I hate to be the Baby Ruth
in the punchbowl at the celebration over John McCain’s choice for a
running mate, but since it’s my job to follow these things, I’ve got to
highlight one issue where Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has aligned with the
GOP candidate that makes many conservatives cringe: global
warming.

Gov. Palin signed an administrative order last September that created the Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet.
Her order is perhaps not as strident on greenhouse gas emissions as
some other governors, but she still buys into the argument that GHGs
must be reduced.

Unfortunately her Department of Environmental Conservation hired the Center for Climate Strategies
as their climate commission management team. I requested documents
pertaining to the CCS hire from DEC and was sent some records, but
others were identified as “deliberative” and therefore withheld from
me, which officials said was allowed under state law. I still have my
doubts, because other records sent to me appeared to fall into that
category but were sent anyway. Regardless, the withholding of several
documents with regard to an issue that does not fall under
“highly-sensitive” or “security-related” undermines the governor’s reputation for greater government transparency.

As for CCS, it all began last August when DEC’s Tom Chapple (now working in the private sector) reached out to CCS’s executive director
(PDF) Tom Peterson, “to discuss the opportunities and the possibility
of CCS interest in helping Alaska.” In fact, it appears that Chapple
was the driving force behind the state’s hiring of the
Pennsylvania-based advocacy group, to manage Alaska’s development of
their greenhouse gas emissions policy.

Chapple learned some about CCS from the Washington Dept. of Ecology’s Janice Adair — as his handwritten notes show
(PDF) – which include a discussion about how to work out a sole source
contract for CCS, and that “some states have paid some, some have paid
nothing” (Washington state paid CCS $200,000). Other notes (PDF) from a conference call, presumably that included Ken Colburn
of CCS, show that the typical CCS cookie-cutter process was explained,
and that as elsewhere CCS would handle everything, once hired:
Meetings, scheduling, technical information, Web site, preparation of
pre-meeting documents, meeting minutes, etc. Oh, and we can’t forget
CCS’s own grant-funding service.

In the meantime Gov. Palin signed her administrative order on Sept. 14, 2007.

A month later negotiations between Chapple of DEC and CCS
representatives intensified, as they began to discuss what the typical
CCS “process memo” would contain. A draft
(PDF) of the agreement said, “Although additional research may be
needed to help the public and policymakers better understand Alaska’s
changing climate and how to anticipate and respond to its effects, the
time for climate debate is over; it is now time for climate action.”
Also, the document states on page 13 clearly what is off-limits:
“Participants will not debate the science of climate change….”
Private funders are identified as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Marisla Foundation, the Energy Foundation, and others. The opening negotiating cost (PDF, see second page) for the process was set at $480,000.

As if total control over the process wasn’t enough for CCS either, though, there’s this: CCS recommended who would be appointed
(PDF) to the climate commission. Read the list and note how strongly
the representation is that they want from environmentalism and
government. Meanwhile private business gets short shrift, as do climate
scientists, taxpayer activists, property rights activists, and other
protectors of individual rights.

On November 6, 2007 the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet held its third meeting, in which CCS was allowed to make the case (PDF) for being hired as its management consultant. Ken Colburn, in his PowerPoint presentation
(PDF), promoted CCS’s nonsensical economic analysis from Arizona
(285,000 new jobs and $5.5 billion in net savings to the state!) and
New Mexico ($2.1 billion in savings to the state). As I’ve reported in the past, those claims by CCS have been thoroughly debunked.

But unsurprisingly the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner swallowed the Colburn claims
(PDF), unchallenged. The newspaper reported that Larry Hartig, Palin’s
commissioner of environmental conservation, expressed interest in CCS:
“If it’s not them, we should do something similar to that.” Also,
Colburn explained that CCS’s services typically cost about $500,000,
“but states generally pay only about 10 percent of the cost,” the News-Miner reported. “CCS covers the rest with funding from various foundations” – that is, Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

Later in November DEC’s Chapple sent out a plea
(PDF) – and forwarded to Colburn — to various state departments asking
for help “in shaping up the scope of work for the proposed contract
with (CCS).” The message was met with enthusiasm from Colburn: “This is
a remarkable email, carrying precisely the right content and precisely
the right tone.” Translation: “I won’t stop kissing your rump until you
hire us.” More negotiations and contract details were addressed (PDF) in a conference call Nov. 29.

In early December 2007 DEC’s Hartig, with Chapple and Colburn in the loop, considered engaging the National Commission on Energy Policy (PDF) to help on climate adaptation strategies. NCEP is funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, which is also paying the total cost for Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter’s climate and energy policy advisers.

As the February meeting approached in which CCS would be formally approved as manager by the Sub-Cabinet, questions were raised
(PDF) about why the cost for Alaska’s portion of CCS’s services rose
from $49,000 to $180,000. No other documents were provided to me that
addressed this situation and its resolution, but the final contract
(PDF) shows that the state is indeed contributing the $180,000.
However, the full budget (see pages 36-37 of the contract) for the
process is double what any of these have cost in other states:
$972,196. This could be attributed to the distance of the state from
the lower 48, but it’s hard to believe that could account for that
great an increase in the average CCS budget.

As for the holes in my story, Alaska DEC’s Gary Mendivil sent a letter with the documents that were provided, but also explained that some records were withheld
(PDF) from me. My original request was received by DEC on Dec. 27,
2007, and according to an email from Mendivil on Feb. 1, 2008, he “was
told that the stack of records that was sent to the (State of Alaska)
attorney for review was four inches thick….” The CD containing
records was mailed to me on Feb. 20 (according to DEC’s response
letter), and the documents therein did not even measure a half-inch,
much less anything close to four inches. Even with the documents they listed as withheld (PDF), it would be hard to believe they could measure four inches.

When asked why any records needed to be withheld in the first
place, Mendivil provided a minimal explanation: “We’ve claimed a
privilege under AS 40.25.120(a)(4) (“records required to be kept
confidential by a federal law or regulation or by state law”).” Not
satisfied, I asked which federal or state laws DEC was citing to
justify keeping a lid on certain records. His answer:

“The Alaska Supreme Court has adopted the common law
recognition of a deliberative process privilege. Because Alaska’s
statutory definition of “state law” encompasses common law as well as
positive law, the Alaska Supreme Court has held that the deliberative
process privilege is one of the judicially recognized state law
exceptions to public access under the public records act. This is the
privilege that the State has claimed on certain documents identified on
the privilege log that was most recently given to you. In other words,
the documents withheld as “deliberative process” show the mental
processes of government decision makers, and are thereby protected from
disclosure.”

If you review the list of withheld records, and compare it to the documents DEC did
provide, you might wonder what criteria they used to determine
“deliberative” vs. non-deliberative. It seems clear that many of the
records they did supply could have also fallen under “deliberative” status as well.

I would say it’s pretty odd that the State of Alaska could
withhold documents from the public about a commission that will go a
long way towards influencing its policies on energy, environment,
property rights, taxes, the state budget, land use, education, and just
about every other public policy area. The DEC has not given a clear
explanation why, nor clearly cited a law that allows them to make a
“deliberation” exception. And even if they could, what possible reason
would they have to do so when there are no national or state security
issues at stake, or any other sensitive issues?

DEC’s decision, as has been the case in other states where CCS is working,
undermines the claim in their contracts and process memos that their
“process is fully transparent.” There is no clear indication that Gov.
Palin is behind these DEC decisions – on the face it looks like all she
has done is sign the administrative order creating the Sub-Cabinet,
then depended on her environmental agency leaders (Chapple and Hartig)
to make the rest of the decisions. But the way this has played out sure
does foul up her reputation as a reformer in pursuit of greater
government transparency.

Cross-posted at Cooler Heads.