believe we need more doctors, and we need to get rid of that, it’s on the tip of my tongue, that non-competitive agreement, the certificate. Yeah, the certificate of need, that needs to go.
Louise Stutes: Well, certainly a transportation system for our seniors is critical to our communities, and as is affordable housing, we need affordable housing one way or the other. And what's interesting now is I'm hearing and I'm seeing a lot of multifamily units being built for seniors, and that would be a delightful thing to see here, because what it does, it also gives single seniors companionship. They have neighbors right there. They feel safe. So, I think that this again boils down to affordable housing, whether it be through property taxes, whether it be from a rental unit that is a portion of a, of a multifamily unit that is being built and a safe transportation system, I think is great. And the other thing I'd really like to see, which has not been originally come about yet, is I would like to see a single payer type of medical situation in this state, so that you don't have a problem, if you're on Medicare, finding a doctor because you get, they get paid the same thing as they would from a private insurance company on their Medicare. And I think that's critical, a single payer for your medical.
Homer Chamber of Commerce: Getting close end of our time, so I'm going to, one more question to squeeze in here. But if we can limit your responses to 60 seconds on this one, so then we can get to our closing statements. But, throughout this forum, there have been several issues where you and your opponents generally agree. What is one significant issue where you believe your position differs from the other candidates in this race, and why do you believe your approach would better serve the residents of this district?
Carrie Harris: Okay, that's an easy one. Trawl, I'm going to eliminate it. We're done. It's done. Just get rid of it. Neither one of my opponents want to do that. They want to follow science, that's closed rivers.
Louise Stutes: I think I would have to say I differ from the other two on our education funding. I am truly, truly a supporter of fully funding our education system and getting it back on an even keel. It has suffered in the last, this last eight years. We've had vetoes and everything else. We need to prop up our education system for our kids.
Heath Smith: Well, largely, I look at what's occurred over the last decade, and I don't think a whole lot of people feel real comfortable about the course that we're on. And you know, my opponent has been in the Legislature for 12 years. She's participated in the leadership, the leading caucus. She's held powerful positions in the Legislature, and at some point, where does the accountability come in? So, in my mind, and I don't give Senator, or well, he's Governor Dunleavy. He was a senator at one point. I don't give him a pass. I want to be very clear about that. I think that whoever we choose as a governor next needs to be somebody committed to a working relationship with our Legislature. That is absolutely a must. And my commitment is to make sure that we work with them, not find a reason to send them something we know they're going to thumbs down. We need to work that stuff out, and that's what true leaders do: is they find a path forward, they don't make excuses.
Closing statements, one minute each:
Louise Stutes: I only had one minute, so I made some notes. But I, you know, I think we all need to remember, it takes 21 and 11 to get anything done in the Legislature. You can go in there with the best of intentions, but if you don't have 21 votes in the House and 11 votes in the Senate, not going to happen. Success sometimes can be measured by what didn't happen. For eight years, our bipartisan coalition stood against our governors' vetoes and cuts, all while supporting education and other critical services. We were also very honest with Alaskans about our finances, needing new revenue and our ability to pay a full PFD. That's what true leadership does, and I'm proud of that. You ask why you should vote for me. I'm the only candidate with a record of delivering for my district. I've done well for Kodiak, Cordova, and Seward, and I would bring that same effectiveness to Homer and the Kenai lower, the lower Kenai and Homer area as your senator. I have demonstrated I'm a leader and not a follower. I do not take my marching orders from a political party. I take them from you, my constituents. I'm honest. I call a spade a spade, and I keep my word. I submit to you, voters, that my experience and ability to work collaboratively and focus on my constituents make me the best candidate. I'd be honored by your vote, and I'm happy to say that I have been endorsed by the [House] District #5 -that's Kodiak, Cordova, and Seward, Republican Party.
Heath Smith: Well, I'm just a small town boy looking to make a better Alaska, and that's ultimately what's in my heart. You know, I've grown up here. Like I said, my family has been born here. I'm interested in what is to come, and I'm not so impressed by what has happened. And so, if leadership gets us the kind of outcomes that we expect, then what are the outcomes that sit at our doorstep today? And I think that is failed leadership. So I'm ready to step up. And I heard the same thing from Senator Stevens, ‘Well, it takes 11 votes.’ I was like, okay, these canned answers are not enough anymore. I want to know how you're going to get those 10 other votes, and that's what I'm going to be interested in in the Senate. I'll be one. I need to find 10 others, and that means work. That doesn't mean saying, ‘Well, you know, it's tough, it's hard.’ I want to know how we're going to find those other 10, and that's what I'm committing to do.
Carrie Harris: Well, I am committed to representing my constituents, I'll fight for you in every way. And there's one special interest group sitting here. It's you guys. You're the only special interest group that matters, and your vote is the only one that matters.
