Alaska Politics Blog

This is the place to talk about Alaska politics -- state, local, national. Public life in the Last Frontier has probably never been more interesting than right now -- the governor as candidate for vice president, the broad and still-evolving corruption investigation, a big election, powerful members of Congress under scrutiny, and the usual hardball Alaska politics. Come here for news, tidbits and information, and join the discussion. Keep your comments civil and on point. Avoid personal attacks. Do not use profanity. Posts that violate the Terms of Use will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.


Erika Bolstad

Erika Bolstad covers Alaska issues, including the congressional delegation, from Washington, D.C., for McClatchy Newspapers. Before joining the bureau in 2007, she spent seven years as a reporter at the Miami Herald, where she covered politics, government and the state legislature. E-mail Erika at ebolstad@adn.com.

Sean Cockerham

Sean Cockerham writes about Alaska state politics. He spent three years based in Juneau for the ADN before joining the Tacoma News-Tribune to write about Washington state politics. He went to Iraq twice for the News Tribune, and previously wrote about Alaska government and politics for the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. E-mail Sean at scockerham@adn.com

Kyle Hopkins

Kyle Hopkins covers politics and other stories for the ADN. He covered the 2006 campaign for governor, has blogged extensively about Alaska politics, covered Anchorage city government and was a reporter based in the Mat-Su. He grew up in Southeast Alaska and previously was a reporter at the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and Anchorage Press. E-mail Kyle at khopkins@adn.com

2008 Election

At one point the races with Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young promised to be the highest-profile campaigns in Alaska history.

SECTION

Palin coverage

The nation was captivated by Sarah Palin's run to the White House, and now Alaska awaits the return of their governor.

SECTION

Alaska political corruption

The FBI raided state legislatures offices in Aug. 2006, and the fallout since has been epic in Alaska's political world.

Obama and the governors - 12/1/2008 7:50 pm

Palin mania in Georgia - 12/1/2008 4:07 pm

Palin on the trail (UPDATED: Video) - 12/1/2008 2:20 pm

Judge nixes Monday hearing in Stevens case - 11/28/2008 3:03 pm

Palin's gifts - 11/26/2008 4:32 pm

Stevens defense wants to see secret document filed by prosecutors - 11/26/2008 3:39 pm

The interview that won't die - 11/25/2008 2:21 pm

Hearing Monday on Stevens witness issue - 11/25/2008 2:07 pm

Palin back on the stump - 11/25/2008 12:28 pm

'Don't blame me! Blame Joe the Turkey Slaughterer' - 11/25/2008 12:18 pm

Senator for life - 11/25/2008 7:16 am

So what happened with DOJ and the Anderson letter? - 11/24/2008 7:33 pm

A Palin Thanksgiving: Thank-you notes or contempt charges? - 11/24/2008 11:15 am

Mayoral maneuvering - 11/21/2008 11:35 am

Palin talks turkey (Updated) - 11/20/2008 5:36 pm

Croatian village celebrates Begich victory - 11/20/2008 2:14 pm

Exit polling on Stevens-Begich - 11/20/2008 2:13 pm

Stevens farewell - 11/20/2008 9:22 am

Development crowd reserved with Palin, Begich - 11/19/2008 1:20 pm

Young, Murkowski and Palin on the Senate race (Updated) - 11/19/2008 12:20 pm

Stevens: 'It is apparent the election has been decided' - 11/19/2008 11:48 am

Begich on early voters and absentees: 'That's the group we worked.' - 11/18/2008 5:20 pm

Once upon a time - double vodkas, 53 million gallons of oil and enough booze “that a non-alcoholic would have passed out.”

From David Hulen in Anchorage --

Yesterday's 61-page Exxon Valdez ruling can be a bit of a slog to read through. But the narrative laying out the facts of the case is pretty compelling stuff.

***

On March 24, 1989, the supertanker Exxon Valdez grounded on Bligh Reef off the Alaskan coast, fracturing its hull and spilling millions of gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound. The owner, petitioner Exxon Shipping Co. (now SeaRiver Maritime, Inc.), and its owner, petitioner Exxon Mobil Corp. (collectively, Exxon), have settled state and federal claims for environmental damage, with payments exceeding $1 billion, and this action by respondent Baker and others, including commercial fishermen and native Alaskans, was brought for economic losses to individuals dependent on Prince William Sound for their livelihoods.

The tanker was over 900 feet long and was used by Exxon to carry crude oil from the end of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in Valdez, Alaska, to the lower 48 States. On the night of the spill it was carrying 53 million gallons of crude oil, or over a million barrels. Its captain was one Joseph Hazelwood, who had completed a 28-day alcohol treatment program while employed by Exxon, as his superiors knew, but dropped out of a prescribed follow-up program and stopped going to Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. According to the District Court, “[t]here was evidence presented to the jury that after Hazelwood was released from [residential treatment], he drank in bars, parking lots, apartments, airports, airplanes, restaurants, hotels, at various ports, and aboard Exxon tankers.” In re Exxon Valdez, No. A89–0095–CV, Order No. 265 (D. Alaska, Jan. 27, 1995), p. 5, App. F to Pet. for Cert. 255a–256a (hereinafter Order 265). The jury also heard contested testimony that Hazelwood drank with Exxon officials and that members of the Exxon management knew of his relapse. See ibid. Although Exxon had a clear policy prohibiting employees from serving onboard within four
hours of consuming alcohol, see In re Exxon Valdez, 270 F. 3d 1215, 1238 (CA9 2001), Exxon presented no evidence that it monitored Hazelwood after his return to duty or considered giving him a shoreside assignment, see Order 265, p. 5, supra, at 256a. Witnesses testified that before the Valdez left port on the night of the disaster, Hazelwood downed at least five double vodkas in the waterfront bars of Valdez, an intake of about 15 ounces of 80-proof alcohol, enough “that a non-alcoholic would have passed out.” 270 F. 3d, at 1236.

The ship sailed at 9:12 p.m. on March 23, 1989, guided by a state-licensed pilot for the first leg out, through the Valdez Narrows. At 11:20 p.m., Hazelwood took active control and, owing to poor conditions in the outbound shipping lane, radioed the Coast Guard for permission to move east across the inbound lane to a less icy path. Under the conditions, this was a standard move, which the last outbound tanker had also taken, and the Coast Guard cleared the Valdez to cross the inbound lane. The tanker accordingly steered east toward clearer waters, but the
move put it in the path of an underwater reef off Bligh Island, thus requiring a turn back west into the shipping lane around Busby Light, north of the reef.

Two minutes before the required turn, however, Hazelwood left the bridge and went down to his cabin in order, he said, to do paperwork. This decision was inexplicable. There was expert testimony that, even if their presence is not strictly necessary, captains simply do not quit the
bridge during maneuvers like this, and no paperwork could have justified it. And in fact the evidence was that Hazelwood’s presence was required, both because there should have been two officers on the bridge at all times and his departure left only one, and because he was the only person on the entire ship licensed to navigate this part of Prince William Sound. To make matters worse, before going below Hazelwood put the tanker on autopilot, speeding it up, making the turn trickier, and any mistake harder to correct.

As Hazelwood left, he instructed the remaining officer, third mate Joseph Cousins, to move the tanker back into the shipping lane once it came abeam of Busby Light. Cousins, unlicensed to navigate in those waters, was left alone with helmsman Robert Kagan, a nonofficer. For reasons that remain a mystery, they failed to make the turn at Busby Light, and a later emergency maneuver attempted by Cousins came too late. The tanker ran aground on Bligh Reef, tearing the hull open and spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound.

After Hazelwood returned to the bridge and reported the grounding to the Coast Guard, he tried but failed to rock the Valdez off the reef, a maneuver which could have spilled more oil and caused the ship to founder. (As it turned out, the tanker survived the accident and remained in Exxon’s fleet, which it subsequently transferred to a wholly owned subsidiary, SeaRiver Maritime, Inc. The Valdez “was renamed several times, finally to the SeaRiver Mediterranean, [and] carried oil between the Persian Gulf and Japan, Singapore, and Australia for 12 years. . . .In 2002, the ship was pulled from service and ‘laid up’ off a foreign port (just where the owners won’t say) and prepared for retirement, although, according to some reports, the vessel continues in service under a foreign flag.” Exxon Valdez Spill Anniversary Marked, 30 Oil Spill
Intelligence Report 2 (Mar. 29, 2007).

The Coast Guard’s nearly immediate response included a blood test of Hazelwood (the validity of which Exxon disputes) showing a blood-alcohol level of .061 eleven hours after the spill. Supp. App. 307sa. Experts testified that to have this much alcohol in his bloodstream so long after the accident, Hazelwood at the time of the spill must have had a blood-alcohol level of around .241, Order 265, p. 5, supra, at 256a, three times the legal limit for driving in most States.

In the aftermath of the disaster, Exxon spent around $2.1 billion in cleanup efforts. The United States charged the company with criminal violations of the Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. §§1311(a) and 1319(c)(1); the Refuse Act of 1899, 33 U. S. C. §§407 and 411; the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, 16 U. S. C. §§703 and 707(a); the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, 33 U. S. C. §1232(b)(1); and the Dangerous Cargo Act, 46 U. S. C. §3718(b). Exxon pleaded guilty to violations of the Clean Water Act, the Refuse Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and agreed to pay a $150 million fine, later reduced to $25 million plus restitution of $100 million. A civil action by the United States and the State of Alaska for environmental harms ended with a consent decree for Exxon to pay at least $900 million toward restoring natural resources, and it paid another $303 million in voluntary settlements with fishermen, property owners, and other private parties.

The remaining civil cases were consolidated into this one against Exxon, Hazelwood, and others. The District Court for the District of Alaska divided the plaintiffs seeking compensatory damages into three classes: commercial fishermen, Native Alaskans, and landowners. At Exxon’s behest, the court also certified a mandatory class of all plaintiffs seeking punitive damages, whose number topped 32,000. Respondents here, to whom we will refer as Baker for convenience, are members of that class.

For the purposes of the case, Exxon stipulated to its negligence in the Valdez disaster and its ensuing liability for compensatory damages. The court designed the trial accordingly: Phase I considered Exxon and Hazelwood’s recklessness and thus their potential for punitive liability;
Phase II set compensatory damages for commercial fishermen and Native Alaksans; and Phase III determined the amount of punitive damages for which Hazelwood and Exxon were each liable. (A contemplated Phase IV, setting compensation for still other plaintiffs, was obviated
by settlement.)

In Phase I, the jury heard extensive testimony about Hazelwood’s alcoholism and his conduct on the night of the spill, as well as conflicting testimony about Exxon officials’ knowledge of Hazelwood’s backslide. At the close of Phase I, the Court instructed the jury in part that “[a] corporation is responsible for the reckless acts of those employees who are employed in a managerial capacity while acting in the scope of their employment. The reckless act or omission of a managerial officer or employee of a corporation, in the course and scope of the performance of his duties, is held in law to be the reckless act or omission of the corporation.”

The Court went on that “[a]n employee of a corporation is employed in a managerial capacity if the employee supervises other employees and has responsibility for, and authority over, a particular aspect of the corporation’s business.” Ibid. Exxon did not dispute that Hazelwood
was a managerial employee under this definition, see App. G, id., at 264a, n. 8, and the jury found both Hazelwood and Exxon reckless and thus potentially liable for punitive damages, App. L, id., at 303a. ( The jury was not asked to consider the possibility of any degree of fault beyond the range of reckless conduct. The record sent up to us shows that some thought was given to a trial plan that would have authorized jury findings as to greater degrees of culpability, see App. 164, but that plan was not adopted, whatever the reason; Baker does not argue this was error.)

In Phase II the jury awarded $287 million in compensatory damages to the commercial fishermen. After the Court deducted released claims, settlements, and other payments, the balance outstanding was $19,590,257. Meanwhile, most of the Native Alaskan class had settled
their compensatory claims for $20 million, and those who opted out of that settlement ultimately settled for a total of around $2.6 million.

In Phase III, the jury heard about Exxon’s management’s acts and omissions arguably relevant to the spill. See App. 1291–1320, 1353–1367. At the close of evidence, the court instructed the jurors on the purposes of punitive damages, emphasizing that they were designed not to provide compensatory relief but to punish and deter the defendants. See App. to Brief in Opposition 12a–14a. The court charged the jury to consider the reprehensibility of the defendants’ conduct, their financial condition, the magnitude of the harm, and any mitigating facts. Id., at
15a. The jury awarded $5,000 in punitive damages against Hazelwood and $5 billion against Exxon.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the Phase I jury instruction on corporate liability for acts of managerial agents under Circuit precedent. See In re Exxon Valdez, 270 F. 3d, at 1236 (citing Protectus Alpha Nav. Co. v. North Pacific Grain Growers, Inc., 767
F. 2d 1379 (CA9 1985)). With respect to the size of the punitive damages award, however, the Circuit remanded twice for adjustments in light of this Court’s due process cases before ultimately itself remitting the award to $2.5 billion. See 270 F. 3d, at 1246–1247; 472 F. 3d 600, 601,
625 (2006) (per curiam), and 490 F. 3d 1066, 1068 (2007).

We granted certiorari to consider whether maritime law allows corporate liability for punitive damages on the basis of the acts of managerial agents, whether the Clean Water Act (CWA), 86 Stat. 816, 33 U. S. C. §1251 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. V), forecloses the award of punitive damages in maritime spill cases, and whether the punitive damages awarded against Exxon in this case were excessive as a matter of maritime common law. 552 U. S. ___ (2007). We now vacate and remand.


  4     June 27, 2008 - 8:10am | rfn

At some point

Exxon will want to undertake some project that requires state permits in Alaska.

That would be a grand time to undertake an extensive exploration of their employment policies, including their history.

This investigation might take up to 19 years to reach a (negative) conclusion.

  3     June 26, 2008 - 1:21pm | ilovelucy

Corporate Republicans

The Republicans hoodwinked Americans for way too long. Using Christianity as a cover, they convinced a majority of Americans to vote for Bush, Cheney et al. and used issues like abortion, gay marriage and gun control to get votes. Now the real cost of those votes comes to pass.
I feel sorry for the plaintiffs who lost out, but I also feel sorrow for Alaska and the rest of the country. Now corporations have more confidence they can get away with murder. Alaskans should be very wary of Pebble Mine development and the cruise ship industry. The cruise ship lobbyists are at full throttle trying to convince Alaskans we should loosen up on oversight. Their message? Trust us. If we're smart and learn from the Exxon decision, we should do everything in our power to not trust them. All they need to do is hire an alcoholic and blame him/her when they "accidentally" dump their sewage and carcinogens in our waters.

  June 26, 2008 - 1:53pm | LilysDaddy

Not sure

how you go from "...Christianity as a cover" and "...abortion, gay marriage and gun control" as tools used by Republicans to "hoodwink," to the Exxon Valdez grounding and yesterday's Supreme Court decision.

And can you explain how liberal Justice David Souter who wrote the majority opinion in the Exxon case, is tied to "Corporate Republicans?"

Thanks.

  June 26, 2008 - 2:51pm | ilovelucy

reply

It's pretty obvious that the Republicans have used "moral" issues such as abortion and homosexuality to inflame the Christian masses and scare them into voting for Republicans who pose as Christians while they rob the country blind. Today's conservative Christians also value their right to bear guns and other weapons of mass destruction. It's not logical, it's not Christian in the true sense of the word, but it's true.
As for Souter, he was nominated by Bush I. He's been fairly independent and I was disappointed he went along with the corrupt bastards club.
Bush & his buddies are doing better financially than before he became president. The rest of us are sinking in the mire of his stinking administration.

  June 26, 2008 - 6:33pm | LilysDaddy

Thanks,

for your response.

There are not many SCOTUS watchers who would declare Justice Souter "fairly independent." He's properly defined as a liberal, or progressive. His stance on issues ranging from crime to abortion to gay rights leaves little question as to his political outlook. And you don't have to look further than today's Heller decision (Souter voting with the failed minority) to see further proof.

Pappy Bush quickly came to rue the day he nominated Souter. Some believe that this mistake caused enough angry conservative voters to mark their ballot for Ross Perot, instead of Bush, to give the election to Clinton in 1992.

  2     June 26, 2008 - 1:06pm | D_Trott

The Role of the Useful Idiot

Alaska has voted for decades for right wing GOP-dominated government. Now Alaskans have a Supreme Court and Federal Government who care only for the corporate oligarchs and nary a bit for the condition of the working man. What in the world did you folks up there think was going to happen when you voted that way for all those years? Can't really be sorry for you now.

  1     June 26, 2008 - 12:46pm | Oinky

Remind me: what was Hazelwood convicted of?

I can't seem to find anything that says he was convicted of being under the influence while aboard the Valdez. In fact, what I've found indicates he was only convicted of negligent discharge of oil.

It appears that his criminal trial was before a jury. They were not convinced of his guilt on anything but a single charge.

How ironic, isn't it, that people who disagree with the Supreme Court's decision commonly cite one jury's punitive damage finding, yet they seem to be willing to convict Hazelwood 20 years later of something another jury acquitted him of? I suppose in another 20 years the myth surrounding the accident will have grown to the point that Hazelwood staggered about the wheelhouse, bleary-eyed and belching alcohol fumes, screaming that he'd ram the boat into a reef anytime he damn well chose.

I guess you pick and choose the parts that support your position and disregard the rest...at least, that appears to be the way some people see it. I suppose most of those doing the loudest yelping about the Supreme Court ruling will now add juries to their list of those out to ruin their lives, including the president, anyone who voted to appoint the justices of the supreme court, the oil companies....it goes on and on...

  June 26, 2008 - 4:19pm | cjc

Hazelwood

Hazelwood drank at the same bar in Valdez every time the ship came in to port. That is common knowledge in Valdez and remains to this day an undisputed fact. Exxon, with all their money and power could not even convince a jury that they did not knowlingly put an acoholic in command.

  July 16, 2008 - 7:16am | ravenwaddle

don't miss anymore

of your meetings. "Hi I'm clinically stupid but at least I drink."

" hi clinically stupid. "

  June 26, 2008 - 4:48pm | effincloaca

And your point is ....?

So, an alcoholic was captaining the ship. And yet, a jury found that he wasn't impaired at the time of the accident.

It's a good thing juries need more evidence than "it was common knowledge", and that it doesn't matter how many times in the past you've been drunk. What matters is whether you were under the influence at the time in question. The jury found that that wasn't proven.

So, the previous post was correct: most people displeased about this court ruling will pretty much select the "facts" that best suit their reaction. It's no surprise that people distrust the government and the courts, because they obviously don't take the time to understand how either of them work.

  June 27, 2008 - 5:59am | cjc

You're Right

The jury did not find him impaired. However, a lot of the evidence that would have convicted him was never allowed to be heard by the jury.