Legislators Vote No To Agriculture Department

Details

Category: News

Created on Thursday, 20 March 2025 15:18

Hits: 441

By JAMES BROOKS Alaska Beacon

Alaska will remain one of two states without a cabinet-level Department of Agriculture, at least for the time being.

On Wednesday, the Alaska Legislature voted 32-28 to deny an executive order from Gov. Mike Dunleavy that would have created the department. Executive orders automatically take effect unless the Legislature, meeting in joint session, passes a resolution blocking them. 

The vote was largely along caucus lines, with members of the multipartisan House and Senate majorities voting in favor of the disapproval motion and members of the Republican House and Senate minorities voting against it.

“It was a fairly close vote, but in the end, I think we made the right decision,” said Senate President Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak.

The Dunleavy administration has been working to promote in-state agriculture under the banner of “food security” since the COVID-19 pandemic emergency and a separate West Coast dock strike threatened to limit food imports to Alaska.

Alaska imports about 95% of its food.

Establishing a cabinet-level agricultural department, Dunleavy officials said, wouldn’t directly aid agriculture, but it would create the framework for future improvements and bring greater attention to a sector of the state economy that’s currently overshadowed by oil and gas development.

A cabinet-level agricultural department was the No. 1 priority of the state’s food strategy task force and was endorsed by farmers and farm organizations across the state. 

But on Wednesday, a variety of legislators said they were rejecting the governor’s proposal because he used an executive order, rather than legislation.

Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, was among the legislators who said they were worried about protecting legislative prerogatives. An executive order can’t be amended, meaning lawmakers were presented with a take-it-or-leave it proposal written as the governor wished.

“While the public had an opportunity to testify on the (executive order), there was no opportunity for the public to testify about what they might want to see in a new department that’s being created,” Wielechowski said.

Sen. Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel, said he would like to see a “food security” effort acknowledge Alaska’s natural resources, including berries, birds, caribou, moose and salmon.

“We should be looking at how we manage those resources and access to those resources,” he said. “Let’s not only look at the (Matanuska-Susitna) Valley. Let’s look at all of the state of Alaska.”

Other lawmakers objected to the proposal’s cost; initial estimates suggested that creating the department would add $2.7 million more per year to the state budget, with higher costs possible in subsequent years.

Later estimates suggested the department could be created at no additional cost.

Sen. Jesse Bjorkman, R-Nikiski, said he doesn’t believe that estimate.

“There’s no free lunch,” he said.

Supporters of the governor’s executive order noted that the Alaska House last week passed a bill that would increase education spending by $272 million per year. The Alaska Senate is considering the revival of a pension program for public employees.

In comparison, said Senate Minority Leader Mike Shower, R-Wasilla, the cost of an agricultural department is inconsequential. 

“I’ve never seen this building be too worried about those kinds of numbers,” he said, referring to the cost of the proposed department.

Sen. Shelley Hughes, R-Palmer, has been a key member of the state’s food security task force and an advocate of the executive order.

Alaska imports about $3 billion of food annually, she said. 

“Some of the money we’re sending out of state could be circulating here,” she said, adding that exports are also a possibility if agriculture grows enough. “When you bring in new dollars from outside … that’s how you grow your economy, right?”

Creating the department through legislation will take time, Hughes said, and it’s possible that lawmakers won’t have enough time to pass a bill.

“There’s no assurance that we get all the way through,” she said.

“The reason why the executive order, though, is better than the bill, in my opinion, is because there would be no delay to the farmers,” she said. “We’re approaching the growing season, and they’re busy right now preparing.”

“We can take one vote today, and they can get to work, and we can move on and work on other priorities,” she said.

Earlier in the legislative session, support for the governor’s proposal appeared high, so much that a House committee voted against advancing the disapproval motion.

Prior editions of the Legislature have simply declined to meet in joint session when presented with an executive order they supported, but this year, legislative attorneys said the meeting was required, not optional.

“I know that we actually had the votes as of a week ago,” Hughes said after the vote, “and if I didn’t hear the remarks about their willingness to hear a bill, I’d be incredibly disappointed.”

During floor debates, Shower suggested that some legislators voted to kill the executive order specifically to deny Dunleavy “a win.”

Hughes said she doesn’t know for sure why the order failed but echoed Shower’s reasoning.

“I might be wrong, but I kind of see this as DDS — Dunleavy Derangement Syndrome — and you know, it’s really unfortunate,” she said.

Wielechowski and Stevens both said that opposition to the governor “had nothing to do” with their votes against the proposal.

“I think it just makes a lot of sense … allowing us to have hearings,” Stevens said.

Bills creating an agriculture department have already been introduced in the House and Senate, with the Senate version scheduled for a hearing next week, Senate Majority Leader Cathy Giessel said after the vote.

Hughes urged speedy action.

“Am I going to put all my stakes in a bill going through quickly? No, but I think one should,” Hughes said. “I think one should. It should not drag into next year. They need to hear the bill. They need to move it through.”

––––––––––––––––––

https://alaskabeacon.com/james-brooks

HOW THEY VOTED

A “yes” vote was against creating the department by executive order. A “no” vote was in favor of the executive order.

In favor

*Jesse Bjorkman, R-Nikiski

Robyn Niayuq Burke, D-Utqiagvik

Ashley Carrick, D-Fairbanks

*Matt Claman, D-Anchorage

Maxine Dibert, D-Fairbanks

*Forrest Dunbar, D-Anchorage

Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham

Ted Eischeid, D-Anchorage

Zack Fields, D-Anchorage

Neal Foster, D-Nome 

Alyse Galvin, I-Anchorage

*Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage

*Elvi Gray-Jackson, D-Anchorage

Carolyn Hall, D-Anchorage

Sara Hannan, D-Juneau

Rebecca Himschoot, I-Sitka

*Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel

Ky Holland, I-Anchorage

Andy Josephson, D-Anchorage

*Scott Kawasaki, D-Fairbanks

*Jesse Kiehl, D-Juneau

Donna Mears, D-Anchorage

*Kelly Merrick, R-Eagle River

Genevieve Mina, D-Anchorage 

*Donny Olson, D-Golovin

Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage

*Bert Stedman, R-Sitka

*Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak

Andi Story, D-Juneau

Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak

*Löki Tobin, D-Anchorage

*Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage

Against

Jamie Allard, R-Eagle River

Jeremy Bynum, R-Ketchikan

Mia Costello, R-Anchorage

Julie Coulombe, R-Anchorage

*Mike Cronk, R-Tok

Bill Elam, R-Nikiski

Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage

*Shelley Hughes, R-Palmer

Nellie Unangiq Jimmie, D-Bethel

DeLena Johnson, R-Palmer

*James Kaufman, R-Anchorage

Chuck Kopp, R-Anchorage

Kevin McCabe, R-Big Lake

Elexie Moore, R-Wasilla

*Robert Myers, R-North Pole

David Nelson, R-Anchorage 

Mike Prax, R-North Pole

George Rauscher, R-Sutton

Justin Ruffridge, R-Soldotna

Dan Saddler, R-Eagle River

Rebecca Schwanke, R-Glennallen

*Mike Shower, R-Wasilla

Will Stapp, R-Fairbanks

Cathy Tilton, R-Wasilla

Frank Tomaszewski, R-Fairbanks

Jubilee Underwood, R-Wasilla

Sarah Vance, R-Homer

*Robert Yundt, R-Wasilla

*senator

• < Prev
• Next >