Special session priorities need to be rethought

The Alaska Legislature was gaveled into special session Wednesday by order of Gov. Frank Murkowski. This special session is the ninth one in the last 11 years, which is cause, at least, for raising the question of just how "special" these extra sessions are.

It also gives cause to wonder why a perennial favorite of lawmakers is a bill to reduce the length of the legislative session. The argument usually is made on a cost-effectiveness basis. But given the inability of recent legislatures to get the job done in the parameters of a 120-day session, and the regularity of special sessions that cost taxpayers in the neighborhood of $30,000 per day, the argument seems baseless.

This notwithstanding, another special session is upon us. The governor, it seems, was not content to let the question of teacher and public employee pensions go unanswered until lawmakers reconvene for the second half of the regular session in January. Gov. Murkowski has also put a few other items on the Legislature's plate, such as his workers' comp reform bill, but the retirement system overhaul is the biggest part of the puzzle to be solved before legislators can leave Juneau.

On this, Murkowski has the backing of the state Senate, which, as it has in recent years, has played political hardball with the House in an effort to get the other chamber to "toe the line." Bills that should have sailed through committees have been held hostage in exchange for "cooperation" on changes to the pension system.

House members, for their part, have offered the compromise of making the shift from pensions to 401(k)-type retirement plans voluntary. But this has not been enough for the Senate, and Capitol tensions have mounted in recent days.

The governor has made matters worse by adding to a spending bill a provision to send $500,000 of public money to the timber industry to prop up an employee pension system industry officials say is in trouble. Many in the House, some even who share party affiliation with the governor, have cried foul. And rightfully so.

It is a slap in the face to workers who have served over the years to tell them their pension plan is no longer a government priority, while the pension plan of an industry that has contributed heavily to Murkowski over the years is worthy of supporting with public funds. It is troubling, indeed. This governor, it increasingly seems, has no intention of seeking re-election.

Whether the governor gets his way on the retirement system changes, and the money to the timber industry, remains to be seen. By all appearances, it is going to take a substantial amount of compromise to break the deadlock that exists now.

But everyone in the Capitol ought to remember who put them there, and who's footing the $30,000 a day bill to finance their often petty and counterproductive manner of devising public policy.