Updated: October 6, 2016 
Published October 6, 2016 
The Legislature on Thursday rejected a $37 million claim by the developers of lawmakers' old office building downtown, which they recently vacated.
Kodiak Republican Sen. Gary Stevens, acting as a procurement officer in his capacity as chairman of a legislative committee, issued a decision saying that the Legislature's lease with the downtown building's landlords, Mark Pfeffer and Bob Acree, allowed lawmakers to move out if they didn't set aside money to pay rent on the building.
The 22-page decision can be appealed to the Legislative Council, the committee that Stevens chairs, within two weeks. The claim by the landlords is a likely precursor to a lawsuit.
Alaska Dispatch News uses Civil Comments. Please keep your comments on-topic, focus on the issue and avoid personal insults, harassment and abuse. Read the user guide.
The Chairman
Oct 7, 2016
You should all consider the impact this action will have for the future of the State.
Disregard whether or not the building should have been built, because that is done. Look instead at what the other potential contractors for the State will see: If the State changes its mind about any contract, they can and will walk away without paying. The constitution has a clause that requires every State contract to be "subject to appropriation". That has, to date, been easy to explain away because the State has typically honored those commitments and vendors and contractors were comfortable that they would continue to do so.
Now, the game has changed and the risk that the State walks away is real. When you ask your counter-party to take more risk, they will require a greater reward for doing so. All this means is that costs will go up for anything the State needs done.
Would your bank let you walk away from your mortgage if you found a better house you wanted? Why should the State's?
Another Commenter for Hire
Oct 7, 2016
Riiight. The message this sends to other contractors is to not engage in clearly unethical and probably illegal collusion with politicians for obscenely bloated contracts. Contractors know that the potential for voter backlash exists over this type of rape of the public treasury. But since the profits are so delicious some decide to go forward anyway, hoping it isn't discovered like so many other smokey back-room deals with the legislators aren't.
If a contractor can't do business with the state in an ethical and transparent manner, we're not interested in doing business with them.
Any questions?
Michael O'Shea
Oct 7, 2016
In reply to:
You should all consider the impact this action will have for the future of the State. Disregard whether or not the building should have been built, because that is done. Look instead at what the...
— The Chairman
Very well said. And true.
JustSomeThoughts
Oct 7, 2016
In reply to:
You should all consider the impact this action will have for the future of the State. Disregard whether or not the building should have been built, because that is done. Look instead at what the...
— The Chairman
Fiduciary duty supersedes your desire to bankroll illegal contracts to maintain the corruption status quo. 716 was put on notice before the construction began that the lease most likely violated procurement statutes. 716 took the risk that no one would look into lease and backroom deals would go unnoticed. Every business deal involves a certain amount of risk. The risk becomes infinitely greater when an illegal lease is written.
As Another Commenter said, this isn't going to deter legitimate contracts from going forward. It will deter corrupt deals from being pursued. There is a lot of corruption in procurement, and the legislature and state officials need to know it won't be tolerated.
Pearl Warraven
Oct 7, 2016
I think both positions, regarding this contract and the sequence of Legislative actions, are in some degree true. Although it Will put the legislature [to the degree that they pay any attention to Public opinion] and those who do business with the legislature on notice not to stray too far from honest dealing, into backroom deals w/good ol' boys. But it WILL also reduce the State's [legislature] credibility in contracting for capital improvements in the future, and that may in turn reduce our options. There will always be questions: Is the Legislature being unrealistically 'cheap', demand business to sacrifice reasonable profit? Is business overpricing and greasing palms, because it's the public treasury? The legislature dug this hole for themselves *before*, when they made the deal in the 1st place - they lost the *Public's* trust. And it's gotten worse w/every 'weasel' they've taken since
Jerry Swanson
Oct 6, 2016
Is the worm turning?
Another Commenter for Hire
Oct 6, 2016
The Corrupt Bastards Club Clubhouse is getting expensive.
Early voting begins in 18 days. Make sure you register now.
Another Commenter for Hire
Oct 7, 2016
Make that 17 days now. Tick tick tick...
Nels Anderson Jr.
Oct 7, 2016
When the legislative majority plays with snakes they get stung. TajMahawker lives on. And the governor let them get away with their recent purchase of a building they don't need.
my2cents
Oct 7, 2016
Damage control:
Step 1 - Reject first claim.
Step 2 - Make ridiculous counter-offer.
Step 3 - Agree on previously secretly negotiated settlement.
Step 4 - Lie about how it is fairest possible settlement.
Step 5 - Use same tactic next time.
Herschel Krustofski
Oct 6, 2016
Open up all the emails and every record of the collusion between Mark Pfeffer, Bob Acree, Mike Hawker, and anyone else that was in on the 'fix'. Lets get ALL the evidence out and show the People what these thieves tried to pull over on every last Alaskan. Lets get ALL the dirty laundry out from under every rock, then burn these thieves at the figurative stake. If there is enough evidence of collusion, possible bribery, malfeasance, kick-backs, deliberate sidestepping of law and corruption, put them in JAIL.
Enough is enough. It is time to put a stop to these admirers of Soapy Smith.