Report on Alaskan Special Legislative Session and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

A special legislative session called by Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy, set to begin on August 2, has brought critical state responsibilities concerning education and food security to the forefront. However, the session is marked by significant political discord between the executive and legislative branches, posing challenges to the achievement of key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

Context of the Special Session

The Governor convened the session to address what he termed “two of the most important responsibilities we have as a state — fixing Alaska’s education system and strengthening our food security system.” Conversely, legislative leaders from the House and Senate have indicated their primary focus will be on overriding recent gubernatorial vetoes, highlighting a fundamental disagreement on priorities and governance.

Advancing SDG 4: Quality Education

The core of the proposed agenda revolves around education policy, directly impacting Alaska’s progress toward SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all.

Governor’s Proposals for Education Reform

Governor Dunleavy has introduced a list of policy proposals intended to address performance and funding issues in K-12 education. These initiatives align with various targets under SDG 4:

• Teacher Recruitment and Retention: Proposed bonuses for teachers address SDG Target 4.c, which focuses on increasing the supply of qualified teachers.
• School Choice and Charter Schools: Proposals for a new charter school authorization process and allowing inter-district enrollment aim to provide alternative educational pathways.
• Literacy Programs: The creation of grants for reading improvement and a new after-school tutoring program directly supports SDG Target 4.6, concerning literacy and numeracy.
• Partnerships for Education: The proposed expansion of a corporate tax credit program for education and a tribal compacting provision, which would allow tribes to oversee local schools, relate to SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) as a means to achieve educational outcomes.

Legislative Priorities and Funding Disputes

The Legislature’s focus presents a contrasting approach to achieving SDG 4, emphasizing the foundational role of stable and adequate funding.

1. Veto Override on Education Funding: A primary legislative goal is to override the Governor’s veto of approximately $50 million from the state’s education budget. Legislators argue that this funding is critical for districts to craft their budgets, reduce class sizes, retain experienced teachers, and avoid plunging schools into financial uncertainty. Senate Education Committee Chair Löki Tobin stated, “The data tells us that when we adequately fund our schools, all the things we talk about wanting to see happen in our classrooms will occur.”
2. Policy vs. Funding: The Governor has indicated a willingness to offer “long-term certainty in funding” contingent on reaching a policy agreement. This has been characterized by legislators as “holding hostage adequately funding our schools,” creating a significant barrier to collaborative progress on SDG 4.
3. Process for Complex Legislation: The proposal for tribal compacting, while potentially advancing educational equity (SDG 10), has been flagged by legislators as too complex for a special session, requiring the extensive public input characteristic of a regular session to ensure its effectiveness and inclusivity.

Addressing SDG 2: Zero Hunger

The special session also includes a focus on strengthening Alaska’s food systems, a direct alignment with SDG 2, which seeks to end hunger and promote sustainable agriculture.

Proposal for a State Department of Agriculture

The Governor is expected to reintroduce an executive order to establish a dedicated agriculture department. This initiative is aimed at bolstering the state’s food security system. However, the proposal faces challenges:

• A similar order was rejected by lawmakers in March in a 32-28 vote.
• Concerns were raised regarding the potential new costs associated with the department and the use of an executive order rather than a bill, which would have allowed for legislative amendment and debate.

Challenges to SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The political dynamics surrounding the special session highlight significant challenges to SDG 16, which promotes effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

Institutional Conflict and Governance

The fundamental disagreement between the Governor and the Legislature undermines the principles of effective governance and partnership (SDG 17).

• Dispute Over Session’s Purpose: The Governor called the session for policy debate, while the Legislature intends to focus on veto overrides.
• Erosion of Checks and Balances: Legislative leaders have expressed serious concerns about the session’s timing and an alleged attempt by the Governor to thwart veto overrides by asking certain legislators not to attend. Senate President Gary Stevens stated the override votes are about “maintaining the Legislature’s role as a co-equal branch of government,” while House Speaker Bryce Edgmon noted the session is about “preserving the checks and balances that keep government accountable.”

Accountability in State Revenue Management

A second planned veto override concerns a bill related to oil and gas tax revenue, directly impacting institutional transparency and accountability (SDG Target 16.6).

• Legislative leaders assert that the Department of Revenue has been unresponsive to requests from the legislative auditor.
• This lack of transparency has led to concerns that hundreds of millions of dollars in state revenue may be uncollected, impacting the state’s ability to fund essential services, including those related to education (SDG 4) and food security (SDG 2).
• The Governor has dismissed these claims as “baseless and reckless,” further deepening the institutional divide.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  The article directly addresses this goal when it mentions Governor Dunleavy’s focus on “strengthening our food security system” and his proposal to establish an “agriculture department.” These actions are aimed at ensuring a stable and secure food supply for the state’s population.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  This is a central theme of the article. The special session is called to “focus on… fixing Alaska’s education system.” The text discusses numerous education-related issues, including K-12 school funding, teacher recruitment and retention, charter schools, reading improvement programs, and tribal compacting for schools, all of which are core components of providing quality education.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article highlights significant tensions between the executive and legislative branches of government. The conflict over veto overrides, the debate on managing state revenues from oil and gas, and the emphasis on “restoring public trust,” “checks and balances,” and maintaining the “Legislature’s role as a co-equal branch of government” all point to the challenge of building effective, accountable, and transparent institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • Target 2.1: “By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people… to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.” The governor’s stated goal to “strengthen our food security system” is a direct effort to achieve this target for Alaskans.
   • Target 2.4: “By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices…” The proposal to create a dedicated “agriculture department” is a foundational step toward developing and managing such systems and practices within the state.
2. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • Target 4.1: “By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.” The article’s focus on K-12 funding, improving “student achievement,” providing grants for “reading improvement,” and creating tutoring programs directly supports the goal of achieving effective learning outcomes.
   • Target 4.5: “By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education… for the vulnerable, including… indigenous peoples…” The proposal for a “tribal compacting provision that would allow tribes to oversee schools” is a specific policy aimed at ensuring more inclusive and culturally relevant education for indigenous communities.
   • Target 4.c: “By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers…” The proposal for paying “recruitment and retention bonuses to Alaska teachers” is a direct measure to address this target by ensuring schools have qualified educators.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” The legislative push to override vetoes, the demand for clarity on “oil and gas tax revenue,” and the concern about the Department of Revenue’s “unwillingness to respond to requests” are all part of an effort to enforce accountability and transparency in state government.
   • Target 16.7: “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.” The debate over the tribal compacting provision for schools reflects an effort to create more inclusive and representative governance structures in education. The concern that a special session is “prohibitive for folks to get there and provide their input” also highlights the importance of participatory decision-making.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, several indicators are mentioned or can be inferred from the article:

• For SDG 2:
  • The establishment of a state “agriculture department” serves as a key policy indicator for progress toward strengthening food systems.
• For SDG 4:
  • Financial Input: The amount of state education funding, such as the “roughly $50 million” vetoed from the budget, is a direct financial indicator.
  • Performance Metrics: The article refers to “Alaska’s performance issues” and the goal of increasing “student achievement,” which are outcome indicators.
  • Policy Implementation: The creation of programs like “recruitment and retention bonuses,” “after-school reading tutoring program,” and the establishment of “tribal compacting” for schools are process indicators.
  • Teacher Supply: The ability to “retain experienced teachers” is an indicator of progress toward Target 4.c.
• For SDG 16:
  • Fiscal Transparency: The amount of potentially uncollected “oil and gas tax revenue,” estimated in the “hundreds of millions of dollars,” is an indicator of institutional effectiveness and transparency.
  • Institutional Accountability: The number of veto override votes and their outcomes serve as an indicator of the balance of power and accountability between governmental branches.
  • Institutional Inclusivity: The successful implementation of the “tribal compacting” provision would be an indicator of more inclusive decision-making.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: adn.com