Wrangell hosts House debate ahead of election

As the year's campaign season nears its close on Tuesday, candidates for House District 36 came to Wrangell to participate in a public debate last week.

Held at City Hall on October 26, the forum was hosted by public radio station KSTK. Independent incumbent Rep. Dan Ortiz met with Republican challenger Bob Sivertsen. Constitution Party candidate Kenneth Shaw was also invited to the debate, but was unable to attend. All three candidates are from Ketchikan.

Speakers were given two minutes each for opening statements, as well as for responding to audience questions. In the time allotted, nine members of the audience had the opportunity to ask the candidates questions on policy positions.

One of the first to be asked was on revenues, put to the candidates by Don McConachie Jr. "How would you bring in new revenue?" he asked.

Ortiz responded that a long-term solution would be to develop of mining, timber and energy projects, but that tougher sources would be needed for the short-term.

"In order to address the fiscal situation, we need a legislature willing to step up and make the tough votes," he said. "To me it was a dereliction of our duties that we didn't come up with anything for the state in terms of new revenue."

A variety of proposals were put forward by Gov. Bill Walker at the session's start, but legislators put forward a budget without taking them up.

"None of these are popular with the public," Sivertsen said of these options. Without further cuts or new taxes, Sivertsen said tapping into the Permanent Fund would be the only alternative.

"I think everything has to be on the table," he said. Because the state is so vast, he argued it would be hard to find any one solution which would affect residents equitably. Sivertsen acknowledged the process of finding that solution will be a difficult one, but that sales and income taxes alone would generate only half a billion dollars or so.

"Taxes, I don't think, are the answer to new revenues," segued another audience member, Don McConachie Sr. "New revenues are new revenues which are built by private enterprise."

That in mind, he wanted to know how either candidate would support further development of state resources.

Sivertsen responded he would push for greater opportunities for resource development, and supported putting some state forest lands into a trust similar to Mental Health. Supporting value-added activities for industry would also be crucial to focus on, "whether it's minerals, whether it's oil, or it's going to be with natural gas or timber."

Ortiz was also supportive of timber development as a long-term solution, but pointed to natural gas pipeline currently in development that could boost the state's coffers.

A question posed by local contractor Otto Florschutz asked both candidates where they stood on additional contributions from the charter fishing industry, in light of the commercial fisheries tax. Currently charters are exempt from the same levies, which legislators last session attempted to raise across the board with H.B. 4006.

Both candidates were in agreement that there was a disparity, an impact of lobbying.

"I would support a fish box tax," Sivertsen responded. "For every box they're shipping out, we put a tax on it and let that go back into fishery enhancements."

"I agree with Bob (Sivertsen)," said Ortiz, noting he supports the recently-announced increase on licensing of out- and in-state sport licenses, which will affect charter patrons. Ortiz was also in favor of discussing contributions by charters toward hatcheries, as other fisheries do.

Many points of the night's questions were approached by Ortiz and Sivertsen similarly. For instance, the candidates were in agreement about opposing the push to take the state off of daylight savings time. Both would also be supportive of devolving exemptions for elderly residents from property taxes to municipalities, in light of declining revenue sharing by the state.

Their primary point of difference was the importance of party affiliation, and whether it would be critical for the district's representative to be a part of the Republican-led majority.

Sivertsen put it to voters that it was, pointing out that Republicans have held the state's majority for over two decades. "We have no reason to believe that will change," he said. He contended he would be better placed if elected, as he would be included in the majority and included in its discussions when drawing up a budget.

In his remarks, Ortiz laid blame for budgetary inaction the last session on the House Majority. Appealing for re-election to the House, pointed to his bipartisan voting record.

"It's not about being Republican, or Democrat, or Independent, like I am," he said. On meeting with constituents from Hyder to Wrangell, he added, "I apply what I hear to my votes on the floor."

He went on to express confidence that a bipartisan majority can be formed which would include members from both major parties and unaffiliated representatives, better aligned to rural and coastal needs.

The candidates also differed strongly on a pair of questions, both directed toward their positions on Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. A non-affiliated candidate who caucuses with the Democratic-led minority, Ortiz responded he could not conscionably support Trump. He added he had "severe concerns" with Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton, and was considering voting for a third-party candidate this year.

"Donald Trump is not qualified to be president of the United States," he stated.

"I don't have an option,

I'm voting for Trump. We can't afford another term of

liberal politics that we've had," Sivertsen replied. He pointed to federal regulation stifling

economic opportunities in the state.

"It's jobs that's going to turn this state around," he continued. "Prosperity is not measured by how well government is doing, but how our private sector is doing."

After the debate, the candidates met with audience members, some of whom had not had time to ask a question. The debate remained civil, and audience members seemed satisfied with their responses.

"I liked the response," Florschutz said afterward. "I think they recognize the inequity."