House District 37 Candidate Questionnaire Responses
Below are candidate responses to the non-partisan, candidate questionnaire sent by United Tribes of Bristol Bay, Bristol Bay Native Association, and Bristol Bay Native Corporation.
To give voters a clear picture of where candidates stand on important issues, we asked all candidates to answer questions based on issues that affect the long-term sustainability and well-being of our communities.
This questionnaire is a nonpartisan voter education effort. The participating organizations do not endorse, oppose, rate, rank, or recommend any candidate. All candidates for Alaska House District 37 and Senate District S were provided with the same questions, the same deadline, and the same opportunity to respond. Responses are published as received, without revision except for formatting purposes related to publication.
House District 37 Candidates: Kimberly Johnson, Dennis Robinson, Mark Smith, Evelynn Trefon, Brenda Lee Wilson
Candidates that did not reply to questionnaire: Peter Angasan, Cade Woods
Question 1: Please describe what has motivated you to run for and serve in public office. What is your vision for the long-term sustainability of the rural communities in the district you seek to represent?
(In the Bristol Bay Regional Vision, sustainability is defined as: the ability of our future grandchildren to live in healthy communities with respect and balance on our ancestral lands and waters, as our people have since time immemorial.)
Kimberly Johnson: I decided to run for HD 37 when I learned that only two individuals had signed up. I believe voters in House District 37 need a choice. That was my initial motivation. Today, my motivation is to provide a voice for our District that listens to all families and their concerns. My vision for long-term stability is a District with healthy families, strong economic opportunities and subsistence protections. Our people need good jobs to support their families. We need schools that prepare our kids for the opportunities our District provides. We need reliable airports and public safety. We need to protect our fisheries. In times of declining revenues, my motivation is grounded in listening and doing everything that I can to support the people and communities in House District 37.
Dennis Robinson: I decided to run because I believe our rural communities deserve strong, experienced representation that understands the opportunities and challenges we face every day. I have spent decades working in local government, Tribal leadership, economic development, infrastructure, and emergency planning. Throughout my career, I have focused on finding practical solutions that strengthen communities rather than divide them. My vision is that our grandchildren can choose to remain in their home communities because they have good schools, quality healthcare, safe housing, reliable transportation, affordable energy, and meaningful jobs. Sustainability means protecting our fisheries, subsistence traditions, and cultural heritage while creating opportunities through responsible economic development. Strong partnerships between Tribes, local governments, corporations, businesses, and the State are essential to achieving that future.
Mark Smith: My life is grounded in District 37. From graduation through my career, I have participated in the political process – in both service and advocacy roles. My goal is to create more local opportunities for those who make a life in our district.
Evelynn Trefon: It has been my dream for 10 years to run for a state political office. I have been the school secretary for 12 years at Newhalen School. Things have gotten a lot tougher funding wise for our school district. Due to lack of steadily increased funding from our state, our school district has had to make some tough decisions. In 2016, our school district dropped down to 150 student school days. It was termed a "subsistence calendar" but in reality, it was a budget cut calendar. Most schools have 170-180 student days. Three years ago, our district office cut funding to our school meals program. It has been up to our local community to feed our kids breakfast, snack, and lunch each school day. When a community is called upon to take on such a large task, it takes funding out of other parts of the community. It has been a stressful few years to make sure our kids are fed each and every school day. I am tired of arguing with our school district over funding and want to go to Juneau to see what can be done to make our communities work better for our children and for our futures. I believe that all Alaskans deserve to be able to send their kids to school in their home villages. I believe that all Alaskans deserve access to clean water and air, subsistence foods and food security access, erosion protection, and equal access/the ability to vote for their chosen candidates.
Brenda Lee Wilson: My motivation to run for and serve in public office comes from a lifelong commitment to the people, lands, and waters that define our rural communities. I grew up witnessing the strength, resilience, and ingenuity that allow our villages to thrive despite geographic isolation, economic challenges, and rapid environmental change. Those experiences shaped my belief that leadership must be rooted in service — service to our elders, our families, our children, and the generations who will inherit the decisions we make today. At the heart of my decision to run is a simple truth: our communities deserve representation that understand them from the inside, not from a distance. I am running because I want to ensure that the voices of rural Alaska — especially those in Bristol Bay and surrounding regions — are not only heard but centered in policy decisions that affect our lands, waters, and ways of life. I believe deeply in the responsibility to protect what has sustained our people since time immemorial. Long-Term Sustainability for Rural Communities The Bristol Bay Regional Vision defines sustainability as “the ability of our future grandchildren to live in healthy communities with respect and balance on our ancestral lands and waters, as our people have since time immemorial.” That definition guides my vision.\ 1. Protecting Subsistence, Culture, and Ancestral Lands Our identity is inseparable from the land and water. Long-term sustainability requires policies that protect salmon habitat, support subsistence access, and uphold tribal sovereignty. This means strengthening partnerships with tribal governments, respecting traditional knowledge, and ensuring that development decisions do not compromise the ecological systems our communities rely on. 2. Investing in Children and Youth Healthy communities begin with opportunity. I envision rural Alaska where every child has access to quality education, cultural learning, mental-health support, and pathways to good jobs — whether they choose to stay in their village or return after gaining experience elsewhere. This includes expanding education access, supporting local workforce development, and ensuring that rural schools have stable funding. 3. Strengthening Local Health and Wellness Systems 5. Ensuring Infrastructure That Supports Rural Life 6. Honoring Elders and Strengthening Community Governance Synthesis: What This Vision Means for the Future My long-term vision is a district are: Children grow up proud of who they are and where they come from Communities have the tools to thrive economically without sacrificing cultural identity Lands and waters remain healthy, abundant, and protected Elders’ wisdom guides policy Future generations can live in balance, just as our ancestors did Running for office is not about personal ambition — it is about responsibility. It is about ensuring that the decisions made today honor the people who came before us and safeguard the future for those who will come after.
Question 2: In our rural communities, basic groceries can cost up to double the national average. What policies will you support to address the high cost of living in rural Alaska?
Kimberly Johnson: I don't know of any single policy that will solve this problem, but I would look at the funding provided to the Alaska Energy Authority that helps lower the cost of electricity in our communities. I would protect the Power Cost of Equalization (PCE) program for rural communities. I would also work with the next Governor to identify ways to make state land available in the District for housing and agriculture. Food security is also an important part of addressing the high cost of living. We need to protect the subsistence resources that feed our families and sustain our Native cultures, while supporting local efforts that improve access to affordable, healthy food. I am not an expert on tax legislation but we should look at tax credits. We don't file a state income tax but what if we brought it back and then introduced legislation that gave each family a grocery tax credit or through filing your state income tax, the grocery tax credit offset the local sales tax.
Dennis Robinson: The cost of living in rural Alaska is simply too high. Families should not have to choose between heating their homes, putting food on the table, finding childcare, or paying for housing. While Alaska cannot control every national or global cause of inflation, the Legislature can reduce the costs that hit rural families the hardest. I support expanding transportation investments that lower freight costs, strengthening the Power Cost Equalization program, maintaining and improving the Alaska Marine Highway System, supporting local food production, and reducing unnecessary regulatory barriers that increase costs. I also support increasing housing construction, weatherization, and energy-efficiency improvements that lower monthly household expenses, along with investments in community infrastructure that reduce long-term operating costs while protecting essential services such as education and healthcare. Finally, we must expand access to affordable childcare by supporting providers, strengthening the childcare workforce, and removing unnecessary obstacles to opening and operating childcare facilities. Together, these investments will help make rural Alaska more affordable, strengthen local economies, and improve the quality of life for families across District 37.
Mark Smith: Keeping transportation costs as low as possible and promoting food cooperatives will help with consumer items. Insisting on local preference for subsistence foods is also key.
Evelynn Trefon: I am unsure what new policies that I will support but I will listen and learn to see what options can take place to help rural Alaskans. I will support an annual PFD payment for all Alaskans. I will not support a state sales tax. It negatively impacts rural Alaskans too much and is unfair. I will support continued funding of the power cost equalization program. I will also be looking into what can make the SNAP approval process run more efficiently. Too many time our neighbors who are in need the most are left without SNAP benefits that they need due to a back log of approvals from the state of Alaska.
Brenda Lee Wilson: Addressing the high cost of living in rural Alaska—especially in places like King Cove where groceries can cost up to twice the national average—requires a mix of infrastructure investment, market reform, and direct support for households. The core issue is that transportation, energy, and supply-chain constraints are stacked on top of each other. Here’s a structured, policy-focused answer you can use or adapt. Concise takeaway The most effective policies combine lowering transportation and energy costs, strengthening local food systems, and targeted financial relief so rural families aren’t punished for geography. Transportation & Supply Chain Reforms Rural freight subsidies — Expand programs that offset barge and air cargo costs for essential goods. Alaska’s geography makes freight the biggest driver of grocery prices. Port and airport modernization — Upgrading runways, docks, and cold-storage facilities reduces spoilage and allows larger, more efficient shipments. Essential air service expansion — Strengthen federal EAS funding so communities maintain reliable, affordable air transport for food and medicine. Energy & Utility Cost Reduction Renewable microgrids — Solar, wind, and battery systems reduce dependence on diesel, lowering both household utility bills and the cost of operating stores. Bulk fuel purchasing programs — State-coordinated fuel buys can stabilize prices for remote communities. Weatherization incentives — Lowering home heating costs frees up household income and reduces overall cost-of-living pressure. Strengthening Local Food Production Community greenhouses — High-latitude greenhouse programs reduce reliance on imported produce. Support for subsistence and small-scale agriculture — Grants, equipment support, and training help families supplement store-bought food. Local food processing hubs — Facilities for fish, game, and produce increase food security and keep value in the community. Direct Financial Relief Rural cost-of-living tax credits — Targeted credits help offset unavoidable expenses. Food security vouchers — Supplemental benefits for high-cost regions ensure families can afford basics. Expanded SNAP shipping allowances — Allowing SNAP to cover delivery fees helps communities without full grocery stores. Market Competition & Consumer Protection Anti-price-gouging enforcement — Stronger oversight prevents unfair markups in isolated markets. Support for cooperative grocery models — Community-owned stores can keep prices lower by reinvesting profits locally. A non-obvious insight One of the most impactful long-term policies is improving broadband infrastructure. It seems unrelated, but reliable high-speed internet enables: Online grocery ordering with competitive pricing Remote work opportunities that raise household income Better coordination of regional supply chains Digital access reduces isolation costs just as much as physical infrastructure.
Question 3: The current cost of fuel is unsustainable for the people and communities in the region. In the short term, what role do you think the state should play in addressing the erratic prices of fuel in rural Alaska? In the long term, what is the role of renewable energy (wind, hydro, solar, etc.) in lowering rural Alaska's dependence on imported fuels?
Kimberly Johnson: The energy relief check passed by the Legislature is one way to directly assist people in our communities. But high fuel prices affect far more than what we pay at the pump. Fuel powers our fishing vessels, barges, aircraft, generators, and the equipment that keeps our communities running. When fuel prices rise, the cost of groceries, freight, commercial fishing, and nearly every household expense rises with them. Alaska has significant oil and gas resources. We need to responsibly develop those resources for the benefit of Alaskans, not just corporations. The Alaska Energy Authority's Renewable Energy Fund provides grants and loans that help communities lower long-term energy costs. Based on my review of the program, a number of communities throughout our district have successfully benefited from these investments. I believe every community should explore this opportunity to lower the cost of energy. I support expanding renewable energy because wind, hydro, solar, and other local energy projects can reduce our dependence on imported fuel, lower long-term costs, and improve energy reliability for rural communities. We need the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development to provide technical assistance that develop and leverage partnerships with organizations that can help our smaller utilities increase economies of scale to reduce the burdens on the end user. We should encourage bulk fuel purchases in our communities across the State that would lower the cost to our most vulnerable. Support and fund weatherization programs and partner with Federal agencies, such as USDA, to take advantage of their programs. I also believe we should examine whether enough transparency and consumer protections exist when fuel prices spike, because rural Alaskans often have little choice but to pay whatever the market demands.
Dennis Robinson: In the short term, the State should continue targeted energy assistance programs while investing in fuel storage and transportation systems that improve supply reliability and reduce costs. Long term, rural Alaska has tremendous renewable energy potential. Communities across District 37 have opportunities for hydroelectric, geothermal, wind, solar, and battery storage projects. Renewable energy won't replace every need immediately, but it can significantly reduce diesel consumption, stabilize energy costs, improve energy security, and strengthen local economies. We should pursue practical, community-driven projects that make economic sense.
Mark Smith: The state and federal program Heating Assistance Program should be strengthened to ensure basic home heating is possible. Although commodity costs are not influenced by the state, fuel transport, storage, and distribution costs can be influenced. Read about a developing AEA/Denali Commission study here: akbulkfuelstudy.com Renewables are the environmentally wise choice for the long term. Unfortunately, the cost of installation, operation, and maintenance of renewables for smaller locations does not lower power costs. As technology improves and prices lower for renewable equipment, this will change for the better.
Evelynn Trefon: Anything we can do to help offset the prices of fuel in rural Alaska would be helpful. An energy surplus check to help us offset energy prices would be great. As the prices of oil increase, so does the amount of revenue that comes to the state from the oil companies. A portion of these money should go to rural Alaskans to help offset the prices as they rise. In Newhalen, we are relying on 98% of our energy to be generated from hydropower. Our hydro project provides power to Newhalen, Iliamna, and Nondalton. Without this, our energy prices would be even greater. I think solar panels would be a great investment across the state to homeowners. If the state of Alaska could provide an energy rebate for these, it would be extremely helpful to families that could not afford them otherwise. Wind power doesn't make sense for some of Alaska because it can be TOO windy for the turbines to work properly.
Brenda Lee Wilson: The short answer: In the short term, the state’s most effective role is stabilizing costs and reducing volatility; in the long term, renewable energy is the only realistic path to lowering rural Alaska’s dependence on imported fuels. Below is a deeper, structured breakdown you can use for policy discussion, testimony, or written responses. Short-Term: What the State Can Do About Erratic Fuel Prices The core issue in rural Alaska is structural: small markets, long supply chains, weather-dependent delivery windows, and limited storage capacity. That means the state’s role isn’t just about lowering prices — it’s about stabilizing them. 1. Targeted fuel subsidies 2. Bulk purchasing programs The state can negotiate large-scale fuel purchases and pass the savings to rural communities. Economies of scale reduce per-gallon costs. Reduces exposure to market swings by locking in seasonal contracts. 3. Support for fuel storage expansion 4. Transportation cost stabilization 5. Regulatory transparency and price monitoring Long-Term: The Role of Renewable Energy in Reducing Dependence on Imported Fuels Renewables are not just an environmental choice — they are an economic necessity for rural Alaska. Imported fuel will always be expensive due to geography. Renewables break that cycle. 1. Wind power 2. Hydro and hydrokinetic Small hydro projects can provide stable, year-round baseload power. Ideal for communities with rivers or steep terrain Hydrokinetic turbines (in rivers or tidal currents) are promising for places without traditional hydro sites 3. Solar energy 4. Battery storage and microgrids 5. Local workforce development 6. State investment and financing mechanisms The Big Picture Short term: Stabilize prices and reduce volatility. Long term: Transition to locally produced renewable energy to break dependence on imported fuel entirely. This is not a theoretical future — it’s already happening. Communities like Kodiak, Igiugig, Kotzebue, and Cordova have shown that renewables can dramatically reduce diesel consumption while improving reliability and lowering costs.
Question 4: Alaska has significantly higher rates of substance use disorders than the national average, affecting more than one in five (over 21%) residents. Bristol Bay's suicide rate is also about double the national average. If elected, how would you work to address these behavioral health challenges impacting our communities?
Kimberly Johnson: As a resident of Dillingham, suicide impacts all of us. It's personal and it's heartbreaking. While serving on the Curyung Tribal Council, I was one of seven Chiefs who supported funding for our Wellness Center. We not only repurposed a facility, but we hired staff to operate it. Our Wellness staff provide cultural activities and partner with organizations to host conferences that benefit both our tribal citizens and the broader community. Later, the Wellness staff asked the Council to fund a licensed behavioral health professional to provide direct services to our Tribal members. We have since expanded those services to include family members who are not Tribal citizens. Through partnerships, we've expanded beyond individual counseling to include group sessions as well. I am proud of our elected Tribal Leaders and our Wellness staff for their efforts to develop and implement this program that impacts our community. We can take this same model and move it to a regional and state level to support those needing mental health services. I can advocate for the need with future administration to find grass root solutions to help people thrive. I can take my experience and bring it to the Department of Health and Human Services, so they know what we can do in our communities to address suicides.
Dennis Robinson: Behavioral health challenges affect every community, but the consequences are especially severe in rural Alaska, where too many people cannot access care when they need it most. In too many of our communities, a mental health crisis can quickly become a family crisis because professional help is unavailable or hundreds of miles away. When someone is struggling with depression, addiction, trauma, or thoughts of suicide, they should not have to wait weeks for an appointment, leave their community, or reach a breaking point before receiving care. Families should not be left to face these emergencies alone. We need to strengthen prevention, early intervention, crisis response, and long-term treatment while expanding telehealth and recruiting more behavioral health professionals to rural Alaska. I also support greater investment in Tribal health organizations because they have earned the trust of the communities they serve and are often best positioned to provide culturally appropriate care. Suicide prevention, substance abuse treatment, youth mentoring, family support, and community-based services must all work together if we are going to improve outcomes and give every Alaskan access to the help they deserve.
Mark Smith: Substance abuse and mental health challenges are major causes. Cultural isolation and lack of economic opportunity also contribute. The state can assist in ways I would advocate: Better enforcement of drug and alcohol laws, improved local mental health care, more economic opportunity (See 7. Below), and culturally informed education that reflects a community's needs.
Evelynn Trefon: Alcohol is the number one issue that I see as a plague on our villages. It is not talked enough opening. More support groups and parenting groups in communities need to be created to help support people with parenting and other life challenges so they have a different resource to turn to when times get hard. Breaking the cycle needs to be at the forefront of everyone's purview. In the past 5 years, villages from around the region have lost too many of our friends and loved ones due to alcohol related deaths. Suicides are on the increase in our region as well. Mental health support needs to start at the school level. Parents should be encouraged to limit the amount of online social media hours that their children are exposed to. I do not think phones have a place the classrooms.
Brenda Lee Wilson: I would treat behavioral health as a core public-safety and community-health priority. The statistics are alarming, but the response must go beyond crisis intervention and address the conditions that contribute to substance misuse and suicide, especially in rural and Alaska Native communities. If elected, I would focus on four areas: 1: Expand local access to care. I would advocate stable funding for village-based counselors, behavioral health aides, telehealth, mobile crisis response, and transportation to treatment. Services should be available before someone reaches a crisis, not only afterward. 2: Build a full continuum of treatment. Bristol Bay needs stronger connections among prevention, detoxification, residential and outpatient treatment, medication-assisted treatment, mental-health care, peer support, and long-term recovery services. People should not fall through the cracks when moving between programs. 3: Invest in culturally grounded prevention. Tribal governments, local providers, schools, elders, youth, and people with lived experience should lead the design of solutions. Cultural identity, traditional activities, family connection, and community belonging are important protective factors. 4: Strengthening suicide and overdose prevention. I would support widespread naloxone access, suicide-prevention and crisis-response training, safe medication disposal, responsible firearm-storage education, school-based services, and coordinated follow-up after an overdose or behavioral-health crisis. I would also press for better regional data and measurable outcomes, so funding follows demonstrated needs. Success should be judged by shorter wait times, fewer overdoses and suicides, stronger treatment retention, and more residents receiving care close to home. This work requires sustained partnership with Bristol Bay communities, Tribal health organizations, state agencies, schools, law enforcement, and local providers - not a one-size-fits-all program imposed from outside. would treat behavioral health as a core public-safety and community-health priority. The statistics are alarming, but the response must go beyond crisis intervention and address the conditions that contribute to substance misuse and suicide, especially in rural and Alaska Native communities.
Question 5: How will you support rural schools facing declining enrollment, teacher retention, and funding challenges?
Kimberly Johnson: Declining enrollment often happens because families leave their communities. I want to help create reasons for families to stay in the District by supporting good local jobs, affordable housing, and safe, healthy communities. Strong schools are essential to keeping our communities strong. I want to encourage families to stay and build their futures here at home. We also need to encourage employers to hire local residents with families whenever possible. To improve teacher recruitment and retention, we need to ensure teachers have access to housing and competitive salaries. Finally, we need to fix the Base Student Allocation so rural schools have the stable funding they need to provide a quality education for every student.
Dennis Robinson: In rural Alaska, our schools are more than classrooms they are the heart of our communities. They are where children discover their potential, families come together, and the next generation prepares to lead. Yet too many schools across House District 37 face teacher shortages, rising costs, limited housing, aging facilities, declining enrollment, and years of unpredictable funding. Our children should not receive fewer opportunities simply because they live in rural Alaska. If elected, strengthening public education will be one of my highest priorities. I support stable, predictable education funding, including a meaningful increase to the Base Student Allocation, so school districts can plan for the future with confidence. We must improve teacher recruitment and retention by offering competitive salaries and benefits, addressing housing shortages, and restoring retirement systems that help attract and keep experienced educators. Rural schools should also have access to modern technology, career and technical education, and partnerships with local industries that prepare students for successful careers without requiring them to leave their communities. Every child from our smallest villages to our regional centers deserves a quality education close to home. Investing in public education is an investment in our children, our communities, and Alaska's future.
Mark Smith: Declining enrollment is directly tied to outmigration. Typically this is cost of living/ lack of services driven. Alaska in general, and District 37 specifically are resource rich. Very simply, we need to capture more of our resource value before it leaves the state. Doing this improves all aspects of community and education.
Evelynn Trefon: I have worked as the secretary of a preschool-12th grade school in Newhalen for the past 12.5 years. I have seen first-hand the impacts of the state not keeping up with funding for schools as costs for school's sky rocket. I believe declining enrollments in school are attributed to the following issues: Lack of housing in a village Lack of jobs in a village Poor school building conditions (unsafe buildings, etc) Poor environmental school conditions (bulling, not culturally educated teachers, etc) And other reasons Teacher retention is a huge issue in rural Alaska. We need a program that entices a teacher to stay in Alaska for more than 5 years. Training and hiring more teachers from Alaska is really the dream route to go. The teachers trained in Alaska are significantly more likely to stay in the same teaching position for at least 3 years. Funding for schools is an ongoing challenge. Without additional revenue measures from the state level, we can't have more school funding. We need either an income tax on people with individual gross earnings of $120,000 or more and/or a school tax again where every working individual in Alaska pays $100 of their first paycheck into an account that can be used for the purpose of school funding. What we are doing is not fair to to our communities or to our kids. We need more for them. We need better.
Brenda Lee Wilson: Supporting rural schools means tackling three interconnected problems at once: declining enrollment, teacher retention, and funding instability. The concise takeaway is that the most effective approach blends regional collaboration, flexible staffing models, and funding reforms that stabilize small-school budgets while expanding opportunities for students. Declining Enrollment Rural enrollment drops because families move for jobs, housing, or healthcare access. The key is expanding what small schools can offer without requiring large student numbers. Regional course-sharing — Districts can pool teachers across communities using hybrid instruction. A single certified teacher can serve multiple schools through scheduled in-person rotations plus remote lessons. Dual-credit partnerships — Agreements with community colleges or tribal colleges let students earn college credit without leaving town. Mobile specialty programs — Traveling instructors for STEM, arts, and career/technical education can rotate through rural schools on predictable schedules. Community-based learning — Local fisheries, clinics, tribal organizations, and small businesses can host applied learning projects that keep students engaged and connected to local career paths. Teacher Retention Rural retention is shaped by isolation, housing shortages, limited professional networks, and burnout. Rural teacher housing initiatives — State-backed housing stipends or partnerships with local governments can reduce turnover caused by scarce or expensive housing. Grow-your-own educator pipelines — Scholarships, paid apprenticeships, and para-to-teacher pathways help rural residents become teachers who are more likely to stay long-term. Shared-service staffing — Specialists (speech therapists, counselors, SPED teachers) can be hired regionally so rural schools aren’t competing for scarce talent. Professional learning networks — Virtual coaching, mentorship, and peer communities reduce isolation and improve retention. Funding Challenges Rural schools often rely heavily on enrollment-based formulas that punish small or shrinking communities. Stabilized funding formulas — Multi-year averaging or minimum funding floors prevent sudden budget drops when enrollment fluctuates. Weighted funding for remoteness — Additional per-student weight for rural isolation, transportation costs, and limited economies of scale. Regional shared services — Districts can jointly purchase curriculum, technology, transportation, and food services to reduce overhead. Infrastructure modernization grants — Federal and state grants can upgrade broadband, heating systems, and aging buildings—critical in places like King Cove where weather and distance increase costs. The Non-Obvious Insight The biggest gains come from treating rural schools as part of a regional ecosystem, not isolated units. When schools collaborate—sharing teachers, transportation, technology, and specialized programs—they can offer more opportunities with fewer students and more stable budgets.
Question 6: How will you support meaningful government-to-government consultation with Tribes, Tribal compacting, Tribal self-governance, and state–Tribal partnerships in areas such as child welfare, public safety, transportation, fisheries, education, and community infrastructure?
Kimberly Johnson: Meaningful government-to-government consultation means bringing Tribes to the table early, truly listening to their concerns, and working together before decisions are made, not after they have already been made. Government-to-government consultation begins with electing a governor who believes in working with Tribes on issues such as child welfare, public safety, transportation, fisheries, education, and community infrastructure. The State doesn't have to agree with Tribes on every issue, but it should always treat Tribes as partners in finding solutions that work for our communities. While the current Governor signed HB 123, it did not change the legal status of Tribes in Alaska or the state's legal authority or responsibility. I would work to strengthen that relationship. As a Tribal Administrator with more than 18 years of service on the Curyung Tribal Council, I've worked alongside state agencies on issues including child welfare, public safety, behavioral health, and community development. I've seen firsthand that partnerships produce better outcomes for our communities. It is time for the State to stop fighting Alaska Tribes. Let's build a true government to government relationship where we recognize and respect one another as sovereign governments with distinct responsibilities, working together to serve our shared communities and improve the lives of Alaskans.
Dennis Robinson: The State must treat Tribes as respected governmental partners. Meaningful consultation means engaging Tribes early in decision-making rather than after decisions have already been made. I support Tribal self-governance, Tribal compacting where appropriate, and stronger partnerships in child welfare, transportation, emergency management, fisheries, education, and public safety. Our best solutions come when the State works with not around Tribal governments.
Mark Smith: As in any strong relationships, communication is essential. Local governments can often inform state agencies on local issues that are missed in a statewide policy or procedure. In providing local opportunity, state spending – at any level – should be offered to local governments first.
Evelynn Trefon: First and foremost, as a representative for a very large region, LISTENING is the main thing that needs to happen when it comes to community matters. There are 72 individual communities within our district 37 region and each one is different from the next. There is not a one solution for all answer here for these matters. We, the state of Alaska, needs to listen to individual Tribes and learn what works best for each individual governmental agency. Listening is how we strengthen government to government relationships.
Brenda Lee Wilson: Here’s a comprehensive, actionable framework you can use. Concise takeaway The strongest approach is to build formal, recurring, and enforceable consultation structures—co-designed with Tribes—that support Tribal self-governance, compacting, and state–Tribal collaboration across all major service areas. 1. Government-to-Government Consultation Formal Consultation Protocols — Adopt written consultation policies that require early engagement, clear timelines, and Tribal consent for major actions affecting Tribal interests. Early Engagement — Consult at the idea stage, not after decisions are drafted. Dedicated Tribal Liaisons — Staff full-time Tribal relations officers with authority to coordinate across agencies. Regular Leadership Summits — Hold annual or semiannual government-to-government summits with Tribal chairs, councils, and agency heads. Data Sovereignty Agreements — Ensure Tribes control how their data is collected, shared, and used. 2. Tribal Compacting & Self-Governance Expand Compacting Opportunities — Allow Tribes to take over federal or state program administration where they choose. Flexible Funding Models — Provide block grants, multi-year funding, and reduced administrative burden. Joint Performance Measures — Co-develop metrics that reflect Tribal priorities, not just state or federal benchmarks. Technical Assistance Teams — Offer support for Tribes that want to compact but need capacity building. 3. Strengthening State–Tribal Partnerships Intergovernmental Agreements — Create MOUs for shared responsibilities in public safety, transportation, fisheries, and education. Joint Advisory Councils — Establish councils with equal Tribal and state representation. Cross-Jurisdictional Training — Train state agencies on Tribal sovereignty, jurisdiction, and cultural competency. Shared Emergency Response Plans — Coordinate disaster response, search and rescue, and public health preparedness. 4. Sector-Specific Strategies Child Welfare ICWA-Aligned Protocols — Ensure full compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act and Tribal placement preferences. Tribal Caseworkers — Fund Tribal social workers and joint case reviews. Public Safety Cross-Deputization Agreements — Allow Tribal and state officers to operate across jurisdictions. Joint Justice Initiatives — Support Tribal courts, diversion programs, and culturally grounded rehabilitation. Transportation Co-Managed Infrastructure Planning — Include Tribes in regional planning, safety audits, and project prioritization. Tribal Transit Support — Fund Tribal transit systems and rural mobility solutions. Fisheries & Natural Resources Co-Management Agreements — Recognize Tribal treaty rights and co-manage fisheries, wildlife, and habitat restoration. Joint Science & Monitoring — Support shared data collection and Tribal ecological knowledge. Education Tribal Education Compacts — Allow Tribes to operate K–12 schools or curriculum programs. Culturally Responsive Curriculum — Co-create accurate Tribal history and language programs. Community Infrastructure Tribal Infrastructure Funds — Prioritize broadband, housing, water systems, and climate resilience. Joint Planning Boards — Coordinate land use, permitting, and long-term development. 5. Accountability & Transparency Annual Consultation Reports — Publish outcomes, commitments, and next steps. Tribal Feedback Loops — Allow Tribes to evaluate consultation quality. Shared Decision Tracking — Track commitments across agencies with Tribal access. 6. Non-Obvious Insight The most meaningful support often comes from capacity parity. Tribes cannot engage as equal governments if they lack staff, funding, or technical resources. Investing in Tribal capacity—grant writers, planners, legal counsel, data systems—creates the conditions for true self-governance.
Question 7: Many Bristol Bay communities face serious housing and infrastructure challenges that affect workforce recruitment and retention, public safety, education, healthcare, transportation, and overall community stability. If elected, what state policies, funding priorities, or partnerships would you support to improve rural housing capacity and strengthen essential infrastructure in the region?
Kimberly Johnson: We can start by making more state land available near our communities for housing. I would also ask our regional housing authorities in District 37, including BBHA, AVCP Regional Housing Authority, and Aleutian Housing Authority, what barriers prevent them from building more homes. Sometimes the challenge is a shortage of contractors. At other times it is limited financing for families trying to purchase affordable housing. We need to understand those barriers and work together to remove them so more families can access safe, affordable housing. I would encourage the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to leverage their loans and seek partnerships with Tribes and Tribal Organizations to use the 105(l) program to fund housing. Housing is only one part of the solution. Strong infrastructure, including reliable airports, ports, roads, energy systems, broadband, water and sewer systems, and public facilities, is essential to attracting teachers, healthcare workers, public safety officers, and other professionals to our communities. I will support investments that strengthen both our infrastructure and our workforce so families can continue to live and thrive in rural Alaska. I also believe the State should work in partnership with Tribes, local governments, regional organizations, and Alaska Native corporations to make the best use of available state and federal funding. No single organization can solve these challenges alone, but by working together we can make meaningful progress for our communities.
Dennis Robinson: Housing shortages affect every aspect of rural life. I support increasing state investment in workforce housing, expanding infrastructure grants, and encouraging partnerships among Tribes, municipalities, regional corporations, and private industry. Infrastructure investments in ports, roads, airports, water, sewer, broadband, and energy create long-term economic benefits while improving public safety and quality of life. Housing and infrastructure should be viewed as economic development investments, not simply expenses.
Mark Smith: My primary goal is to critically evaluate state contracting policy and practice. For rural communities, all state contracting should be based on financially meaningful local community participation. Best value is not 'quickest and cheapest', but what maximizes economic participation. Meaningful work is a fundamental ingredient to healthy communities. Prioritization of District 37 funding for capital projects is a given. Partnerships with federal programs are also efficient ways to stretch state spending.
Evelynn Trefon: First, I would like to figure out what Alaska Housing Finance Corporation does and how it can help rural Alaskans with new constriction homes and first-time home buyers purchasing existing homes. We as a state need to offer more options for rural Alaska to be able to increase homeownership throughout the region. We also need to continue housing loan programs for villages to build new construction housing for law enforcement, healthcare workers, and teachers. Airports need annual inspections statewide. Improvements to airports need to noted and followed up on annually. Airports are the life blood for many villages. In addition to housing, we need more infrastructure built to house important village equipment such as fire trucks, ambulances, and septic pumps. The state of Alaska should be able to offer similar loan programs for infrastructure buildings.
Brenda Lee Wilson: A strong, clear answer first: the most effective state-level approach to Bristol Bay’s housing and infrastructure crisis is a combination of sustained capital investment, flexible rural-specific housing programs, and deeper partnerships with tribal and local governments. Everything else—workforce stability, public safety, healthcare access, education—depends on that foundation. Core policies that would make the biggest difference Each item begins with a Guided Link so you can dig deeper if you want. Rural Housing Trust Fund — A dedicated, multi-year state fund for rural Alaska construction that recognizes higher costs for freight, labor, and materials. This would allow communities to plan long-term instead of chasing one-off grants. Workforce Housing Incentives — State-backed incentives for teacher, healthcare, and public safety housing, including modular units and rapid-deployment builds. This directly improves recruitment and retention. Local Hire & Training Programs — Partnering with regional organizations to train local residents in construction trades reduces reliance on outside labor and keeps wages in the community. Infrastructure priorities that matter most in Bristol Bay Community Water/Sewer Modernization — Many villages still rely on aging systems or haul water. Prioritizing piped water, wastewater upgrades, and storm resilience is essential for public health. Energy Reliability Projects — Expanding renewable microgrids, battery storage, and grid stabilization reduces diesel dependence and lowers household costs. Transportation & Port Improvements — Upgrading docks, airports, and roads improves supply chains, lowers construction costs, and supports the fishing economy. Broadband Expansion — High-speed internet is now essential infrastructure for education, telehealth, and economic development. Partnerships that strengthen rural capacity State–Tribal Compacting — Allowing tribes to directly manage housing and infrastructure funds increases efficiency and respects local governance. Regional Collaboration with BBNA & BBEDC — These organizations already coordinate workforce development, housing studies, and economic planning. State partnerships can scale their impact. Federal Leveraging — Maximizing programs like HUD ICDBG, USDA Rural Development, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act ensures Alaska doesn’t leave federal dollars unused. Why this matters Bristol Bay’s housing shortage isn’t just about buildings—it’s about whether communities can keep teachers, nurses, police officers, and local workers. Without stable housing and reliable infrastructure, every other service becomes fragile. State policy can either reinforce that fragility or help reverse it.
Question 8: Alaska's infrastructure is facing immediate threats from thawing permafrost and coastal erosion, while the state simultaneously relies on fossil fuels for revenue and its own energy needs. How do you plan to balance mitigating these urgent climate impacts while supporting the state's economic and energy security?
Kimberly Johnson: I believe in listening to our communities about their specific needs relating to thawing permafrost and coastal erosion. The State previously funded the Alaska Climate Change Impact Mitigation Program through the Department of Commerce. I believe it is time to restore that funding. We will continue to experience major storms, such as Typhoon Halong, and our communities would benefit from grants that help them plan and prepare for climate-related impacts. At the same time, Alaska's economy depends on responsible resource development. I believe we can continue to responsibly develop our oil and gas resources while also investing in local energy projects that improve reliability, lower long-term costs, and reduce dependence on imported fuel.
Dennis Robinson: Climate impacts are already affecting many Alaska communities through coastal erosion, flooding, and changing weather patterns. We must invest in resilient infrastructure that protects communities while continuing to support responsible resource development that funds essential state services. I believe Alaska can both develop its natural resources responsibly and expand renewable energy where it benefits communities. We should focus on practical solutions that improve resilience, strengthen local economies, and preserve Alaska's natural resources for future generations.
Mark Smith: Climate change is real. Fossil fuels are a significant contributor. However, climate trends over centuries have varied significantly. What the state does with its resources has very little effect on climate change. What can be done is the very difficult task of evaluating geophysical risks over time and making decisions to reinforce against erosion or to relocate state infrastructure.
Evelynn Trefon: Coastal communities need to be protected from continued increasing fall and winter storms. Increased early warning systems via text messages and new seawalls would be steps in the right direction to help our coastal communities. I do not support data centers in Alaska. I think we need to put any data centers on pause to fully evaluate the long-term impacts of these large resource users. All large-scale projects should be decided first and foremost by the local communities. If the local communities do not support of a particular project, then the state should support that decision by people of Alaska. Alternatively, if a community is supportive of a project, the state of Alaska should help to fight for these projects. Will everyone in every community agree? No but we as a state need to listen to our Elders words and hear what they are saying to us. A new LNG line needs to come to fruition sooner rather than later. Anchorage suppliers are predicting to have a very difficult winter without it. It will take a few years for new projects to come online. This upcoming winter, residents may have to privet to fossil fuel options such as diesel generators to have security of a warm house this winter. I support this line of new development as long as the state of Alaska is not paying for the construction of it and the company pays its fair share back to Alaskans, who own the resources of our state. I am not sure what can be done to balance these impacts while growing security except to continue to encourage people to get out and vote. We need people representing and listening to the communities that they work for in every level of government.
Brenda Lee Wilson: You’re naming the core tension in Alaska’s future—so I’d treat it as a “both/and,” not an “either/or.” Balancing climate resilience and economic/energy security Use today’s fossil revenue to fund tomorrow’s resilience and transition. I’d push to dedicate a clear share of oil and gas revenues to a permanent “Climate Resilience and Transition Fund” focused on: Reinforcing and relocating vulnerable infrastructure in permafrost and coastal communities Supporting village relocation where necessary Seeding new industries—renewables, critical minerals, Arctic research, sustainable fisheries—so we’re less dependent on one volatile revenue stream. Harden and adapt infrastructure immediately. Update building codes and road standards for thawing permafrost and erosion, not the climate of 30 years ago. Prioritize critical assets—airports, ports, hospitals, schools, energy facilities—in the most at-risk communities for rapid assessment and retrofits. Partner with tribes and local governments so adaptation plans are community-led, not imposed from afar. Protect coastal communities with a mix of defense and retreat. Invest in nature-based defenses where possible (restoring dunes, wetlands, and barrier islands) alongside engineered protections. Where erosion and inundation make long-term habitability unrealistic, commit to a humane, fully funded relocation process that respects cultural ties and subsistence lifestyles. Keep energy reliable while shifting the mix. Maintain responsible production from existing fields in the near term, with strict environmental safeguards, while aggressively expanding: Community-scale renewables (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal) and battery storage More efficient diesel use and hybrid microgrids in remote communities to cut costs and emissions without risking reliability. Support workforce retraining so oil and gas workers can move into construction, grid modernization, renewables, and critical-minerals projects. Plan for a managed decline in fossil dependence, not a cliff. Set clear, realistic targets for reducing state emissions and fossil revenue dependence over time, tied to measurable milestones in diversification and infrastructure resilience. Use long-term fiscal planning so the budget doesn’t collapse as markets change—strengthen the Permanent Fund, reduce structural deficits, and avoid sudden shocks to public services. Center Indigenous and local leadership. Make sure climate and energy decisions are co-designed with Alaska Native organizations and local governments, who are living the impacts first and know what will work on the ground. In short, I’d keep the lights on, and the economy stable with existing resources—but treat every dollar we earn from fossil fuels as fuel for building a safer, more diversified, climate-resilient Alaska.
Question 9: What is your position on long-term protections for the Bristol Bay watershed, including protections related to large-scale mining proposals such as Pebble? Please explain how you would balance salmon, subsistence, Tribal concerns, and economic development opportunities?
Kimberly Johnson: I oppose large-scale mine development in the Bristol Bay watershed. I also believe in a Fish First Priority. Any proposed economic development opportunities should be evaluated against that principle because healthy salmon runs support our subsistence way of life, commercial fishing industry, local businesses, and the long-term economic future of our region. The same approach can be applied to protecting subsistence resources while considering development opportunities. Protecting subsistence is about more than preserving tradition; it is about food security, culture, and ensuring future generations can continue the way of life that has sustained our communities for thousands of years. I believe in listening to Tribes, local communities, commercial fishermen, and other stakeholders to understand their concerns, and work toward solutions that reflect the values of the people who live here. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do know the most important resources we have are the salmon, lands, and waters that feed our families and sustain our communities.
Dennis Robinson: I remain firmly opposed to the Pebble Mine because of the unacceptable risks it poses to the Bristol Bay watershed, the world's greatest wild salmon fishery, subsistence resources, and the cultures that have depended upon them for thousands of years. The long-term economic value of sustainable fisheries, tourism, and subsistence far exceeds the short-term benefits of a mine that could permanently threaten those resources. Economic development should complement not jeopardize the natural resources that sustain our communities.
Mark Smith: My mother mentions me being with her in a tent on Igushik Beach in 1963 where she ran a commercial set net. Almost every year since I've participated in the salmon fishery and it has been the largest economic influence in my career. This is also largely true for my family and neighbors here in Aleknagik. The state has an obligation to safeguard its resources and I'll represent the salmon centric interests of the Bristol Bay watershed.
Evelynn Trefon: First, it should be the local people's decisions on whether or not have a mine in their region. Even if the proposed project is on state land, the state has only "owned" the land for 67 years. Pebble is not the right mine for this region. The only long-term solution that I see for protections relating to the Pebble Project is to change the designation of the land. Subsistence use of land needs to be the priority across Alaska. The people should come first. Next should come the nonresident resource extractors. Tourism is a very important industry for our region and many people rely on it but money should never be put above a family filling their freezer for the winter. We need to listen to local Tribes regarding their positions on issues affecting our region.
Brenda Lee Wilson: I support strong, long-term protections for the Bristol Bay watershed and oppose large-scale mining projects like Pebble that threaten the salmon fishery, subsistence way of life, and Tribal sovereignty. For me, the balance looks like this: Salmon first as the foundation: The salmon runs are irreplaceable—ecologically, culturally, and economically. Any proposal that poses a high risk to the fishery, water quality, or habitat is a non-starter. Long-term protections, including Clean Water Act safeguards, should remain in place and be strengthened, not weakened. Respect for Tribal rights and subsistence: Tribal governments and local communities should lead in decisions about their homelands. I would prioritize formal consultation, co-management, and legal protections for subsistence resources, recognizing that these are not just “interests” but rights and lifeways that have existed for thousands of years. Economic development that fits the place: Bristol Bay deserves robust economic opportunities—but they must be compatible with a healthy watershed and salmon. I would support investments in: Renewable energy and community infrastructure Value-added seafood processing and marketing Tourism, guiding, and small business development Workforce training for local residents In short, I favor a long-term vision where Bristol Bay’s salmon and cultures are protected permanently, and economic development is built around that living wealth—not at its expense.
Question 10: What changes, if any, would you support in state fisheries management for sustaining salmon and other key fisheries?
Kimberly Johnson: State Fisheries Management is primarily carried out by the Governor and the Commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game, not the Legislature. We need to elect a Governor who supports strong fisheries management that sustains healthy salmon and other key fish populations. Through the Board of Fisheries, Alaskans can propose regulatory changes. The Legislature's responsibility is to ensure that the Governor appoints board members who will listen to the public and support sustainable fisheries. I would support the development of legislation that looks at retaining permits by Alaskans.
Dennis Robinson: Healthy fisheries depend on sound science, transparency, and public confidence. I support science-based management while ensuring local fishermen, Tribes, and coastal communities have meaningful input into management decisions. We must continue improving salmon research, understand changing ocean conditions, strengthen habitat protection, and ensure that management decisions consider both conservation and the economic well-being of fishing communities. Sustaining our fisheries requires collaboration, adaptive management, and long-term stewardship.
Mark Smith: Alaska has generally been successful in managing its fisheries. Political interventions have had mixed results. Sustainable run have a complex matrix of influences and I'll support funding for better science to understand what influences returns.
Evelynn Trefon: I need to look into the state fisheries management more before I comment on this issue.
Brenda Lee Wilson: Sustaining salmon and other key fisheries requires tightening management in a few specific, evidence-based areas. The recent regulatory updates for ocean salmon fisheries show that states already coordinate closely with NOAA and the Pacific Fishery Management Council, but there are clear opportunities to strengthen long-term sustainability. Key changes that would meaningfully improve state fisheries management Science-based escapement targets — Current federal rules already require leaving enough salmon to spawn, but states could adopt more conservative escapement thresholds during low-abundance years to buffer against climate-driven variability. Adaptive season adjustments — NOAA frequently issues in-season changes when runs come in weaker than expected. States could mirror this responsiveness in their own inside-waters fisheries to prevent overharvest. Habitat restoration prioritization — Ocean regulations alone cannot recover salmon. State agencies could expand investments in watershed restoration, culvert replacement, and riparian protections to improve juvenile survival. Stronger monitoring and data transparency — The Council’s 2026 stock review shows that accurate forecasts and ABC/ACL limits depend on high-quality data. States could increase funding for monitoring, tagging, and real-time reporting. Climate-resilient management plans — Warmer oceans, altered river flows, and changing predator dynamics require updated state plans that integrate climate projections into harvest rules and habitat priorities. Enhanced coordination with Tribal co-managers — Federal rules explicitly protect Tribal treaty rights. States could deepen co-management partnerships to align conservation goals and share data. Why these changes matter The 2026 stock assessments show some improvements (e.g., Klamath fall Chinook moving out of “overfished-rebuilding” status), but other stocks remain vulnerable. Strengthening state-level management helps ensure that ocean harvest limits translate into real recovery in rivers and estuaries — where salmon spend most of their lives.
Question 11: Many rural communities still don't have local law enforcement. To fill the gap, more Tribes are developing Tribal Courts and Tribal law enforcement agencies. There is great potential for more effective partnership between Tribal governments and the State to ensure impactful public safety services are available in rural Alaska. How will you work to address equitable public safety for all communities in the region?
Kimberly Johnson: As a Tribal Administrator for a federally recognized Tribe, we partnered with our regional nonprofit organization to secure a Village Public Safety Officer for our Tribal Office. This required cooperation with the City of Dillingham, and a Memorandum of Understanding between our local organizations. My Tribe also operates a Tribal Court that operates independently of the Tribal Council, and our Indian Child Welfare Act caseworkers work closely with the Office of Children Services. These partnerships demonstrate what can be accomplished when Tribal, local, and state governments work together. Public safety is not just about responding to crime. It is also about preventing it by investing in strong families, behavioral health services, youth programs, and community partnerships that address problems before they become crises. Every community deserves access to reliable public safety services, regardless of its size or location. I will support partnerships that strengthen Tribal law enforcement, Tribal courts, Village Public Safety Officer programs, and coordination between Tribes, local governments, and the State to make rural public safety stronger. If elected, I will bring my experience building successful Tribal, local, and state partnerships to the Legislature and be a strong advocate for House District 37. I will work to ensure our communities have the resources, support, and respect they deserve to strengthen public safety and keep our families safe and thriving.
Dennis Robinson: Every Alaskan deserves access to public safety regardless of where they live. I support stronger partnerships between the State, Tribes, municipalities, VPSOs, and local law enforcement agencies. Tribal Courts and Tribal public safety programs have demonstrated their value and should be recognized as important partners. We need increased funding for rural law enforcement, better recruitment and retention, expanded domestic violence and victim services, and stronger coordination between all public safety organizations. Effective public safety depends on cooperation, respect, and ensuring that every community has access to timely emergency response.
Mark Smith: In alignment with a focus on hyper-local state spending, I fully support the state working with local authorities to provide basic law enforcement and protective services that are provided in other parts of the state.
Evelynn Trefon: In 2016, the Alaska state trooper position was pulled out of Iliamna and moved to Togiak and while I agree Togiak needs a trooper stationed there, the Iliamna Lake region does as well. I have been trying to get a trooper stationed her for the past 10 years. I know law enforcement recruitment across the state has been difficult. We need a governor and a commissioner who is willing to help communities by placing more public safety officers in our region. In the Lake and Peninsula Borough, there are only two VPSOs stationed in a borough almost the size of West Virginia. Perhaps the troopers can work with our CTE program to create a life path to law enforcement. I don't know how I work to address equitable public safety for all communities in the region except to keep asking where the funding is going.
Brenda Lee Wilson: Equitable public safety in rural Alaska — especially in communities without local law enforcement — depends on strengthening Tribal–State partnerships, expanding Tribal authority, and ensuring consistent, culturally grounded services across the region. The core takeaway: the most effective path is shared responsibility, shared resources, and shared decision-making, with Tribes treated as full governmental partners rather than “gap fillers.” What equitable public safety requires Equity in this context means that every community — whether a hub city or a remote village — has access to timely, culturally competent, and reliable public safety services. That includes: Tribal law enforcement capacity — officers who live in and understand the community Sustainable funding — not short-term grants that disappear every few years Clear jurisdictional agreements — so officers know what authority they have and where Emergency response parity — meaning response times and resources aren’t drastically worse simply because a community is remote How a leader in the region can work toward equitable public safety 1. Strengthen Tribal–State law enforcement partnerships Cross-deputization agreements — allow Tribal officers to enforce state law and vice-versa, reducing gaps in authority. Shared training pipelines — joint academies or regional training hubs so Tribal officers receive the same preparation as VPSOs and troopers. Unified communication systems — interoperable radios, shared dispatch, and coordinated emergency protocols. This reduces confusion, improves response times, and ensures officers can act decisively. 2. Secure long-term, predictable funding for Tribal public safety Multi-year funding agreements between the State and Tribal governments Dedicated rural public safety appropriations that cannot be reallocated mid-year Support for Tribal Courts to expand capacity, hire staff, and modernize case management systems Short-term grants create instability; long-term agreements build real institutions. 3. Expand Tribal Court authority and collaboration State recognition of Tribal Court protective orders Joint diversion programs for youth and low-level offenses Shared reentry and rehabilitation services so individuals returning home have support regardless of jurisdiction Tribal Courts are often more culturally grounded and community-focused, making them essential partners. 4. Improve emergency response and crisis intervention Regional rapid-response teams shared between Tribes and the State Community-based first responders trained in crisis intervention, domestic violence response, and behavioral health emergencies Investment in medevac reliability and rural communications infrastructure Equitable public safety means emergencies are treated with the same urgency everywhere. 5. Support local recruitment and retention Grow-your-own officer programs Housing stipends for officers in remote communities Career pathways that allow VPSOs and Tribal officers to advance without leaving their home region Communities are safest when officers are part of the community. 6. Center Tribal sovereignty and self-determination Treat Tribal governments as equal governmental partners, not contractors Include Tribes in all regional public safety planning Ensure policy changes are co-designed, not imposed Equity requires respecting the governmental status of Tribes and their right to lead in their own communities. 7. Measure equity with real data Track response times, staffing levels, case outcomes, and community satisfaction Use shared data dashboards between Tribes and the State Identify disparities and address them collaboratively Equity must be measurable to be actionable.
