Spectrum

Privatization Commission fails to produce honest product

The Commission on Privatization and Delivery of Government Services produced a product which, if used, will create a dream situation for some politicians who want to reward their political cronies with lucrative state contracts.

Certain political insiders, and a few legislators, are claiming a slick conquest in the reworking of state government due to the 400-plus subcommittee recommendations and the 20 full committee recommendations to the Legislature and the governor.

This is not what the public deserves. In fact, when one logically views the process used to arrive at such claims it becomes quite clear that most of the recommendations, if enacted, would create a system of political cronyism where a few would profit at the expense of Alaskan taxpayers.

Subcommittees were told by the commissions staff to look for ways to privatize and were told not to do anything else.

State services were proposed for privatization regardless of whether the state could do the function cheaper than by private outsourcing. For example: One subcommittee participant, who happened to be a contractor doing water inspections, put forth an idea to the commission that would have increased those inspection costs by 50 percent over what the state charges now.

Theres also the situation where one of the sub-subcommittees had its report pulled and was disbanded by the co-chair and staff of the commission.

A new handpicked sub-subcommittee was appointed and a substitute report was submitted to the main subcommittee. During this process a call complaining about the report was made by one of the co-chairs to the employer of the original sub-subcommittee. This is not what one would call a fair process or an honest public-inspired report.

Repeatedly, I asked subcommittee members if they had studied the existing privatization practices of the state and had determined whether they were a success or a failure.

They all said they had not done so. I also asked why they were proposing to privatize a certain function which they reported a dismal failure (i.e. Corrections Inmate Education) when it was already privatized.

They said, It seemed like a good idea to us. Moreover I asked many times why they had not tried to determine if the state could save money by performing a certain service. I was told they were instructed to only look at ways to privatize.

Even though the full commission used less than 5 percent of the subcommittees work in their final report, people are going full steam ahead with a number of recommendations that were rejected by the full commission.

This is what certain politicians are now doing in Juneau. They are picking the recommendations that fit their purpose and parading them around as if they were fully thought-out, commission-sanctioned ideas.

From the beginning to the end, I saw conflicts of interest on the commission level and on the subcommittee level.

Contractors and business representatives wanting to profit by delivering state services were afforded every opportunity to get their ideas included in the much-heralded recommendations while a number of state representatives were denied access to parts of the process.

As a result, those employees who provide the services were not able to be a part of the subcommittee process in a substantial and positive way.

In the beginning phase of the process the commission was lectured by the federal government on how it took up the task of privatization. They stressed that it took a long time to do it right. They also put forth, as an important facet, the fact that they did everything they could to insure existing workers werent swept under the rug in a rush to let contractors make a quick profit.

Instead of following such advice, our commission took this advice and swept it under the rug.

Some politicians are about to take some of the commission (or subcommittee) recommendations and use them as stalking horses for their pet legislation.

There are a lot of companies outside and inside Alaska that will claim they can provide state services as well as the state, or even better, while still making a profit. The question I ask here is: Can we afford to hurt working families in Alaska, most likely lose quality in the services we now receive, just so some politicians can reward their political cronies with lucrative state contracts?

Don Valesko , a 45-year resident of Alaska, is the business manager of Public Employees Local 71. He was appointed by the Alaska State AFL-CIO to serve as the only labor representative on the Privatization Commission.