October 8, 2026, by John Fraser, Ph.D., Seward Folly

Part 3 of a Three-Part Investigative Series on Seward Electric’s Management Status

The City of Seward is asking residents and customers to weigh in on the future of Seward Electric. The decisions that follow could involve hundreds of millions of dollars in assets and the long-term financial security of everyone who pays an electric bill. With stakes like that, people should be able to trust how the survey is run.

This third installment looks at the cash drawing attached to the survey. The prizes may seem small to some folks, but for others, $500 can mean a lot. A few plain answers from the City would help the public trust the results.

The City has now posted a partial draft of Hays Research Group’s results on the Seward’s Energy Future page. The report is dated September 25 and says the survey is still open and “should not be considered a final version of the data.” It also lets readers know that the deadline has been extended from the original September 25^th closing as reported by the Folly on August 21, 2026. At that point, 347 people had completed the survey. Hays received 349 submissions and excluded two that failed an anti-spam check.

What the survey says

Participants are entered in a drawing for three prizes: one $500 and two $250. At the end, they are asked for a name, email address and phone number. The survey says this information “will not be associated with your answers” and will be used by Hays Research Group “to validate your responses and confirm you are eligible to win the prize.”

The survey does not say what makes someone eligible, and it does not have a link to any rules.

In mid-September, after completing the survey, I emailed questions to the city manager and Hays Research Group, which were passed to Seward Electric’s General Manager, Brian Hickey. I asked where the eligibility rules are published, who set the prize amounts, what standards define an eligible participant, and what the legal basis for the incentive is.

Hickey replied on September 23, 2026. He described the survey as part of an “open and transparent process” to help City management and the Council evaluate alternatives. His reply did not address the eligibility rules, where they are published, the source of the prize money, or whether the City or Hays consulted state regulators. I followed up on his email with an abbreviated set of questions about the prize and haven’t heard back as of this week’s publishing deadline.

Who can enter?

My testing of the survey with other household member appears to block repeat entries from the same computer, but Hays said in their report that they reviewed shared internet connections and found them consistent with household members responding separately, suggesting that the survey blocks repeat entries from a shared computer rather than an IP address. It blocks entries that don’t rank all three options for future management structures, as I discussed in prior articles. My testing showed that the survey allows entries from the Lower 48, but blocks those outside the United States.

The Folly reported on August 21 that City officials told its staff the survey is open to all residents from Lawing at Mile 23 to Lowell Point. Unfortunately, the word “resident” is not a clear standard and is not clarified on the survey site. Taken literally, it could include children, incarcerated people and unhoused people. It also seems to leave out utility customers who own second homes in the area and businesses, even though they pay the bills and have an equally important stake in how the utility is managed, but may answer differently given how the incentive is structured.

Beyond that, a reader cannot tell:

• Whether entrants must be Seward Electric customers or if it includes those who live off the grid;
• Whether there is a minimum age to qualify;
• Whether an incarcerated individual can qualify to win since they reside at the prison;
• Whether there is a legal resident status or Social Security Number required to receive a prize;
• Whether City and utility employees, their families, or contractors can win;
• Whether summer residents are eligible or if permanent residency is an implied limitation; and
• What would cause Hays to reject a response beyond SPAM auto-fill responses.

These are reasonable things to ask. Anyone who can reach the link may assume they can win. A short eligibility statement defining “restrictions on resident’ would settle that question.

Why it matters for the results

Validation affects the survey data as well as the drawing. The draft report seems to suggest that Hays will not be removing responses after the fact. If it keeps a response but disqualifies the person from the prize, the City should be ready to explain why and how such responses could influence results, and what that means for the person who thought they were eligible.

The Hays draft report does not discuss eligibility at all. The only exclusions it describes in the preliminary report are the two anti-spam failures, which is good practice for an open online survey. It does not say what standards will decide who qualifies for the drawing, so the questions above still stand.

The report also leaves 22 responses with tied or duplicate ranks out of its ranking table, while keeping them in every other result. That is the kind of cleanup issue common in early reports, and it should be resolved in the final version. I’m sure the public will be told how those responses were handled by Hays.

Employees deserve a clear answer too. City and utility staff are community members, and their views belong in the mix. But a change in ownership could affect their jobs, tenure, and working conditions. The same is true for consultants or anyone with a financial interest in the outcome. Whether they are included or excluded, the public should be aware of whose input counts.

The state law question

I asked the Alaska Department of Revenue whether a city offering a prize drawing for a survey of this type raises any legal issues, since Alaska’s gambling laws cover games of chance like drawings. Aimee Bushnell, the Department’s Legislative Liaison and Public Information Officer, agreed that the question appeared to fall under Alaska Statutes 11.66.200 through 11.66.280. She noted that the Department’s Charitable Gaming program enforces only AS 05.15, and she suggested I contact the Department of Law.

One detail is worth the City’s attention. The statute defines “something of value” broadly, and this survey cannot be submitted unless a participant ranks all three change options, even a participant who wants none of them. A required step like that could be read as a condition of entry. I could not find a court decision or Attorney General opinion that directly addresses a municipal survey drawing, so I am not suggesting anything improper occurred, but it is a question of validity of answers versus a requirement for eligibility.

I also asked the city manager and Seward Electric’s general manager if they obtained legal advice before offering the drawing. That question has not been answered. If they did, the City can simply say so. But this is certainly a liability question that would benefit from a legal opinion before eligibility is challenged.

Where the prize money comes from

The three prizes total $1,000. That will not materially impact the utility’s finances or city coffers, but residents are entitled to know which account pays for it. It could come from utility operating funds, a communications budget, or another City source, and it could have been approved specifically or under existing authority. The response I received did not say.

Confidentiality

The survey promises that contact information will not be linked to survey answers. That is a good promise, and survey platforms have ways to keep the two sets of data apart, such as coded identifiers and restricted access. But the survey does not explain how this survey will do so. It also does not say whether an ineligible respondent loses only the prize or has the whole response removed, whether respondents will be told if they are ruled ineligible, or whether the identifying information could be released through a public records request since the survey software clearly connects both in a single data field.

In a town of our size, respondents may work for the City, do business with the utility, or know the decision-makers. In fact, all three are likely. They should be told in plain language what is collected, who can see it, how eligibility is checked, and how identifying information will be destroyed.

What the City can do

Nothing in this article suggests that the City should scrap the survey or the drawing. But it does suggest a few steps to help the public understand what’s going on:

• Publish short, official prize rules on the survey page and share that information directly with all respondents who have provided information to date, covering who is eligible, who is not, and how winners will be selected and notified. Define “resident” so that it is clear whether second-home owners and other utility customers are included.
• State whether employees, family members, contractors, or others may enter.
• Name the budget source and the approving authority for the prize money.
• Share the City’s written opinion on the legal underpinning of a drawing under Alaska law, and its conclusion, given that responses are described as having value.
• Explain in a paragraph how contact information is kept separate from answers, and what happens to responses from people found ineligible.
• Acknowledge that requiring respondents to rank options they do not support in order to enter the drawing is a significant flaw that may invalidate the results of that question. The Hays draft report notes that without a status-quo option, the rankings should not be read as showing that no one prefers the current arrangement. It does not address whether the prize encouraged some respondents to rank options at random, or whether the order of the options was randomized to reduce order effects. The City should ask Hays to report on both in the final version.

Because the survey is still open, the City has time to publish clear rules before responses close and the drawing is held. Those rules would not need to limit who can take part. The survey can still welcome input from people and businesses who are ineligible for the prize, with the rules simply stating that they cannot win the money. These are small fixes, and they would help everyone with a stake in this process understand what information City leaders are relying on as they make decisions of this size.

This is the last article in our three-part series on a survey that is still collecting responses. We encourage readers to review the preliminary report now posted on the City’s Seward’s Energy Future webpage: https://www.cityofseward.us/departments/electric-department/sewards-energy-future

John Fraser is a retired social scientist, psychologist, and educator currently serving as a contract writer for the Seward Folly. Fraser can be reached at jfrasernyc@gmail.com.

The Seward Folly co-publisher Robert Barnwell is a current member of the Seward City Council. Barnwell did not participate in the editing of this story.