.png)
What will be Sen. Dan Sullivan’s legacy?
By Jim Duncan
Sen. Dan Sullivan likes to say “I have fought for Alaska and always will.” That is how Sullivan wants to be remembered and the legacy he most desires.
Hearing that statement over and over during the past months could convince me that he has always fought for what is best for Alaskans. But I know better. Since 1972 I have been involved in the Alaska political world and Alaska public policy issues.
Where do I start when talking about positions he has taken that have not been in the best interest of Alaskans? Should I start with Sen. Sullivan’s general support of President Trump’s tariffs? Tariffs that most agree have driven up the cost of everyday goods, fuel, and transportation in isolated rural and urban Alaska communities. Or should I start with Sullivan’s silence on the federal budget cuts brought to us by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Cuts that resulted in many job losses and paused many spending projects impacting Alaskans.
Or should I start with Sen. Sullivan’s support of Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill which contained provisions such as healthcare and Medicaid losses detrimental to Alaska residents? Experts predict the losses in marketplace subsidies could result in up to 40,000 Alaskans losing coverage, shifting uncompensated emergency care costs onto hospitals and driving up private insurance premiums. Or the changes in Medicaid and SNAP requirements which could drop up to 17,000 Alaskans from food assistance. Or changes that shifted how SNAP is funded that has the potential to cost Alaska an extra $50 million annually. Did Senator Sullivan stand up for Alaskans when he supported Trump's bill?
The above are all recent happenings. I would like to take you back to action he took in 2010 when he was attorney general for Alaska. An action that cost Alaska billions of dollars and had a lasting negative impact on many hard-working public employees.
The Alaska Legislature repealed the defined benefit (DB) retirement in 2006. A primary reason given for repealing the DB was that the system was severely underfunded. This was a direct result of an actuarial error by Mercer Inc., a firm the state had employed for years to calculate the retirement system's liabilities and determine the contribution rate. In 2002 Mercer had reported that the Teachers Retirement System (TRS) was funded at 95% and the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) at over 100%.
It was found that Mercer had made an error in their actuarial computations. The Alaska Retirement Management Board (ARM), in 2007, filed a lawsuit for damages of $2.8 billion. As reported in a Dec. 19, 2009, New York Times article, “A Mercer actuary found the error before the 2002 valuations, reported it to a supervisor, but Mercer executives decided not to tell their client about the error.” It seemed clear that the state had a strong and winnable case to recover the $2.8 billion in damages and return those funds to the state’s retirement system. But then Dan Sullivan “stood up for Alaska.”
In 2010, Attorney General Dan Sullivan, before the trial started, settled the lawsuit for $500 million, leaving $2.3 billion on the table. Calculations showed as a result of the settlement, after attorney fees, only $400 million was returned to the retirement system. Sullivan settled the lawsuit for pennies on the dollar. Less than 15% of the $2.8 billion was returned to the state retirement system and to the working men and women who were harmed by the actuarial error.
Sullivan was quoted as saying “he felt good in settling, calling it significant and a great result, and believed it to be the largest of its kind.” He felt so good about it he touted it in his 2014 U.S. Senate campaign against Sen. Mark Begich. He said he had “taken on Wall Street and won.” How do you feel good about settling for pennies on the dollar? How do you say you have stood up for Alaska when you let Mercer off the hook for their mistakes?
As executive director of ASEA/AFSCME Local 52 the Associated Press asked for my opinion on the settlement. My reply: “Dan Sullivan’s legacy as attorney general isn’t one of taking on Wall Street and winning and isn’t one, he should be proud of. He cut a bad deal for all Alaskans when he let Mercer off the hook.”
This is one of the first examples when Dan Sullivan didn’t stand up for Alaska. And it has continued. As I recounted above there have been many times since that he hasn’t stood up for Alaska and all Alaskans. It is time we tell Sen. Sullivan to leave the U.S. Senate. We can do that if you will join me in voting for Mary Pelotla for U.S. Senate on Nov. 3. As a U.S. senator, Mary will always do what’s best for Alaska and stand up for all of us.
• Jim Duncan served 24 years in the Alaska State House of Representatives and Alaska State Senate. He was commissioner of the Department of Administration in the Tony Knowles administration and for15 years was executive director of ASEA/AFSCME Local 52, Alaska’s largest public employee union. He currently lives in Anchorage.
