Lawmakers question Permanent Fund board’s decision to open Anchorage office without appropriation

Juneau — Several Alaska legislators told the Department of Revenue Finance Subcommittee on March 13 that the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation’s decision to open a small Anchorage office without a prior legislative appropriation damaged trust between the legislature and the corporation.

Lawmakers questioned APFC leadership about an Anchorage footprint the board authorized and the corporation later funded from its own available authority. APFC executives said the office was small, now houses six staff, and cost roughly $32,000 a year to lease; board members described the office as a targeted recruitment and retention tool.

Why the office drew lawmakers’ attention

Senators described the issue as one of principle and legislative control of appropriations. The subcommittee chair repeatedly noted that the legislature had not funded the office for the current fiscal year. APFC’s executive director, Devin Mitchell, acknowledged the concern and said the corporation should have addressed the need in its budget request before expending funds: “I understand your concern and … the point about a failure on our part to have addressed the need for an Anchorage office in a budgetary request prior to making the shift to expending money in Anchorage,” Mitchell said.

Board and corporation rationale

Adam Crum, commissioner of revenue and vice chair of the APFC board, described the board’s decision as a response to persistent vacancies and recruitment challenges. Crum said the board instructed staff to explore options and that opening the small Anchorage office filled positions quickly: “As soon as it was opened, it actually filled up immediately. We had staff transfer from Juneau. We've even hired staff directly into that office,” Crum said. He added the board viewed the move as a way to protect the corporation’s human capital and to signal support for staff in a difficult recruitment market.

Costs and governance context

APFC officials said the Anchorage office occupies a small portion of a state building and that setup costs were limited to furniture and work surfaces. Mitchell said the board’s action was permissible under guidance the corporation had received; he also said the corporation did not commission a recent external governance review mentioned at the hearing: “That was commissioned by the governor's office. It wasn't commissioned by the corporation,” Mitchell said, responding to questions about a WilmerHale governance review reported in the news.

Lawmakers’ reaction and next steps

Senators told APFC leaders that opening the office without an appropriation was objectionable even if the dollar amount was small. One senator framed the issue as a matter of principle for communities outside Juneau, saying that removing state activity from one city to another can be perceived as an existential loss for those communities regardless of cost. Lawmakers said they intend to examine the corporation’s governance, authorities and adherence to legislative intent language in future oversight work and asked the corporation for documentation of its decision and costs.

Ending

APFC officials said the Anchorage office has been useful for recruitment and that the corporation will supply the subcommittee with additional detail. Lawmakers said they will follow up in future committee work to clarify appropriation boundaries and governance expectations.