A Citizen’s Guide

COMMENTS: The proposal in the Legislature to give the administration three more months to respond to public comments and revise the gas line contract is a good idea.

The Murkowski administration has posted 2,156 public comments on the state gas line Web site where anyone can read them, if you have the diligence to open 2,156 files individually.

I don’t know if I’ll make it to No. 2,156, but I’ve read the first 400 comments about the fiscal interest findings and plan to work through the rest as time allows.

My first suggestion is that the state find a better way to present these comments electronically. This would make it easier for Alaskans to review the public record.

My second suggestion is that when the administration interprets the comments and makes public statements about what Alaskans believe about the fiscal interest findings, those statements should reflect a more cautious tone than has been heard so far.

In a news conference in Juneau last week, Gov. Frank Murkowski said, “There’s no question in my mind that as a consequence of our public hearing process we have a pretty good indication of what the will of the people is.”

The governor said that 2,064 Alaskans commented on the contract during the public comment period. (Some of the 2,156 files are duplicates and others are blank.)

The comments were delivered at public hearings, over the phone and in writing.

The governor said 66.4 percent of the comments were from people who “support the contract,” while 28.7 percent were from those who “oppose the contract,” and 4.9 percent were “basically nonresponsive.”

In the latter category you might include comment No. 5, which is “Please add me to the mailing list” and comment No. 52, which is “(indiscernible) that’s my comment.”

Judging by the first 400 comments, I’d say it’s impossible to summarize the responses with the degree of precision used by the governor. I know that his percentages add up to 100, but many of the responses are not that simple to classify.

There are any number of comments from people who profess general support for a gas pipeline, but give no specifics.

Comment No. 40 is typical of these. “Get it built ASAP. It should have been built 30 years ago vs. spending years burning it off as waste.”

No. 69 is in the same spirit: “I am strongly in favor of the pipeline!!!” So is No. 328, “I support the gas pipeline.”

It’s my guess that comments 40, 69 and 328 are included in the governor’s total of 66.4 percent.

The governor will argue that it’s OK to include those in the “support the contract” tally because his proposed contract is the only choice for Alaska, but there are other candidates who will dispute that assertion.

Just about everyone in Alaska wants a gas pipeline and the tenor of the public comments backs that up, but not everyone who says “I support the gas pipeline” is wild about the governor’s proposed contract.

As I’ve been reading the comments, I’ve been dividing them into four categories. So far, my unofficial breakdown shows 120 people who said they favor the governor’s contract, 111 people who said they support a gas pipeline and 120 people with concerns about key issues.

There were also 28 people with responses that didn’t seem to fit the question at hand and others that were duplicates.

Undoubtedly, some of those 111 support the governor’s contract, but they didn’t spell that out.

In the catalog of gas line “concerns” raised by those who responded, I’d include the proposed freeze on oil taxes, whether an all-Alaska line is preferable, the risks of marketing gas and the lack of work commitments, among others. Some people said the deal should be killed, while others say it can be changed to make it acceptable for Alaska.

The state’s compilation of the names of those who commented includes a section where people were able to indicate what organization they are from. While one person identified herself as “A TRUE AMERICAN,” and there was a VFW member, an AkPIRG representative and a person who provides Mary Kay products, most of the people left that line blank.

However, many of those who work in the oil industry did not follow that pattern. About 50 of the 400 identified themselves as employees of either BP or ConocoPhillips. There was one re sponse from an Exxon employee and several from contracting firms and Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.

There were numerous other people from the oil industry who responded and showed their support for construction of a gas line, but they did not name their employers.

People who work in the oil industry have just as much right as anyone else to fill out public comment forms and identify their employers if they so desire or leave the line blank.

I mention this because a simple tally from the Web site, based on how people identified themselves, does not reflect the full extent of public comment generated on this subject by those who work in the industry.

What should really count in the review is not the number of people who responded or who they work for, but the quality of the arguments they put forward for public debate.

By the way, I skipped ahead and opened comment No. 2,156, which is from “Jason,” whose last name is “unreadable.”

It reads, “Good job in (unreadable) the pipeline and look forward to the (unreadable.)”