Alaska’s Whistleblower Protection Act (AS 39.90.100-150) has been on the books for decades. On paper, it looks strong. It says state employees cannot be retaliated against when they report violations of law, gross mismanagement, abuse of authority or waste of public funds. It authorizes reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages and attorney fees.
In practice, though, it is little more than a hollow promise. The only path to relief is a private lawsuit in Superior Court. That’s a long, expensive process that most employees cannot afford. Few attorneys will take these cases on contingency. That leaves whistleblowers exposed, discouraged and often forced to quit or stay silent.
A case from a decade ago highlights this problem. In 2016, a former state electrician testified before the House Finance Committee. He described reporting long-term misuse of state time and resources at a training facility, only to face what he called sustained retaliation that forced him to resign. He later accepted another state position and raised concerns again, this time about the abrupt cancellation of an inmate apprenticeship program and a workplace culture that had already resulted in a six-figure settlement with a corrections union official. After raising these concerns directly with senior leadership, he testified that he was terminated following what he described as a series of unfounded accusations and HR investigations.
The current system does not protect whistleblowers. Fixing that is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of basic, honest government.
Whether or not every detail of his account can be proven, the point is clear. Even when an employee reports wrongdoing in good faith, Alaska law gives them almost no way to enforce their rights. Suing the state would require tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, with no guarantee of recovery and a high likelihood that sovereign immunity or discretionary function defenses would block relief. Like most employees in the same position, he did not pursue litigation.
This is not an isolated problem. Alaska is one of the only states that offers no independent or administrative forum for whistleblower claims. There is no ombudsman with enforcement authority, no personnel board hearing, no labor department investigation. The law exists on paper but is rarely effective in practice. The result is predictable: a chilling effect on reporting and an environment where waste, fraud and abuse can persist. Protecting employees in these situations should be one of the core functions of labor unions, yet the state employees union seems to have largely ignored this long-standing flaw.
Other states have figured this out. Colorado and Connecticut operate independent whistleblower ombudsman offices that investigate complaints at no cost to the employee and can recommend or order corrective action. New Jersey, Washington and Oregon allow whistleblowers to file administrative complaints with their labor departments or civil service commissions, followed by hearings and enforceable orders. Eleven states and the federal government offer monetary awards, typically between ten and thirty percent of recovered funds, when disclosures lead to financial recoveries. These programs create incentives to report wrongdoing and save taxpayers money. Meanwhile, in Alaska, employees have little recourse other than to testify before the Legislature or yell their story publicly.
Alaska can and should do better, and it can be done without significant cost. A few targeted reforms would make the law meaningful and shift the burden of enforcement from individual employees to the state.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
First, establish an independent Office of the Public Whistleblower Advocate, housed outside the Department of Administration, with authority to investigate complaints, issue subpoenas, and order interim relief and final remedies including reinstatement, back pay and civil penalties. Second, give the advocate authority to award attorney fees and litigation costs to employees who prevail, funded by civil penalties assessed against violating agencies or individuals. Third, allow discretionary monetary awards from recovered funds when disclosures result in savings or recoveries. Fourth, require annual reports to the Legislature on the number, nature and outcomes of whistleblower complaints.
These reforms would bring Alaska in line with best practices, protect employees who come forward in good faith, and strengthen accountability. More importantly, they would prevent small problems from growing into expensive failures that waste taxpayer dollars.
The story above confirms what everyone already knows: the current system does not protect whistleblowers. Fixing that is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of basic, honest government. I intend to introduce legislation in the upcoming session to correct this long-standing weakness, and I welcome bipartisan and union support to ensure Alaska’s whistleblower protections are more than words on paper.
The views expressed here are those of the author.
