Leaders? Apparently not in the legislature

If chalk is tapped in Harvard Yard, will it create an impression in Alaska’s state capital? For a brief moment Cambridge, Massachusetts became one with Juneau, Alaska. A collision of two worlds that offers Alaskans a textbook example of cause and effect.

On a recent afternoon Professor Thomas DeLong strolled to a chalkboard on the Harvard campus to diagram what causes a leadership gap. Nearly three thousand miles away, Mayor Kathie Wasserman strolled to a microphone in Alaska’s state capital to talk about the effects of that leadership gap. In hindsight it seemed perfectly choreographed.

DeLong, an instructor in the Leadership Best Practices Program at Harvard Business School, was diagramming that a leadership gap is the margin between espoused leadership and actual leadership delivered. The theory holds the wider the delta, the more dysfunctional the organization.

Wasserman, the Mayor of Pelican and President of the Alaska Mayors Association, says the growing leadership gap on the fiscal gap continues to put Alaska’s communities at risk. To re-enforce the point, the mayors issued a resolution of no confidence in the legislature. It was the first time that this kind of action had ever been taken.

According to Alaska’s mayors, the delta between what is being espoused and what is being delivered is no longer tolerable. Or as Professor Delong might point out: the breadth of the gap indicates that legislators need to do more than just learn better table manners. The political reaction was mellow-dramatic, as legislators feigned outrage.

“A slap in the face, floored, absurd” were responses immediately issued by majority lawmakers directed at the mayor’s resolution. The most troubling responses came from those who criticized the mayors for not offering a specific plan. Apparently for some, the mayors shoulder the responsibility of doing the legislatures job as well.

Unfortunately these same legislators represent the widest point on the leadership gap curve

In 1999, with falling oil prices and a declining budget reserve fund, the House of Representatives responded. Legislators including myself spent nights and weekends pouring over financial projections as we grappled with creating a long-range fiscal plan. That plan went on to become the infamous September vote that was given a painful defeat by Alaskans.

Currently there are still nineteen members in the legislature that voted to pass that plan.
Trust me, legislators already know the specific solutions required for a viable fiscal plan. And they shouldn’t need the mayors or any other group to point out the obvious.

But somewhere along the road to resolution they’ve all taken hard right and left turns. Now as time gets tight, it appears most aren’t coming back. Meanwhile the mayors of Alaska’s communities wait for fiscal stability. They watch as their schools absorb harsh cuts while trying to balance their own budgets in an uncertain financial environment.

During the years after the 1999 vote, a bi-partisan group of legislators continued to study the fiscal gap. Subsequently, both Republicans and Democrats agreed on several consensus points. Concluded was the fact that additional budget cuts would harm Alaska communities by causing further erosion of local economies. The reason is two words: tax capacity.

Alaska’s communities will always struggle to access enough tax capacity to adequately fund the growing cost of services in the future. That is why state government has always played a vital role in helping communities maintain stability. From debt reimbursement for schools to community block grants, the state’s support for local communities is critical.

One possible solution to the current predicament is the community dividend program.

Individual community endowments, derived from earnings of the permanent fund and managed by the permanent fund corporation, would provide a solid foundation for local communities to grow. It would also allow the state to reduce operating expenses by transferring more responsibility to the local level while providing the necessary resources for communities to manage.

There is no question that for all the challenges Alaska’s faces there are just as many opportunities. Unfortunately, it appears the leadership required to meet these challenges is stuck on a chalkboard, three thousand miles away.