The Alaska State Troopers who visited Brandy Johnson at home two years ago did not have to say a word about her husband, Trooper Sgt. Scott Johnson, who had not returned from what should have been a routine trip to Tanana.
"They didn't have to tell me. After seeing their faces, I knew Scott was dead," she said.
As she tried to piece together her family finances in the aftermath of her husband's 2014 killing, she asked one of his fellow troopers if she and her three girls would continue to have health insurance coverage.
"I was initially told I was set for life by one lieutenant," she told a legislative committee in 2015. "However, that was not the case."
Her health coverage would have expired two years ago, but former Gov. Sean Parnell and Gov. Bill Walker stepped in to require that it be continued, pending a legislative solution.
It's a sad thing to say, but there has been no legislative solution.
Sunday marks the two-year anniversary of the killing of Johnson and fellow trooper Gabe Rich. They flew to the village, 130 miles west of Fairbanks, to arrest Arvin Kangas in connection with threats he had made to a village public safety officer. In the confrontation that followed, Johnson and Rich died of rifle shots at close range.
Troopers arrested Arvin's son, Nathanial, 22, and he remains locked up on first-degree murder charges. A Nenana jury convicted Arvin a year ago of tampering with evidence, concluding that he moved the bodies and tried to make it appear that the troopers had drawn their weapons. He was sentenced to eight years in prison.
"Hearing Arvin testify and hearing him refer to my husband as a dead dog was dehumanizing and reveals his character, especially after he knowingly desecrated Scott's body," Brandy testified at Arvin's sentencing hearing in 2015. "I would like to walk away from this, but the matter is that Scott's murder is my sentence for the rest of my life. Scott's murder is the sentence for the rest of our children's lives."
On Monday, Johnson's widow and Rich's fiancee, Angie, are expected to be in a Fairbanks courtroom when Nathanial Kangas goes on trial.
Also on Monday, the state House is expected to debate an amendment that would provide health insurance coverage for the survivors of police and firefighters who are killed in the line of duty.
Out of respect for the two slain troopers, this plan should be approved unanimously.
But there will be those who will say the idea needs more work, that the crime bill, SB 91, is the wrong place for the amendment. They will say that Johnson and Rich are heroes, but this can wait until next year because the Legislature has been too busy to get the details right.
After hearing some strong arguments pro and con, I am willing to say I don't know enough to say whether the amendment would threaten the crime bill. But this cannot be the justification for failing to act on this matter this year.
This bill has been thoroughly reviewed and the Legislature has had more than enough time to get it right.
Legislative opponents mention procedural conflicts, the difficulty of limiting the benefit exclusively to "police and firefighters," and how employees of the transportation department and fish and game face higher rates of occupational deaths. What they don't say is that the people who build roads and study salmon are not required to place themselves in harm's way.
I think Alaskans recognize there is a difference in job descriptions. They also recognize that Arvin and Nathanial Kangas have their health care costs covered by the government.
That the anniversary of the murders, the start of the murder trial and the debate over health insurance for surviving spouses and dependent children are taking place simultaneously has added to the heartache for the families and friends of the murdered troopers.
Anchorage Rep. Charisse Millett introduced a bill on Jan. 21, 2015, to provide health insurance coverage to surviving dependents in these rare cases. The measure should have become law by now.
Kenai Rep. Kurt Olson, the chairman of the House Labor and Commerce Committee, held a hearing a year ago. Brandy Johnson testified, as did Nikki Toll, the widow of trooper Tage Toll. He died in a helicopter crash during a search and rescue mission on March 30, 2013.
"Tage's body had not even been positively identified yet and my three boys and I were without insurance," Nikki said.
Brandy has made about five trips to Juneau to explain her situation over the last two years. "This legislation will ensure that another wife or husband will be allowed to grieve, if they ever have to experience what I have, instead of trying to ensure their family has medical coverage," she said.
Olson offered his condolences at the hearing last year. Too bad he didn't offer his assistance.
During the rest of 2015 and throughout this session, Olson did not allow a vote on the measure. The Senate version didn't get a hearing in the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee, chaired by Anchorage Sen. Mia Costello.
On April 13, Millett formally withdrew the bill and began trying to get it added as an amendment to another bill. This was a reasonable step, given the failure of the committee process.
Over the last few days, there has been much weeping and gnashing of teeth that this amendment would violate the "one-subject rule" that limits bills to one topic, meaning the entire crime bill could be declared unconstitutional by the courts.
The Legislature is always violating this rule and the courts give lawmakers wide latitude to decide what fits. The flexible nature of the theory was demonstrated by the recent 15-5 vote in the Senate saying membership on the board of hairdressers, the practice of optometry and efforts to curb smoking are the same subject.
If the crime bill is indeed threatened by this amendment, as some lawyers say, then the Legislature should either adopt Millett's bill, add it to another bill or include this topic on the agenda for the special session that seems inevitable.
I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect the real opposition stems from committee chairmen who think their rights as grand pooh-bahs have been violated.
Sen. John Coghill, who has worked for years on the crime bill, gave me four reasons why he opposes adding this amendment, through an email from a staff member.
The first is that the bill "did not make it out of either committee the House and Senate versions were referred to." The other three are: the lack of a precise definition limiting the benefit to police officers and firefighters; the higher rates of occupational deaths in other departments; and the violation of the one-subject rule.
I trust that our legislators will find a way some way to get this measure passed, knowing that all of their tasks are lighter than the daily burden carried by the families of Scott Johnson and Gabe Rich.
Dermot Cole, a journalist in Alaska for 40 years, lives in Fairbanks. One of his daughters is a deputy press secretary to Gov. Bill Walker. The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.