Legislature(2019 - 2020)KODIAK LIO
10/29/2020 10:00 AM Senate LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
OCTOBER 29, 2020
10:00 AM
MEMBERS PARTICIPATING BY TELECONFERENCE:
Senator Gary Stevens, Chair
Representative Louise Stutes, Vice-Chair
Senator John Coghill
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Natasha von Imhof
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Neal Foster
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Jennifer Johnston
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Steve Thompson
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Tom Begich
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson
Senator David Wilson
Senator Donald Olson
Senator Jesse Kiehl
SPEAKER REGISTER:
Jessica Geary, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)
Mindy Kissner, Finance Manager, Accounting, LAA
Megan Wallace, Legal Services Director, LAA
JC Kestel, Procurement Officer, LAA
Tim Banaszak, IT Manager, LAA
10:00:14 AM
I. CALL TO ORDER
CHAIR STEVENS called the Legislative Council meeting to
order at 10:00am. Present at the call were: Senators Coghill,
Giessel, Hoffman, Stedman, Stevens, von Imhof; Representatives
Edgmon, Foster, Johnson, Johnston, Kopp, Thompson, Stutes.
Senator Begich was absent.
13 members present.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CHAIR STEVENS: Well, let's move on then to the next
item, which is the approval of the agenda.
Representative Stutes, for our motion, please?
10:03:17 AM
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Certainly, Senator. I move and ask
unanimous consent that the Legislative Council approve the
agenda as presented.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. I'll object for purposes of
discussion. We hadn't planned on it before, but I'd like to
add an IT update at the end of this meeting. Tim Banaszak
is -- will be with us to explain the process we're now using
and the IT process, as well as the LIOs and how we're able to
make use of this entire new process.
So if there's no objection to adding Tim Banaszak
at the end for IT update, are there any other changes to the
agenda?
Seeing and hearing none, then the agenda has been
approved.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CHAIR STEVENS: Moving on to the minutes.
Representative Stutes.
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Certainly, Mr. Chair. I move and
ask unanimous consent that the Legislative Council approve
the minutes dated June 18th, 2020 as presented.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. So any corrections or
additions to those minutes from the June 18th meeting? Any
corrections or additions?
Hearing none, then the minutes are approved as
presented.
IV. COMMITTEE BUSINESS
A. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL MOVING & TRAVEL POLICY CHANGE
CHAIR STEVENS: Let's move on to committee business
then. And I'll start by calling on Mindy Kissner, our
finance manager, to explain a memo that that has to do with
Risk Management.
And, Mindy, could you explain to us what's going
on there?
MS. KISSNER: Chair Stevens, for the record, this is
Mindy Kissner.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Mindy. Before you get into
that, I just want to make sure everyone understands that
we're not going to take action on this. I was a little
surprised to read it, and there are some concerns I have, and
I'm sure others will have concerns as well. I just wanted to
bring in for discussion and then begin to see if there are
other resolutions for this problem we're facing.
So, Mindy, if you'd go ahead and explain things.
MS. KISSNER: Yes, sir. So this was to bring to light
and start a discussion, as you mentioned, regarding the use
of the state car rental contract.
So we recognized that Risk Management will not
cover anyone that is a non-state employee and using the state
rental contract. And the importance is to make sure that our
legislators' needs are being met, at the same time they are
being fully protected, and the passengers in the car are
being fully projected while using that car. And so that's
the point of discussion today.
CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Well, thank you very much, Mindy.
When I read that, I was really concerned. You know, some
legislators, their spouses come with them. Actually, I gave
a call to Senator Olson, whose spouse and family comes to the
capital with them.
That would make it very difficult on his family if
his wife could not drive and if they had a rental car, and it
would require the Senator really to leave the building more
often to take the kids to school and back and all those sorts
of things. So I think -- I've heard that maybe rural
legislators might be more impacted than others. I think all
of us will be impacted.
So what I really ask Jessica to do is to look into
other options, other solutions. I mean, I'd actually
appreciate any discussion on this item to know what you are
thinking.
SENATOR OLSON: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, is that Representative Edgmon, Mr.
Speaker?
SENATOR OLSON: Actually, no, it's Senator Olson.
CHAIR STEVENS: Oh, I'm sorry.
SENATOR OLSON: I'm online.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Olson, yes, please, go ahead.
SENATOR OLSON: Well, I just wanted to second what
you're saying. It makes it a less family-friendly atmosphere
to go and have something like this recommendation going
through. So I would say we should take it very seriously
because if you have a number of kids, and we do have a number
of kids, and they're all in school today, and would plan on
being in school if we do go down there, so that it wouldn't
necessitate for this kind of COVID pandemic situation that's
going on where you've got to go ahead and leave the building.
And right now the idea is we don't -- once we get
tested in the morning, they don't want us to be retested
again. In other words, we've got to stay out the building
once we leave, and so that's a consideration.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Olson. I understand
what you're saying. And, again, we're not going to take any
action on this today. It's an issue for discussion. We're
reacting to the Risk Management.
So I think we understand now from Mindy Kissner
that Risk Management has said they feel they should not be
covering spouses. And I guess we need to see if we have
other resolutions to that, otherways to find a resolution of
that issue.
Any other comments on this matter?
MS. KISSNER: Chair Stevens, this is Mindy Kissner
again. Can I clarify something, please?
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Mindy, please, go ahead.
MS. KISSNER: Thank you. I wanted to make sure that I
said we added the rental car piece as a thought that it would
be the cheapest option, but in that process we realized it is
an unrealistic option for probably all legislators because
they come to live in Juneau, and they use the vehicle while
here to go about their daily lives.
So the rental car, under the state contract, does
not make the most sense because it doesn't cover anyone that
is not a state employee, and that is the piece we wanted to
address and say that it may not be the best option for our
legislators.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Mindy. So when you rent a
car through Budget, who we deal with, you can add a driver
and add insurance. Of course it would not be paid for by
Risk Management, but it could be paid for in other ways.
Have you looked into that? Can people do that? When they go
up to the desk to rent a car, can they add a spouse as a
driver and insurance as well?
MS. KISSNER: Chair Stevens, this is Mindy again. The
answer is, yes, they can rent a car through any car company
and add their own insurance and be covered.
And if they do that and they are driving on
state -- let's say the legislator is driving for work and
they are by themselves in that car and they get in an
accident? their insurance would kick in first, and anything
above that the state would kick in.
If they were driving that car with non-state
employees, I think at that point the state would bow out of
it. But they cannot use the state's rental contract and then
try to apply their own insurance, so it's one or the other.
And I think our recommendation is moving away from
the state contract because it doesn't accommodate and protect
our legislators.
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: I have a question.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Representative Stutes.
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Would there be a reimbursement
provision allowed the legislator on using their own --
CHAIR STEVENS: Their own insurance?
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: -- their own money and insurance to
initially rent the car?
MS. KISSNER: Through the Chair, Representative Stutes,
the way I interpret the policy, it is in the interest to look
for the least expensive option, and that varies by
legislator. So every scenario is going to be slightly
different, but the intent would be the least expensive
option. And I would say having a vehicle is a necessary cost
of doing business, so, yes, it would qualify as a
reimbursable expense.
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Thank you.
SENATOR COGHILL: Mr. Chairman, this is Coghill.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator Coghill, please.
SENATOR COGHILL: So it sounds to me like the real
question here is should we be looking for another rental
policy or a different contract outside of the state contract?
Mindy, is that something that you've looked at the
landscape on?
MS. KISSNER: Senator Coghill, through the Chair, no, we
have not explored that other than to have a conversation with
Risk Management.
And in their words, when you explore contracts
that are covering citizens other than employees, you are
venturing into something that somebody may not go into
contract with you over.
I think, from our standpoint, to simplify it, the
best course of action would be to rent a car, if that was the
option selected, and use your own insurance to do so.
SENATOR COGHILL: I see. Okay. All right. So then
next question, Mr. Chairman, would be could the Legislative
Council look into some way of giving a rental car stipend or
something for insurance? Maybe that would kick us out, but
it looks to me like we're going to have to venture into
buying our own insurance for those of us who will bring
family down. So that would be the next question is does the
Leg Council even want to venture into something like that?
CHAIR STEVENS: Very good question. Thank you, Senator.
Jessica, do you have any comments at this time?
MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens, for the record Jessica Geary,
executive director of Legislative Affairs. I think at this
point we're really exploring different options and working
with the Executive Branch in whatever capacity we're able to.
But what Mindy mentioned was the fact that we
provide for spouses and dependents to travel to Juneau for
the session, but the Executive Branch considers those people
to be private citizens, not state employees; therefore,
they're not covered, which is really the issue. I think
regardless of what pot of money this comes out of, it's
strictly a liability issue. So that's the standpoint they're
taking.
Most of the time you don't need to use insurance
however it's those times that you do, and the injuries are
catastrophic, that this could really be a huge liability for
the state. So it does make sense. We're exploring different
options, and our hope is to bring those options back to the
committee for discussion and action.
SENATOR HOFFMAN: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator Hoffman.
SENATOR HOFFMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I think an
option that should be considered by Mindy is giving
authorization to those legislators that have spouses to lease
the car for whatever period when they're down in Juneau and
get reimbursed for those expenditures. By doing this, I
think the individual, as stated, can go ahead and rent the
vehicle, add the spouse and/or family members to the policy,
and then get reimbursed by the State of Alaska. I think that
this option, although has to go through another step, may be
something that could be considered.
In many cases, like if you have a Costco rental
car, a second individual is added for free. So there are
options out there -- it's just that the State of Alaska needs
to acknowledge that a state employee and/or their spouse
needs to be covered. I think this option would allow that,
but it would need to be sanctioned by our travel policy.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator. Yes, the issues
there, it looks like we can solve them. We're looking at
options. We certainly want to encourage legislators to bring
their families to Juneau. They have in the past and probably
more so now, but we don't want to discourage that. We want
to make sure that should there be, as Jessica said, a
catastrophic accident, that everyone is covered the way they
should be.
Any other discussion?
Yes, please, Representative Stutes.
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: I have a question, and I'm not sure
who this would go to. But has there been any comparison on
the expense of, say, renting a vehicle for a legislator for
the session as opposed to the cost of transporting their
personal vehicle down to Juneau? It seems to me that if they
had their own personal vehicle in Juneau, a lot of that
expense or a lot of these issues could be alleviated.
MS. KISSNER: Chair Stevens, this is Mindy Kissner
again. May I make a comment, please?
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Mindy, I knew you'd have an answer
to that. Go ahead.
MS. KISSNER: The practice exists today that
we -- legislators, by all means, look to the least expensive
way to have a vehicle in Juneau. That currently happens.
Our recommendation today would be to not use the
state rental contract because it only allows coverage for
state employees. So if you are driving with a friend,
spouse, or family member, those people would not be covered
under it, and that does not seem realistic. So going with
the other option of renting a vehicle using your own
insurance covers everybody in that car.
SENATOR STEDMAN: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator Stedman.
SENATOR STEDMAN: You know, I see and understand the
dilemma, particularly when we're dealing with our colleagues
that are out in the hinterland and there is no road access,
or, frankly, Kodiak could be very little ferry access, as an
example, or Nome. There's two good examples.
But, you know, we want to make sure that we keep a
level playing field also so the people that bring their car
to Juneau is a cost that they incur for the vehicle and
maintenance and their own insurance and on and on and on. So
we want to make sure we don't tip the field a little bit,
keep it as fair as we can amongst all of the legislators as
far as the compensation package goes.
My being extremely close would have to make a hard
argument why I can't move my car from Sitka to Juneau and
make that less expensive than moving one from Kodiak or
Dillingham to Juneau. Those are glaring examples. But I
have to eat all my costs and get reimbursed for none of them.
So we just want to keep that in mind when we put this policy
together. But I would agree that we have to have the ability
for the spouse to be able to drive whatever vehicle it is.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator. I appreciate it,
Senator Stedman. We need to make sure that it's fair and
equitable.
Mindy, did you have further comments there?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Chair Stevens, may I jump in?
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: This is DeLena Johnson.
CHAIR STEVENS: Representative Johnson.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: I wanted to make sure, first of
all, that you knew I was online.
CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. We got you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: And I've been here for a while.
I wanted to add my two cents. First of all, I think it's
important that we remember that legislators should be looked
at in many ways as a family unit unless we want to have
people that go home on the weekends, and that's just a
thought out there.
It sounds to me like there's a lot more
administrative work to do on this policy and to examine some
of the different options that are available, whether it's
just a flat-out stipend for each person for a car and they go
rent their own. There's lots of different ways to approach
this.
Obviously we could talk about it all day, but I
hope that when Legislative Affairs comes back with something,
that they'll come back with something more definitive that we
can work on, although I do appreciate them bringing it in
front of us so we can examine it. Anyway, that's all. I
just wanted to say I was here, and I'll let you guys carry
on. Thanks.
CHAIR STEVENS: Well, thank you, Representative Johnson,
appreciate your comments. And you're absolutely right, this
needs to be family-friendly, and that's what we've always
been. We want to make sure that continues.
One issue I'd ask the staff to look into is
insurance. I decide with my insurance company how I'm
covered and who's covered in my car and all that. As you
talk about a catastrophic accident, we each have different
coverages on our personal insurance so please consider
individual insurance as you proceed on this, Mindy. I think
you know where we're coming from and what we want to do. And
I appreciate your comments, Mindy, to indicate that this is
not working, it's not realistic, and we have to find a
solution to it.
Before we move on, any further comments on this
matter?
MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens, this is Jessica.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please, Jessica, go ahead.
MS. GEARY: I just wanted to make a quick comment in
response to Representative Stutes' question about legislators
being able to bring their own vehicles to Juneau.
Absolutely that is still able to happen.
Legislators will still get reimbursed. Legislative Affairs
will still arrange for transport of your vehicles. A recent
change to the policy that was made was if it's less expensive
to rent a car than to bring your personal vehicle, then you
should rent a car. So this change in Risk Management has
really caused us to evaluate our whole rental car contract
practice.
I appreciate all of the comments, and we're
certainly going to look into every possible option for how to
take care of this and take care of our legislators and their
families.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you very much. And, of course, as
people are traveling to D.C. or wherever they might go or
another community, the same incident might occur where a
spouse is driving. So we have to look at the bigger picture
here. Thanks very much for that comment.
Any other thoughts? Any other comments? I think
somebody else is trying to speak.
SENATOR COGHILL: Yes, this is Senator Coghill.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator Coghill.
SENATOR COGHILL: Just write this down; it needs to be
looked into. 24.60.030 is the ethics on private benefits.
It's something that needs to be considered because once you
start allowing a private benefit, being on the ethics
committee for a lot of years, that's going to be something
you're going to have to think about.
CHAIR STEVENS: Absolutely. I appreciate your pointing
that out to us. So, Jessica and Mindy, we will all pay
attention to that as we move forward. Thank you.
Any further comments? Well, let's move on then.
We'll try to find what the options are and try to find a way
to solve this issue.
B. ADOPTION OF COVID-19 SESSION SAFETY PROTOCOLS
CHAIR STEVENS: Let's move on to adoption of COVID-19
session safety protocols. I'd like to make it clear what
we're doing here.
First, I want to ask Jessica to go over her memo,
which you should have in front of you, and hear her
recommendations and allow her time to answer any questions,
are you to ask any questions.
After that, I'm going to ask Megan Wallace to talk
about the memo that she has presented to us. I don't want to
take any action on that memo at this time, but I think it all
plays together. You need to know the information in her memo
to really deal with the other issues that we've got in front
of us.
And I would like to move these other three things,
if we can: the Mask Policy, the Screening Process Policy, and
the Code of Conduct Policy, but, again, not move the action
in Megan's memo.
So then before we go into motions on those three
things, Jessica, would you explain your memo?
MS. GEARY: Yes. For the record, again, Jessica Geary,
executive director of Legislative Affairs.
I've been doing a lot of work over the
past -- well, since the start of this pandemic on listening
to what other states are doing to safely convene their
Legislature. This Legislative Council has the authority to
take appropriate action for pre-convening work of each
legislative session; which got us thinking that January is
right around the corner, and we really need to have some
consistent policies in place that can be applied evenly
across all of our legislative spaces and then carry us into
the 32nd Legislature.
So one of the big ways that we know helps prevent
the spread of this virus is to wear a face covering. And
having a mask -- or having a policy in place that requires
legislators and staff and visitors to those legislative
spaces, if they have a face covering on, that is a
recommendation. So there's a policy in there. I'm just
going to go through each of these bullets briefly, and then
we can talk about each policy separately.
The Screening Process Policy is a way to ensure
those that are entering the Capitol are free of COVID
symptoms, and those who participated in the session in May
recall that the screening process is pretty painless, but it
can help identify those who might have the virus or at least
symptoms that could be contagious.
The next item is a little different. But when we
look at bringing the legislators, the staff, the families
down to Juneau in January, we sort of look at trying to
create a bubble, in a sense, or a safe space where, to the
extent possible, we know who we're dealing with. We know
that there isn't somebody who has been out doing risky
behaviors and might be a greater risk for carrying and
spreading the disease.
The Pandemic Code of Contact Policy is just one
small piece of many different things that need to be looked
at and decided upon. It's just basically saying that "I
agree to follow best practices and not carry on any risky
behavior which could bring back this virus to my legislative
family."
So those are the three policies. Then up for
discussion is also the travel. We have a current practice of
legislators traveling back home to district routinely and
then coming back down. Each community might have a different
level of outbreak at the time, but if you're freely going
back and forth between communities, it increases the risk of
spreading the virus.
So the thought there was to place some
restrictions on travel, not to forbid travel, but just to
ensure that the travel is necessary and that it's been
sanctioned, if you will, by the presiding officer and
allowing for an excused absence.
I'll briefly mention, too, one of the things that
we've been looking at is hiring a contractor to assist with
the screening and the testing process. I can go into more
detail on that, but I just wanted to briefly mention that if
we look at this as a whole package, there's a lot of
different moving parts and pieces and the more you can put
into place, the more protected we would all be.
Perhaps I should stop and answer any questions, or
would you like me to start going into the specific policies?
I'm not sure which would be most helpful to do first.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thanks, Jessica. I appreciate all the
efforts, all the work you put into this. I know it's been
very time-consuming.
The goal, of course, is to make sure that all
legislators and staff feel safe. They feel that coming into
the Capitol is a safe place for them to be. And so I know
there's some people that say, "Leave it the way it is right
now. Don't make any changes at all." There are others that
want to make sure that they're entirely safe.
That's going to be the problem we face is where do
we draw that line and how far do we go? Also to realize that
this Leg Council only continues until the end of the year,
beginning of next year, but it does continue. If there's not
an organization next year, there's a delay in organizing
another body. So these are rules that would be in place when
we come down, but they can be changed quickly by the 32nd
Legislature, by the presiding officers, by leadership.
This gives everyone a heads-up as to what might
occur, what they could consider. If we waited until the last
minute, then let the next legislature decide all of these
things, I think they can be lost, depending on how
organizations go and who winds up in leadership positions.
I do believe there's a question out there?
SENATOR HOFFMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this is Senator
Hoffman.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Hoffman.
SENATOR HOFFMAN: Going back to the second bullet point
regarding screening process policies, the daily screening of
legislators, what does that entail, and what type of test are
you talking about? There's so many different tests out
there, and some of the tests you don't get the results for
within seven days, others you don't get within three days,
and others are 24-hour results. I'm wondering what type of
test are we referring to in this second bullet point
regarding daily testing?
CHAIR STEVENS: Really good point, Senator Hoffman. If
we can hold off on that. We're going to go to Megan and have
her explain her memo, and then we'll go through each of these
items beginning with the Mask Policy and then the Screening
Process and then the Code so that we'll have a chance to get
through all of them. Can you hold off on the answer to that,
Senator?
SENATOR HOFFMAN: I can hold off as long as the answer
is correct.
CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Well, it will be, I'm sure.
Let's go to Megan. I know this is little out of
order, but Megan's -- our attorney's comments are very
important -- it's the Uniform Rule Changes Amid the COVID-19
Pandemic from Megan Wallace, dated October 27th. I hope you
have that. I don't want to adopt that now, but I do think
it's important that we discuss that a little bit before we go
into the specifics of each of these policies.
So, Megan, are you with us?
MS. WALLACE: Yes, Chair. For the record, Megan
Wallace, legal services director.
Members should have the memo that Senator Stevens
was referencing before you in your packet. What this memo
discusses is really a continuation of some of the discussions
that were happening last spring and in May, when the
Legislature briefly reconvened, in terms of what the options
are for the Legislature procedurally if changes to the manner
in which the Legislature conducts business needs to be
modified in order to take into account for undertaking
business during a pandemic.
The first bullet point in my memorandum discusses
options for both committee meetings or for session. It's
difficult for me to predict what the will of the Legislature
come next session will be, but it appears that it's likely
that there is going to be a desire to increase remote
participation during committee meetings.
As most of you are familiar with, Uniform Rule
24(a) requires that a report be signed by a majority of the
members of the committee. That rule has historically been
construed to require members to be physically present to vote
to move a bill from committee.
Other than that, our Legislature has been
conducting or allowing for remote participation of committee
members fully for quorum purposes, for debate purposes, for
adoption of amendments. All other matters besides voting a
bill out from committee is something that the Legislature
already does on a regular basis.
So if committees are going to be meeting with more
members being remote, particularly where you may not have
enough members physically present to reach a majority to pass
out a bill, one option would be to change Uniform Rule 24(a)
to allow for members to vote remotely to pass out a bill.
And then the other larger piece is if there's a
desire or it becomes impractical or impossible for the
Legislature to meet in Juneau to conduct its business on the
floor, it wouldn't be unheard of for the Legislature to
consider allowing for remote floor sessions.
In the memorandum you'll see there's a couple
different footnotes. If you want to explore some NCSL
information regarding what other states are doing, there's
been at least 25 states who have authorized remote
participation in some form, including committee meetings and
floor sessions. It's been working in some states, to the
extent that they need it to, and it's been considered a
matter of Legislature procedure.
While I could not guarantee that there's no risk
of challenge should the Alaska Legislature authorize remote
participation, I am fairly confident that an Alaska court
would not step in the way of the Alaska Legislature making
procedural rules so that it could continue to conduct its
business amid a pandemic.
The bullet point regarding potential remote
participation during floor sessions largely are derived from
SCR 16, which the Senate passed at the end of last session.
The House did not have the opportunity to (indiscernible),
but each of those bullet points in terms of the specific
rules for or guidelines for remote session are all policy
decisions that either Leg Council could make recommendations
to the next incoming Legislature, or the next Legislature
could make those decisions. I'm happy to answer questions
anyone has about those - I won't go through them
individually.
The second bullet point, which is on page 3 of my
memo, addresses things that were not outlined in the remote
piece of this discussion, which would be additional policy
decisions for the Legislature to consider if it became
necessary or there was a desire to really alter Legislature
procedure, as we know it and as has been historically done,
so that the amount of time that legislators spend on the
floor congregated or the length of what it takes to get the
Legislature's business done can be abbreviated.
The bullets that I outline were derived from me
going through the rules and looking at things to be truncated
or modified if those were goals that the Legislature decided
it wanted to explore.
These lists are not exclusive. One thing that was
not mentioned in the memo, that was brought to my attention
after the fact, was an additional recommendation in terms of
limiting floor activity or reducing length of session,
another smaller change such as revising the rules to remove
the need for title change resolutions during session, which
have been really a formality in most recent history.
Again, this is a non-exclusive list of items that
could each individually be considered, or also there's room
for modification of each of those bullet points. That's
generally what the memo goes through and I'm happy to answer
any questions.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Megan. I really appreciate
you giving this so much thought and giving us so many options
here of things we can talk about.
I want to make it clear again. There is no
intention to take any action on this memo from Megan at this
time and to realize that this is not a permanent change.
This is a temporary change in the face of the pandemic or any
other pandemic or any other issue that may come along in the
future, but this is a tool in the toolbox that can be used if
things get worse, and they very well might.
What Megan is doing and what Jessica is doing is
to plan for the worst, a plan for what could happen and
hopefully does not, so temporary. And interesting that 25
states have passed something like this.
Let's open this up for discussion just on this
memo at this time. Does anybody have any thoughts or
concerns? I know there are a lot of concerns about some of
the rules there. Would anybody like to speak to this at this
time?
SENATOR VON IMHOF: Chairman, this is Natasha.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator von Imhof, please go ahead.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: Thank you.
Megan, I really appreciate you taking the time to
write this memo, and I think it's something that it's good to
have in our toolbox, just like Senator Stevens said.
I am hoping, though, that we don't utilize it
right away and that we have discussions just about the
possibility of instead all going to Juneau instead and
creating a bubble if that's the case. I think it's better
that we're all together. This is an interesting platform
today, but I would like to see everybody's smiling facing
underneath their mask or at least the twinkling of their
eyes, if you will, under their masks.
One of the ways this could be helpful is that if
we do have someone who is sick and quarantining for a couple
weeks in Juneau, maybe they could participate in a way that's
meaningful while they're self-isolating.
But other than that, I'm hoping that we don't go
home on a regular basis and just decide to stay home for two
or three days and participate remotely. I think we all need
to be down in Juneau. At least that's how I feel now, today,
October, 29th. Thanks.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator von Imhof. You're
right, and I think there's no way to avoid, no matter how bad
things get, our getting together in Juneau to at least make
these decisions on what we're going to do.
Should someone come down with COVID, one of the
legislators, they could certainly participate from their home
base in Juneau. I know that a lot of issues here we're
talking about, travel and that sort of thing, it's quite
concerning. But if people do travel and become positive in
their hometown and then cannot return to the
Legislature -- there's got to be a tipping point there. If
the Legislature is unable to act, that really is a concern of
mine.
Thank you very much, Senator von Imhof. I
appreciate those comments.
Any further thoughts?
SENATOR STEDMAN: I have a couple, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Stedman.
SENATOR STEDMAN: A couple of concerns: One is that we
maintain our operations in Juneau, and we have, as mentioned,
some flexibility in case somebody is stuck in their apartment
for a couple weeks or what have you, and we have tight
controls on the building.
But I don't want us to head down the road where we
could have some of our elected officials just decide that
they don't want to sit in Juneau and want to sit home, or
they want to work and do this telephonically. We've had some
concerns about that the last couple years, and I think we
need to be very careful with that. Clearly Juneau is set up
to handle the legislative work far better than any other
location. And if we have problems, I personally feel Juneau
has the ability to isolate itself off much more than a lot of
other areas if need be.
I'd also like to, hopefully our colleagues will
work with us, be careful on the travel during session. But I
think it's pretty hard to be too restrictive because we also
run the risk that some of our colleagues just might do what
they want to do. We've seen that also last year on the floor
trying to deal with the mask issues.
There are just some concerns. But let's not set
up a process where some of our colleagues could be employed
somewhere and then call in whenever they are in the mood on a
particular issue.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Stedman, very good
point. I understand what you're saying. That's not the goal
here, and I'm not sure how we --
Jessica, do you have any response to that?
MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens, I'm sorry, I don't really
have a response because it will really come down to the
legislators and the leadership. I don't want to use the term
"policing," but it's not really anything that a policy can
control, because, as Senator Stedman said, even if there was
a policy in place, legislators do have their own funds and
could decide to travel regardless.
I think the best we can do--and maybe Megan has an
idea as far as what procedurally could be done--is just
letting people know what the expectation is and hope that
they can abide by it.
SENATOR STEDMAN: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Jessica. I'm sorry to put
you on the spot like that. I appreciate you jumping in
there.
Senator Stedman.
SENATOR STEDMAN: I'd like to just remind everybody that
the current presiding officer had trouble with some of the
elected officials even having the courtesy of telling her or
the rules chairman that they weren't going to be in town.
CHAIR STEVENS: Exactly. We did experience that. And I
hate to call people out on the spot here, but presiding
officers, do you have any comments on this issue, the
president or the speaker?
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Senator Stevens, this is Senator
Giessel.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please, Senator Giessel.
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: I appreciate both Senator von Imhof
and Senator Stedman's comments. As members of leadership,
and senators, as well as yourself, Senator Stevens, recall
the Concurrent Resolution 16 that was passed.
To speak to one of Senator Stedman's concerns, we
had that concern that Juneau was not abandoned as the seat of
government. So on page 2 of that concurrent resolution,
lines 1 through 3 it actually states, "In accordance with the
Constitution, Juneau is the capital and the seat of
government, and the Legislature must continue to meet in the
seat of government to the fullest extent possible."
The resolution calls out, the content of it is
page 2 of Megan's memo, that first bullet point starts out,
"Upon agreement of the presiding officers of both houses, we
would authorize session by videoconference."
So it wouldn't be a whimsical decision on the part
of a single presiding officer. It would be, of course,
discussions with both leadership teams in the House and the
Senate; at least that's certainly how Bryce and I worked. It
was not just us making those decisions.
I will also share -- just reminding senators, who
I know know this, but possibly House members don't -- we did
deploy cameras into LIOs, and I would let Jessica update
which LIOs have it. But the requirement that those
legislators are not traveling to Italy, let's say, and tried
to call into a floor session, they would actually be required
to be in an LIO in Alaska.
If there was a reason that they would be
quarantining in their own home, either in their personal
residence, in their city of residence or in Juneau, that
would require special permission from the presiding officer.
So we tried to contain those concerns in that joint
resolution. And as Megan pointed out, the Senate did pass it
unanimously, and that's a footnote on page 2 of her memo.
Those are just a couple comments to things that
have already been stated. Thank you, Senator Stevens.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Giessel. I
appreciate those comments. We will later hear from Tim on
the updated cameras in the LIOs. I have asked him, in his
presentation later, to remind us, where we are right now and
the ability we have to communicate as we are in this meeting.
Mr. Speaker, do you have any thoughts, any
comments since this is an issue you have been dealing with
along with the president?
SPEAKER EDGMON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope you
can hear me okay.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, I can hear you clearly.
SPEAKER EDGMON: Okay. Great. I guess a couple of
points: to reiterate what Cathy was saying, we did spend a
lot of time on the subject matter that eventually became SCR
16 back in April, I think going into May.
As we all know, looking back on the past session
on March 29th, we went into an extensive recess. And that
might be an item that, number two, limited floor activity
might consider as a bullet point 2 if we do pass a vehicle
that separately alters uniform rules.
A second point is pretty amorphous, maybe
convoluted at best, but the work that lies ahead of us next
session is going to be very, very challenging. I would not
like to see anything that would come out of a policy that
could be leveraged against us, assuming that another
governing coalition stays the same and the mindset about
taking the approach of earning reserve and really making
difficult choices that would require us to spend some time in
Juneau to get through all this, that we don't have a
situation where I would (indiscernible).
Jessica, in your memo, I would take out the
verbiage "and adjourn after conducting work safely." Because
there could be the scenario where we do go down, we get our
work done early, March perhaps, but then we just sort of
(indiscernible) until the sessions conclude, given the fact
that we -- who knows -- may have to come back for some
unforeseen business. Other than that, I'm supportive of the
discussion and the direction that we're going in.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, you bring up
some very good points, the challenges we will face next year.
If it does get really bad and we have to meet at a distance,
as we are meeting right now, you can see the difficulty of
this. I'm trying to give everyone a chance to speak. It's
going to take even more time, 40 members of the House, if
you're all on a system like this, it will be extremely
difficult, but we still have to be prepared for the worst.
I'll give anyone else an opportunity to speak to
this. We're not going to take action on Megan's memo, but we
will eventually in time. I think we need to pass it later
with modifications that might be needed, but we're not going
to adopt that at this point. I just wanted to make sure you
were aware of that process and the impact it has on the
policies we'll be considering.
Any last comments on Megan's memo?
SENATOR COGHILL: Senator Coghill. One note to think
of.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Coghill, yes.
SENATOR COGHILL: Megan, as we go through this, on the
contingency that we have to have the LIOs for example, if we
do the SCR 16 again, I think it would be wise that we still
have the ability to compel attendance. I think that's going
to be something that is going to be very important to do. I
know that could slow the process down, but I think, as we go
forward, the fear that Senator Stedman shared can be waylaid
somewhat by the ability to compel attendance, just for what
it's worth.
CHAIR STEVENS: Good point. Thank you, Senator Coghill.
That certainly is a consideration. And I think the public
expects everyone to be in Juneau or to be other places, at
their desk and perform their duties. So it's good to know
that we can compel attendance.
MS. GEARY: We're going to have a brief at ease.
CHAIR STEVENS: With no further comments on Megan's
memo -- which we're not going to take action on -- let's move
on to the other things that I would like to have us at least
consider, and that is the Mask Policy, the Screening Process
Policy, and the Pandemic Code of Conduct Policy.
Representative Stutes, can we have a motion on the
Mask Policy?
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Certainly, Mr. Chair. I move that
Legislative Council approve the Legislative Council COVID-19
Mask Policy.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.
Jessica, would you explain that for us, please?
MS. GEARY: Sure. Chair Stevens, the Mask Policy is a
pretty standard policy that we've seen in municipal
governments. We used some of the language from our Juneau
mask mandate. In essence, it says that when you are unable
to maintain 6-foot distance and you are in a legislative
facility, that you must have a cloth face covering. And, of
course, you can take it off to eat or drink.
There are a few exceptions at the bottom, which I
think are just common-sense exceptions. If a person declines
to wear a mask because of a medical condition or disability,
this policy does not require them to produce medical
documentation.
The enforcement piece is, "Except as otherwise
provided in this section, a person who violates the face
covering requirement may be removed from legislative
property. Enforcement as applied to legislators will be left
to the members and legislative leadership."
So that's it. It's a very basic policy. I am
happy to answer any questions that any members might have.
CHAIR STEVENS: Well, thank you, Jessica. I will object
to the motion for purposes of discussion and I'll go into
that.
Anybody have any comments on the Mask Policy that
is before you?
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: I do.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Representative Stutes.
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm wondering
how pertinent this is going to be. I mean, it's a very
simple policy to avoid. "Oh, I can't wear a mask. I had
radiation and it affected my breathing, and I certainly can't
wear a mask." It's pretty evident to me that anybody that
chooses not to want to wear a mask, this policy is going to
be very ineffective.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, I see your point. Certainly people
can ignore it, but I think we have an obligation to be an
example. The governor was caught at a fundraiser not wearing
a mask, and it raised all sorts of concern and a lot of
people spoke about it. I think, as legislators, it's really
important that we be a role model for everyone in the state
and that we do things as properly as we possibly can. But,
yes, that's a good point; people can ignore it if they choose
to.
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Just one --
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, go ahead.
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: One more comment. It's already been
exhibited by legislators not being good examples because they
simply don't believe in wearing a mask, so that's all I'll
say.
CHAIR STEVENS: Very good point. I think all of
us -- or many of us are very concerned about the conditions
we might face and our people on the floor not wearing a mask,
the impact it could have on each and every one of us. There
are some controls over that, constitutionally, and maybe
we'll have Megan explain this. But constitutionally everyone
has a right -- every elected official has a right to be on
the floor, to be able to vote, to be able to speak.
There are other considerations that we have talked
about, the rules chair, assigned seating. So we are talking
about additional seating on the floor, maybe behind
plexiglass. So anybody who does not follow that Mask Policy
could be moved to another position on the floor where they
would not be a threat to the rest of the folks that are on
the floor. Just a thought.
Any comments on that or thoughts?
SENATOR HOFFMAN: Mr. Chairman, this is Senator Hoffman.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Hoffman.
SENATOR HOFFMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During the
last legislative session, our Senate secretary did not wear a
mask. She wore a face covering, which was basically
plexiglass. I'm wondering does this use of that comply with
the regulations? And, more importantly, I guess, is that use
of a face mask that's covering your nose, mouth, and your
eyes proven to be effective stopping the spread of COVID?
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Hoffman. I'm not
sure how effective it is.
Staff have any comments on the effectiveness of
those shields? Jessica, do you have any thoughts on that?
MS. GEARY: Sure. So the shields are definitely very
effective. They have the droplet barrier at the bottom of
the shield, which prevents any droplets from coming out. So
I think they're even a better option than the mask, and they
would certainly meet the requirements of this policy. We do
have some of those available to members if they choose to
have them, I think it's just each member's comfort level.
Right now the medical advice that we have is that
cloth face coverings also are an adequate way to prevent the
spread, but only if both people are wearing them. So I think
either way you go -- I'm not going to give medical
advice -- but I think they're both adequate and would meet
the test of this policy.
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR STEVENS: There's always a problem of people
wearing masks. It's difficult to communicate, and, of
course, I know when the president was wearing a mask on the
floor, it's hard to really see what's going on, and maybe a
shield would be more effective.
Senator Giessel, you have some thoughts on that?
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: I do, Mr. Chairman. I follow this
rather closely. The shield actually is -- the shield is what
Senator Hoffman was describing. It's not a piece of
plexiglass, it's actually plastic; it's called a shield.
That's actually more effective than the face mask. Some
droplets do penetrate through the widely available what's
referred to as medical masks.
What is ineffective -- and I think that need to be
called out here -- is the scarfs that people put over their
nose and mouth. Sometimes it's like a neck gator or just a
simple scarf. The testing on that shows that droplets do get
through that pretty prolifically.
If we want this to be effective, I would suggest
that there be an exemption for allowing just the scarf over
the nose or mouth, that it actually be a mask or -- either a
medical-type mask or a cloth mask such as was provided by the
Juneau folks for us when we went back in May. Those are my
comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Giessel. So you
would be comfortable with a shield, as well as a mask then;
is that right?
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: The shield would actually be
optimally preventative of any droplets being distributed.
The problem is -- and I think our Senate secretary expressed
it -- Liz indicated it was actually uncomfortable to wear for
very long.
CHAIR STEVENS: I see. Okay. Good point. Well, thank you
all so much for those thoughts. And any further comments?
SENATOR HOFFMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this is Senator
Hoffman again.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Hoffman.
SENATOR HOFFMAN: The enforcement issue that
Representative Stutes brought up is a serious concern of what
type of enforcement measures do we have. And I know we have
constitutional rights to speak, but I think at the national
level there's also the right to travel.
But airlines have issued no-fly to individuals
that haven't been wearing masks, and I read the article, I
believe yesterday, that they're close to 1,000 people that
are on a no-fly list, they are losing their rights to travel.
And that is the hammer that the industry has or the airline
industry is utilizing. So it is a very serious issue.
We have laws that prohibit individuals from
smoking in public buildings because of health hazards, and I
believe that COVID is probably far more of a concern
regarding health hazards. The enforcement issue needs to be
looked at very, very seriously in light of the health issues
and trying to weigh the enforcement of, say, people that are
smoking, for health reasons and not allowed in certain areas
and those that are not willing to wear masks to spread COVID
as it relates to health matters. I think that they are not
comparable. I think COVID is a far more risky situation, and
we should be treating as such when we develop our enforcement
policies.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Hoffman. Clearly the
point you made on air travel is particularly valid. No
legislator can fly to Juneau without wearing a mask on an
airplane, so what would be the objection to wearing a mask on
the floor?
Megan, if you're still with us, could you touch on
the constitutional issues, and maybe if you have any thoughts
on enforcement, I'd appreciate that.
MS. WALLACE: Sure. Again, for the record, Megan
Wallace, legal services director.
Enforcement, as everyone has acknowledged, is the
most difficult piece of this and the other policies as it
applies to legislators because they are elected officials,
elected to a legislative body to pass laws on the floor
during session.
I hesitate a little bit because it feels like in
2020 we've used this word unprecedented so many times. "This
is unprecedented. This is unprecedented." But this is
another unprecedented circumstance. So we haven't seen
challenges to prohibiting a member from exercising his or her
right to vote on the floor because they didn't wear a face
covering.
Alaska is not the only state that is grappling
with how to enforce mask policies and other mitigation
efforts. We're seeing legislators across the country kind of
push the bounds of these kinds of policies. And, as Jessica
mentioned, we are all collectively watching what is happening
in other states because, while it doesn't always translate
exactly to Alaska, it does help us look at issues and analyze
them and see how courts in other states are addressing these
legal issues that come to be.
The best that I can tell you, my advice would be
that if a member were to be prevented from entering the floor
to vote because he or she didn't wear a face covering, the
ultimate risk of challenge or litigation over that decision
is relatively high, and how a court would come out on that is
a more difficult thing to predict.
It's that balancing of the health and welfare of
members around that other member -- is the court going to
give weight to that or more weight to the inability of that
elected official to exercise his or her vote?
It's my anecdotal understanding that in one state
a member has been expelled from the Legislature for refusing
to wear a mask. And under Article 2, Section 12, the members
are -- they judge the qualifications of each -- of the other
members. So there's a remedy in Article 2, Section 12 to
expel members. And it would be -- I suppose that, one
argument against restricting someone from the floor for
failure to wear a face mask would be if members don't want
that person to participate in the body anymore, that the
remedy is exclusively to expel that member, and anything
short of that is impermissible.
But I suspect that there are other lesser forms of
enforcement that the Legislature could explore in terms of
regulating the conduct of its own members. The committee on
committees could take action and remove folks from committee
memberships, or they could be seated in different places on
the floor. There's a litany of other options that might be
available to the extent that the body wants to enforce it.
That's kind of a long-winded answer, but
ultimately it's just a very high risk of litigation if
members were kept from floor sessions.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. No, not long-winded, really
appropriate, and thank you for the time. And so alternate
seating on the floor would comply with the constitutional
requirements -- what else do we have to do? If we have
alternate seating, they have to have a microphone and a
button for voting. Is there anything else we have to do?
MS. WALLACE: Through the Chair, Senator Stevens, as it
relates to the procedural rules for voting and seating
assignment, the largest -- or the most important rule, as it
relates to that issue, in my opinion, is Uniform Rule 34,
subsection -- or paragraph 5, which requires that a member
may only vote when at a member's desk, and so wherever that
desk is assigned is the place where the member is required to
vote.
So, for example, a member couldn't -- if a member
was assigned a desk in the chamber, they couldn't vote from
any other location. So they couldn't be directed to sit
somewhere else and cast their vote there if that's not their
desk, by rule. But that's a legislative procedural rule, and
that would be something that the Legislature, as it relates
to an earlier discussion about procedural changes, that it
might consider. If reassignment of someone's seat or
reassignment of where that person must cast their vote if
they don't comply with a mask or other mitigation policy,
that might be something that is considered if other uniform
rules of procedural changes are considered.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Megan, for that.
Any further comments on this Mask Policy before we
move ahead?
SENATOR VON IMHOF: Senator Stevens, this is Senator von
Imhof.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please, Senator von Imhof.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: So just real quick, I do appreciate
discussion regarding the floor. But if a particular
legislator refuses to wear a mask at any time, whether it be
in the hallway, in the stairwell, in the Leg lounge, if it's
open, in any of the committee meetings, anything -- we're
just sort of accommodating the floor issue. But if a
legislator refuses to wear a mask at all, that's sort of
another layer or another response, and we don't necessarily
have to have an answer to that right now. But, you know,
it's one thing not to have a mask in your office, but the
moment you leave even to go to the bathroom, I believe that
we should be wearing a mask at this time.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator von Imhof. I think
this policy would demand that everyone wear a mask in the
hallways and in committee meetings. The reason we're
spending time with the "on the floor issue" is because it's a
constitutional matter, that the Constitution does say, as
Megan pointed out, that everyone should have a right to vote.
So, yes, a very good point. Thank you very much, Senator von
Imhof.
Any other discussion?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: This is Representative Johnson.
I have a comment.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please, Representative Johnson.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Okay. So I guess I'm going to
have to be a no vote on this because I think the
enforcement -- it's a great suggestion, but we don't have the
keys to do it. Someone can just go in and get their little
medical chip or whatever. Even if they just say they have a
medical reason, there's nothing to this. This is kind of the
worst of the worst. It's a great suggestion, but it's not
particularly meaningful.
Now, what we can do is we can talk about what
staff can do, and we can talk about who we let in the
building, and we can talk our bubble. But when it comes to
regulating legislators, we're going to have a heck of a time
doing that, and I don't know if now's the time to pick that
up and try to do it. That's just where I'm at on this.
It's not that I have a problem wearing a mask, and
I'll be wearing a mask in the building. But, I just want to
put that out there because that's my concern, that it's not
strong enough, and it's too weak as it is, and it's
just -- it's not going to get us where I think we need to go.
CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Thank you, Representative
Johnson.
Representative Stutes.
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I can
appreciate what Representative Johnson is saying, but -- and
I understand the constitutionality of not preventing a
legislator from voting, but they're not constitutionally
guaranteed, say, access to the lounge or anyplace else like
that, so we could restrict them from going into the lounge.
Am I correct on that? And restrict them from accessing
places in the building other than the floor, can we do that?
CHAIR STEVENS: Well, I think so. If you read this
policy, it means anybody in the Capitol Complex legislative
space has to wear a mask, face covering. And other things
like handwashing and sanitizing, and it's hard to follow that
up.
I appreciate what both Representative Johnson said
and Representative Stutes, but my responsibility, as chair of
Leg Council, is to make sure that every legislator feels safe
entering that building. And if that means that we become
heavy-handed and say everyone wear a mask, I think that's
what we have to do.
I mean, you cannot allow everyone just to go
back -- to act as if we were in January of 2020. We're not
there now. Hopefully this will not last long, but we have to
protect those members who -- some of our members have health
issues, and it's quite a concern there. Anyway, just my
thought as well.
Any further comments on this Mask Policy?
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Yes, Senator Stevens, this is
Senator Giessel.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Giessel.
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Mr. Chairman, to some degree I'm
responding to Representative Johnson's comment. I think that
the definition of face coverings -- I'm looking at the Mask
Policy and after, purpose -- number one, purpose -- there's
an asterisk, and it says, "Face coverings must be made of
cloth, blah, blah, blah."
I would recommend amending this to be much more
specific. "Face coverings mean a clean medical mask or
surgical mask or approved face shield. Also included is a
clean cloth mask made of cotton material, multiple layers of
tightly woven fabric, a minimum of two layers. Not
acceptable are bandanas or N-95 masks."
The N-95 -- just as a parenthetical comment -- the
individual wearing that is exhaling air that is not filtered.
So they are not effective. So I would amend this to be much
more specific about what we're expecting for face coverings.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Giessel. I take that
as then an amendment to the Mask Policy draft, and it would
be a clear definition of what those masks are. So are you
making that as an amendment, Senator Giessel?
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: I am. And I am, by the way, using
CDC language here. Thank you.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. So we have an amendment
before us.
A discussion on that amendment, Representative
Stutes?
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Yes, I think that aside from putting
"bandanas," we should include the word "gators" as well.
CHAIR STEVENS: Are you okay with that, Senator Giessel?
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Absolutely, yes.
CHAIR STEVENS: -- to gators? At this point do we also
need to add shields in?
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Senator Stevens, I did include
shields in the first sentence. "Face coverings mean a clean
medical or surgical mask or approved face shield."
Now, what Jessica described is not simply that
shield that covers over your mouth and the bottom is open.
What Jessica was describing is the face shield that has a
closed bottom so that air is not escaping from the inside of
that shield.
CHAIR STEVENS: Very good. So we'll have some
discussion on that amendment, and then I'd ask Senator
Giessel to restate it so we all know exactly what we're
voting on.
Any further discussions on the amendment to define
what these masks and shields are?
MS. GEARY: Senator Stevens, this is Jessica. And I
have a question for Senator Giessel. We've seen as a
replacement of N-95, there has been a lot of other mask types
named KN-95, which I believe is perhaps just a less expensive
version. And if we're saying no N-95, is there another way
to exclude any exhaust style -- I guess I'm just relying on
your medical expertise to define what you mean by "no N-95."
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Jessica, a way to encompass this
would be to say -- and under the "not acceptable" I'm going
to add in what Representative Stutes mentioned. "Not
acceptable are bandanas, gators, or masks which have valves,
such as the N-95." So that would cover the less expensive,
if that's what you're referring to, the less expensive type
of mask. Anything with a valve that is allowing the free
exhale of air would not be acceptable.
MS. GEARY: Thank you for that.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. That's great to have that
information.
Further discussion on the amendment before us?
10:32:29 AM
If we could then have a roll call vote on the
amendment, Jessica.
MS. GEARY: Senator Coghill?
SENATOR COGHILL: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senate President Giessel?
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senator Hoffman?
SENATOR HOFFMAN: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senator Stedman?
SENATOR STEDMAN: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senator von Imhof?
SENATOR VON IMHOF: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Speaker Edgmon?
Representative Foster?
Representative DeLena Johnson?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: No.
MS. GEARY: Representative Jennifer Johnston?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Representative Kopp?
Representative Thompson?
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Vice-Chair Stutes?
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens?
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes.
MS. GEARY: 9 yeas, 1 nay.
CHAIR STEVENS: So the motion -- the amendment passes
with a vote of 9 to 1.
So let's go back to the original motion that
Representative Stutes made to -- well, let's see. Yes, so I
think we're at a point now of going back to the original
motion on the Mask Policy.
Any further discussions on that motion?
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Mr. Chairman, this is Senator
Giessel. I just wanted --
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Giessel.
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: -- to add parenthetically I just
e-mailed Jessica Geary the words that I used in my amendment
so she'll have them, but otherwise I have no other comments
about this other than I think it's a good policy. Thank you.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Giessel.
Any further comments on this motion, the main
motion before us?
Then could we have a roll call, Jessica?
MS. GEARY: Senator Coghill?
SENATOR COGHILL: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senate President Giessel?
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senator Hoffman?
SENATOR HOFFMAN: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senator Stedman?
SENATOR STEDMAN: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senator von Imhof?
SENATOR VON IMHOF: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Speaker Edgmon?
Representative Foster?
Representative DeLena Johnson?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: No.
MS. GEARY: Representative Jennifer Johnston?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Representative Kopp?
Representative Thompson?
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Vice-Chair Stutes?
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens?
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes.
MS. GEARY: 9 nays, 1 -- 9 yeas, 1 nay.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. So the motion passes with 9
votes to 1.
Let's then move on to the next issue, which is the
Screening Policy. Representative Stutes, could I have a
motion?
10:36:31 AM
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Certainly, Mr. Chair. I move the
Leg Council approve the Capitol COVID-19 Screening Process
Policy.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. And then I will object at
this point for purposes of discussion and ask Jessica to
discuss this matter, the screening process with us. Jessica.
MS. GEARY: Thank you. Again, for the record, Jessica
Geary, executive director, Legislative Affairs Agency.
So this policy is expanding on the screening
process that we had at the end of May, earlier this year.
And so the screening is simply a series of questions and a
temperature check. And whether the temperature check will be
through a thermal infrared camera or a no-touch thermometer,
I don't think those details don't matter quite as much.
But I think the important thing to note is that
we're talking about closing down the entrances to the Capitol
with the exception of the ground floor lobby, which is the
proposed screening station location. And so it's a pretty
simple policy. I'm happy to answer any questions.
CHAIR STEVENS: So maybe, Jessica, you could talk a
little bit about -- we're going to be discussing the RFP,
potential of hiring a company to come in that does this
professionally. Could you go into a little more detail on
what they would be doing if the Leg Council approves that RFP
at another meeting?
MS. GEARY: Absolutely. And thank you for bringing that
up. I briefly mentioned it earlier, but one of the things
that we are looking into is hiring a third-party contractor
to perform the screening.
And then to Senator Hoffman's question from
earlier, the testing -- we're specifying a rapid
molecular-based test, so I think results within a half an
hour. I am not one-hundred percent on the specifics, but it
is the recommended molecular-based test.
The idea is that the contractor would be a medical
professional in full PPE and would -- after the screening
questions, if there were a member or staff or member of the
media who screened positive for symptoms, they would be
escorted to a private room to get a rapid test, and then, if
they tested positive, they would be asked to leave the
building, and there are some other discussion points on that.
That's sort of the gist of it at this point.
I think there's a statement down at the bottom
that's important. But the screening process may be updated
without the need for additional Legislative Council action in
accordance with guidance from our health officials. We have
the CDC, State of Alaska, and then our local City and Borough
of Juneau. So we at Legislative Affairs are keeping up on
those changes and the most recent guidance available to us.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Jessica. Just a couple of
comments. What we found is that, when we were doing this
before when we were in session, it took a lot of staff time
from legislative staff and not able to do the jobs they do
have to do, their full-time jobs, and probably best not to
have them giving orders to legislators that they have to do
this, they have to do that. So it seems like it would make
sense to have an outside contractor do that.
As I understand it, if someone tests positive when
they come in, they'd be whisked away into another place,
tested again. And then if they are still positive -- and
maybe I have this wrong -- but they would be escorted back to
their apartment or to a hotel. These people that we hire,
the contractor, then would make sure they are fed, they have
meals delivered to them and will take care of them and
including testing as well. So I think it's a better
situation than the one we experienced earlier in this year.
Any comments anyone has on the screening process
at this time then?
SENATOR HOFFMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a question
for consideration.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Hoffman.
SENATOR HOFFMAN: I understand the policy if someone has
a fever, to go to a private area for a rapid test. I'm
wondering for those that have family down there, if they
subject themselves, such as immediate family members to a
rapid test, could they be allowed into the building and not
just to do the screening but actually get the rapid test
within 20 minutes for spouses and maybe immediate family
members? I think that that is something that should be
considered.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator. I don't know the
answer to that.
Jessica, do you have any thoughts?
MS. GEARY: Through the Chair, Senator Hoffman, I think
that that is a policy decision whether or not we would expand
that to spouses and family members if the Legislature is
paying for the actual test. I believe since we pay for
spouses and dependents to travel to Juneau to be a family
unit, I would think we would expand that or extend the offer
for a test to them. The frequency of which we would offer
testing to those who are non-legislators or legislative
employees, that's the piece that I wouldn't be able to answer
right now.
SENATOR HOFFMAN: Under the current policy, if you have
a fever and you get a rapid test, then you leave the
building, would that rapid test continue to allow you access
to the building under this current policy?
MS. GEARY: Through the Chair, Senator Hoffman, I'm not
sure I fully understand your question. Would you mind
repeating it?
SENATOR HOFFMAN: So under the second paragraph, where
individuals have a fever, they go to a private area and have
a rapid test. Then they're allowed into the building. Then
they leave to do some errands outside the building and they
come back into the building. Does that first rapid test
allow them access to the building again, or are they required
to have another rapid test?
MS. GEARY: Through the Chair, Senator Hoffman, that
negative test would allow them access to the building. The
idea for the screening is upon first entry each day of the
Capitol, and it isn't envisioned that legislators would have
to go through the screening multiple times throughout the
day.
SENATOR HOFFMAN: So I guess my question is to the
members of the council, is it asking too much to have your
spouses or family members come into the building as long as
they inconvenience themselves to admit to have a rapid test?
CHAIR STEVENS: Representative Stutes.
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: So, Senator Hoffman, is it whether
or not the legislator tests positive? Even if they test
negative, then you want the family tested as well?
SENATOR HOFFMAN: No, they would have to be testing
negative with the rapid test in order to access the building.
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Could I comment, Senator Stevens?
This is Senator Giessel.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, is that Senator Giessel?
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Yes, this is Senator Giessel. These
rapids tests -- first of all, as Jessica pointed out, this is
going to be the issue of the council determining how
much -- I'll be blunt -- how much they want to invest in it.
These rapid tests are not free. They detect active
infections.
And so the question of family members submitting
to this and then being allowed free access to the building,
that active infection could develop over several days and
crop up at any time. I guess the fundamental question we
have to ask is, how much free entrance and egress do family
members need to have in the building -- so that's a
fundamental philosophical question -- and how much we're
going to invest in testing lots of family members. You know,
kids come into the building selling Girl Scout cookies and
all the rest of that. So just a comment. Thank you.
CHAIR STEVENS: So just a little story here. We had a
principal of our high school who was exposed to it, a father
and a child -- a child, I think, who were positive. He was
tested immediately and was negative, tested again and was
negative, tested again and was positive. So these tests can
change pretty quickly.
And, Senator Giessel, that's your field. Do you
have any comments on that? It seems like it's a little
difficult when you depend so much on one test which could be
inaccurate and could change in time.
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: You're absolutely correct, Senator
Stevens. It's not that those first two tests were erroneous;
it's that the level of the viral infection had not reached
the point that the rapid test will detect it and that it has
become an active infection.
The common thought now, of course, is that the
person, even with that negative test, is actually shedding
some virus, but we can't assume that. But you're right; it
has to be an active infection, and it could take several days
to develop.
So if the legislator tests positive, that spouse
is probably going to test positive in a few days. Vice
versa. If the spouse tests positive, that legislator should
be tested every day thereafter. Thank you.
CHAIR STEVENS: Well, thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Chair Stevens, this is
Representative Johnson. I have a couple questions, if I
might?
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please go ahead, Representative
Johnson.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: So I just wanted to make note,
first of all, that the governor has staff in the building as
well, that we shouldn't forget about that piece. And it
would be something I would be interested in hearing more
about, what the governor's -- the Executive Branch's plan is
for their policy as far as being in the building. That would
be helpful, I think, somewhat.
And then the other question I have is, if you have
a legislator that does test positive -- and we just talked
about the desk that legislator has to vote from, could we
have a different place either in the building or --if someone
tests positive, could we have someplace that has full A/V
communications so they could speak on the floor, they could
vote from, but they could still -- even if they're positive,
be there and participate?
I mean, the idea of excluding someone from the
floor, I still have concerns with that. I recognize that
we're getting into -- this could be -- any reasonable person
wouldn't go to the floor if they are known to have an actual
infection. But how do we actually enforce that? Obviously
once they're organized with the rules chair and so on, but
this is my question for Legislative Affairs and for the
council in general: Is there a way to have an assigned place
that could be an alternative for someone that tested
positive, that they would not get excluded from voting, that
they could go to?
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Representative Johnson. Let
me tackle the first part of that question. The governor's
administration, I've been in contact -- close contact with
the governor's chief of staff, Ben Stevens, and he
understands that the rules apply to all -- the entire
building, apply to the governor's floor as well.
We did allow the governor's administration to
enter up the stairs and in the back door. We did that in
February and March, and that seemed to be a reasonable thing
to do at the time.
Now, I think the things we're considering here
would require them to come through the front door with
everyone else so there would be no access to that building at
all without complying with our rules, with the rules that we
decide. So there's been no objection to that on the part of
the chief of staff. He understands that we have to make a
policy here, and their policy would dovetail with ours.
As for the second question on someone testing
positive, I believe -- and help me out here, Jessica -- but I
believe they would not be allowed in the building if they
tested positive; is that right?
MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens, this kind of gets into the
constitutional area we were speaking about earlier. And this
is really a policy decision whether or not we can set up an
area that is designated as the legislator's desk that they
can vote from while positive and participate in floor
sessions. The simple answer -- well, it's not a simple
answer. The answer is, yes, technically we can make that
happen, but it would be a policy call whether or not that
would be allowed to happen.
CHAIR STEVENS: And if we did decide to allow folks to
participate online from home, if we should pass that, then
they would be allowed to vote. And if we passed that, they
would be allowed to vote from their homes or from their
apartments or from their hotel.
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Senator Stevens, this is Senator
Giessel. Could I comment on that?
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator Giessel.
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: What that's reflecting back on is
the Senate Concurrent Resolution 16 that provided for exactly
what you just described, a positive-tested person who is now
being either housed in their own apartment in Juneau, or if
we have this second contractor, that contractor would provide
separate housing for the individual.
So this reflects back on Megan's memorandum that
we've talked about earlier. It would be highly foolish to
allow a person who has tested positive to have access to the
building. That just flies in the face of reason. Those are
just my comments. Thank you.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator. And as we saw just
recently, the athlete whose team won, and he went back on the
field testing positive, and there's been no end of comments
in the press about that. So I would hope that anybody that
does test positive would stay out of the building.
Representative Stutes.
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: I was just going to make a comment.
You know, I would agree with Senator Giessel, because even if
there were a spot set up in the Capitol, you could not
restrict these people, say, from using the restroom, you
know, they would be in the hallways. There would be a degree
of exposure no matter how cautious we were.
CHAIR STEVENS: Right.
SENATOR HOFFMAN: Mr. Chairman, I have a question
regarding Joint Resolution 16.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator Hoffman.
SENATOR HOFFMAN: The question is, did we adopt that for
the 31st Alaska Legislature -- or does that apply to all the
31st, as well as all future Legislatures?
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, of course, it did not pass the
House. It passed the Senate; it did not pass the House. We
are the 31st Legislature. We can have rules for ourselves,
but we can't force a 32nd Legislature, once they are
organized, to follow those rules. I think -- any reasonable
person I think would.
But, Jessica, am I right there, or maybe, Megan?
MS. GEARY: I would say you are correct. If Megan wants
to comment, she can.
MS. WALLACE: Yes, again, for the record, Megan Wallace,
legal services director.
That's correct, reference to SCR 16 at this point
is more, even just for discussion purposes, to highlight a
resolution that was drafted and considered by at least one
body. And it highlights that new details can be considered
via resolution and are policy decisions for the incoming
Legislature.
At this point it would only be Leg Council's
recommendation to the incoming Legislature as to what
procedures -- procedural changes to make, but that certainly
is a decision that when this committee is ready could make
those recommendations for the incoming Legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: Mr. Chairman, this is
Representative Thompson. I'm going to have to go offline.
This was a scheduled appointment. I'm sorry.
CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Thanks so much for being with us.
I appreciate your time.
All right. So I'm ready to move on. We have the
motion on the screening policy ahead of us, in front of us.
Any further discussion?
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Senator Stevens, this is Senator
Giessel.
SENATOR HOFFMAN: This is Senator Hoffman again.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Hoffman.
SENATOR HOFFMAN: I think that the Leg Council should
deal with the preview that we have. Whatever the Legislature
decides on voting procedures, whether someone has COVID or
not -- that had been raised by Representative
Johnson -- should be decided by the Legislature. And
whatever recommendations we have I think are inconsequential
because the Legislature for the 32nd Legislature is going to
be completely different than the one that we're currently
presiding over.
So my recommendation is leave all recommendations
to the 32nd Legislature at their discretion, and we decide
what we want to make for the remainder of this year and stick
to that for our safety purposes.
CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Well, thank you, Senator Hoffman.
Yes, I understand what you're saying. So we'll stick with
these decisions we make, but I think it's good to let the
32nd know what we have done and have a good, solid policy,
well thought out. If they choose not to follow any of those
issues, they certainly have that right. It's a long process
here, but at least the 32nd Legislature will know what
we -- what this Leg Council and this Legislature feels should
be done.
Further discussion on the matter of screening
process?
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Senator Stevens, this is Senator
Giessel.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Giessel.
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: I'm looking at the screening
process. There's a middle section of bullets, and they're
hollow bullets, they're just circles. It's pertaining to
"Notification will occur as follows: legislator, appropriate
presiding officer, partisan staff." It says, "Legislator and
appropriate presiding officer."
I would recommend adding the rules chair to that
list for partisan staff as well. Since it is under the
purview of the rules chair for hiring authority for partisan
staff during session, I think they should be included. Thank
you.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Giessel. That's a
reasonable thing to add.
Is there any objection to changing "partisan
staff" by adding "the rules chair" along with -- it says
"legislator and appropriate presiding officer and the rules
chair." Any objection to that? Okay. Very well. Thank you
for that.
Any further comments on screening process?
All right. Then I call for a vote -- first, I'll
remove my objection and ask Jessica to take a roll call,
please, on the screening process.
MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens, do we need to have a motion
to approve the amendment or --
CHAIR STEVENS: We can if we want just to make sure
everything is done properly.
Then, Senator Giessel, that is your amendment
then; is that true?
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I make that
motion.
CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Thank you. Then let's go
ahead -- any discussion on that?
Let's move ahead then to a vote on that amendment,
which is to add the rules chair.
And roll call vote, please, Jessica.
MS. GEARY: Senator Coghill?
SENATOR COGHILL: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senate President Giessel?
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senator Hoffman?
SENATOR HOFFMAN: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senator Stedman?
SENATOR STEDMAN: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senator von Imhof?
SENATOR VON IMHOF: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Speaker Edgmon?
SPEAKER EDGMON: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Representative Foster?
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Representative DeLena Johnson?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: No.
MS. GEARY: Representative Jennifer Johnston?
Representative Kopp?
Vice-Chair Stutes?
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens?
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes.
MS. GEARY: 9 yeas, 1 nay.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. For a vote of 9 to 1, then
the amendment passes.
11:46:48 AM
We have the amended motion in front of us then for
the discussion on that amended motion. And let's go to roll
call vote on the screening process, Capitol COVID Screening
Process.
A roll call vote, please, Jessica.
MS. GEARY: Senator Coghill?
SENATOR COGHILL: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senate President Giessel?
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senator Hoffman?
SENATOR HOFFMAN: No.
MS. GEARY: Senator Stedman?
SENATOR STEDMAN: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senator von Imhof?
SENATOR VON IMHOF: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Speaker Edgmon?
SPEAKER EDGMON: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Representative Foster?
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Representative DeLena Johnson?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: No.
MS. GEARY: Representative Johnston?
Representative Kopp?
Vice-Chair Stutes?
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens?
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes.
MS. GEARY: 8 yeas, 2 nays.
CHAIR STEVENS: And by a vote of 8 to 2, the motion
passes.
And I will move on to the next item, which is the
Legislative Council Pandemic Code of Conduct Policy.
11:46:48 AM
Representative Stutes, a motion, please.
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Certainly, Mr. Chair. I move the
Legislative Council approve the Legislative Council Pandemic
Code of Conduct Policy.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. And I'll object for purposes
of discussion.
And, Jessica, would you talk about this issue with
us, please.
MS. GEARY: Again, for the record, Jessica Geary. This
Pandemic Code of Conduct Policy is for those who interact
with the legislative bubble within the Capitol, basically
you're just stating you will follow best practices, you will
complete the daily health screening, you'll take
responsibility for your own health, the health of your staff,
and the health of others, you will isolate in the event of a
COVID-19 positive test, be tested frequently as offered.
And then the one other thing is make every effort
to quarantine in place for 14 days before your intended
arrival in Juneau -- that's been recommended by local health
officials, as quarantine is still our best defense against
this virus -- and then arrive in Juneau with a negative test
or test upon arrival and isolate pending results.
I think the rest of it's pretty self-explanatory.
It's socialize in small groups, comply with enhanced social
event management policies, and avoid all nonessential trips
out of the capital city. With that I will open it up to
questions.
CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Thank you very much.
Jessica, any questions or comments at this point?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: This is Representative Johnson.
Mr. Chair, I've got a question.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator von Imhof.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: Thank you. I appreciate having this
ready to go at this point, but I don't feel comfortable
voting on this today, kind of what Senator Hoffman said. I
get that I'm sort of sending a mixed message, but this is a
lot more extensive about going in and out of the capital. It
was one thing to talk about masks and screening, but it's
another thing to start talking about travel, what you can and
cannot do and whatnot. This is pretty extensive at this
point, and I'm not really ready to vote on this. I think
there's a lot more conversation -- it's okay to have a
conversation about it today and listen to everybody's
thoughts.
Is that what your intention is, Senator Stevens,
is talk about it or are we voting on something?
CHAIR STEVENS: Unless there's a general disagreement,
my intention is to put it to a vote.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: Okay. Senator Stevens, with all due
respect, I think this is pretty extensive, and I'm not happy
about voting on this today.
CHAIR STEVENS: Well, thank you. I understand that. It
is a big issue we've been dealing with for some time. This
has not been a secret at all. But I understand your
discomfort, and I'd appreciate knowing what others feel about
it.
If anybody has a comment?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, I have a question.
This is Representative Johnson.
CHAIR STEVENS: Representative Johnson, go ahead,
please.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: So I was just looking at this,
and it talks a lot about people traveling into Juneau, but it
also occurs to me that if we're going to talk about the
Capitol bubble, that we need to have all the staff, whether
they resided in Juneau or legislators that are in Juneau,
need to be tested too. There's no guarantee that just
because we're incoming, that we're the only ones that might
test positive.
CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Thank you for that.
MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens, can I respond to that?
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please.
MS. GEARY: Through the Chair, Representative Johnson,
this policy states as a condition of working and being
present in the Capitol Complex and all other legislative
spaces, legislators and legislative staff shall -- so the
intent is that people that live in Juneau as well. Anyone
that has business to conduct in the Capitol Complex would be
subject to the same rules as those traveling from outside.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: So they would be tested? So
the Juneau legislators and the Juneau legislative staff and
so on would also be tested?
MS. GEARY: Through the Chair, Representative Johnson,
that is the intent, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Thank you.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. So anybody coming into the
building would be tested. And in our discussions, you know,
depending on how bad things get, it could be closed. The
building could be closed, and only the legislative staff and
media would be allowed in the building, I think general
discussion about whether lobbyists and the public would be
allowed, but that all depends on how bad things get.
Any further discussions on this code of conduct?
SENATOR HOFFMAN: Mr. Chairman, this is Senator Hoffman.
I would also request that we take time to review this and not
vote on it today.
SENATOR STEDMAN: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator Stedman.
SENATOR STEDMAN: Yes, I think we need to talk about the
time frame -- we've got three months until we start up. I'd
like to hear a little bit about the pros and cons of taking
action today versus working with this policy with several
people concerned about implementation today. What's the time
sensitivity of this issue?
CHAIR STEVENS: Well, I'm not sure that there is a great
need to decide this now. We can decide it later. We can
look at it and bring it back and massage it a little bit and
have everyone have more input into it.
Jessica, do you see this as a big concern in
timing?
MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens, I think we definitely have
some time, this needs to be taken care of prior to the
convening of the 32nd Legislature. I would say as long as we
have some policy decisions in place by December, I think that
should be just fine.
What we might run into an issue with is some of
these items in this Code of Conduct Policy dovetail with the
RFP and the contractor. So that's the only thing I
might mention. If there was an aversion to the testing or
the screening, those are the types of things that I think are
important to note.
SPEAKER EDGMON: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes. Is that the speaker, Mr. Speaker?
SPEAKER EDGMON: Yes, it is. Thank you. I'm looking at
this page of this conduct policy, and maybe it's because I
live in a community that's been pretty strict with its
restrictions -- in fact, I was just talking to city council
folks this morning on doing something similar to this. I
think we're one of the first communities, if not the first
community to have restrictions in the entire state.
I'm pretty comfortable with what I read here, and
I don't see anything that would change if we were to vote on
this later, although I'm certainly not averse to giving
people more time to digest things here in front of us.
I do know that we're in the process of considering
a third-party contractor, which I think is really important.
I'll raise my hand and say put me down as a yes vote on this
today and not waiting until later.
I think it's also important that we make a
statement that we're taking things very seriously, and the
fact is that we're going into the session that's going to be,
by all accounts, abbreviated because of COVID. And, again,
I'm willing to wait to vote on this -- my preference would be
to vote on it now. Thank you.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Representative Edgmon. I
appreciate your comments.
So I have heard from four folks who are
uncomfortable with moving this forward. Is there anyone else
who is uncomfortable with taking action on this now at this
time?
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Giessel, please.
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: First of all, I would support what
the speaker, just said. I also suggest that it's possible
something could arise prior to the convening of the 32nd
Legislature. Of course, I'm referring to the headline, the
front page story in the ADN today about the governor and the
extension of this emergency declaration.
The speaker and I have talked with Megan about
this. We have a legal opinion on it. That disaster
declaration can only be extended by the Legislature. I think
that having something like a Code of Conduct Policy -- it's
before us -- suggested is prudent to do sooner than later. I
agree with the speaker. There's nothing in here that's new.
I do have a couple comments on a couple pieces,
just some nuances, but we're not talking about that right
now. I do want to get those in before we finish talking
about this, though. But I don't think we should kick the can
down the road very far. If we are going to delay it -- today
is Thursday -- I would suggest we meet again no later than
Monday to put this in place because I think it might be
needed prior to the mid-January date. Thank you.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Giessel. My job is
to count noses, and at this point, this motion would not
pass, I don't believe. I think there is great sense as to
what everyone has said: take a little more time to look at
it carefully to study the issue and we can easily handle this
at our very next meeting. So unless there's a serious
objection, my intention is to remove this from the agenda at
this time.
Any objection to that?
SENATOR COGHILL: No objection, Mr. Chairman, but I do
have a question that may clarify something for me.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please, Senator Coghill.
SENATOR COGHILL: Arriving in Juneau, can you get a test
at the airport like we do here in Fairbanks when you come
into town?
MS. GEARY: Through the Chair --
CHAIR STEVENS: I believe you can.
Do we have an answer from Jessica on that?
MS. GEARY: Through the Chair, Senator Coghill, yes, you
can get tested upon arrival at the airport.
SENATOR COGHILL: Yes, I still think it requires some
quarantining until you get the results, but I just want to
make sure that that was clear. I think this will help us
when we get back to the issue. Thank you.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Coghill.
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes.
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: I think Senator Coghill's question
needs fleshing out a bit more. So the idea of the test is
it's not a guarantee that you don't have the virus. A
negative test says that your viral load is negative for a
threshold of diagnosis. It doesn't mean that tomorrow or
next day you would not reach that threshold of viral
infection and now have an active case.
That's the purpose of No. 2 policy, second bullet,
"Make every effort to quarantine in place before your
intended arrival in Juneau." That way, if you have
isolated -- and I argue with the 14 days, it should actually
be 10, but we'll talk about that later. Regardless, you've
isolated, you get to Juneau. Sure, you have a test at the
airport then and it's negative, it's probably substantial,
it's probably a valid response. But to not have done some
kind of isolation, take a test in Juneau and say, "Okay. I'm
good" is false.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Giessel.
I, too, was questioning that 14 days, and so we
need to review that issue and then figure out where we're
going there. I realize I've asked a lot of you to go through
all of these. But it's an enormous amount of things for us
to cover.
Jessica, just a question, maybe a little off the
subject. Have we had any legislators or staff test positive?
That you know of?
MS. GEARY: Yes, we have. I am not aware of any
legislators. We have had staff that have tested positive.
CHAIR STEVENS: All right. So it is among us, and the
imperative is that we deal with this fairly shortly. My
intention then is to remove this from our agenda and to deal
with it very quickly in the future.
Everyone spend as much time as they can reviewing
this, figuring out what you require, what you demand, what
your needs are before we consider it at our next meeting.
C. LEGISLATURE LITIGATION UPDATE
CHAIR STEVENS: So we'll move on then -- I've asked
Megan to give us an update on litigation.
Megan, are you prepared for that?
MS. WALLACE: Yes. Again, for the record, Megan
Wallace, legal services director.
My update will be fairly brief. As everyone
should recall, the only active piece of litigation that is
still ongoing right now concerning the Legislature is a
forward-funding lawsuit that the Legislature brought against
the governor regarding the failure to appropriate the
forward-funded education appropriations made in 2018.
You'll also recall that the Legislature was
successful at the superior court level and received an order
of summary judgment in favor of the Legislature. That order
was appealed by the governor, and the case is now sitting in
the Alaska Supreme Court.
Our briefing schedule did get a little delayed as
a result of the pandemic. Initially, our briefs were due in
early 2020, but, as a result of many mitigation orders issued
by the Alaska Supreme Court as it relates to court
operations, our deadlines got extended. But throughout the
summer and early fall briefing in the case is now complete,
and there is a request for oral argument that is before the
court, but we have not yet received a date for oral argument
scheduling.
And generally, I think -- sometimes I've heard
predictions of decisions six months to a year after a case is
briefed. It's difficult to predict, though, in light of the
pandemic and the changes to court procedures and election
cases and other urgent matters that might come before the
Supreme Court whether or not our case will get bumped.
So as it stands right now, we don't have dates,
and it's difficult to predict a decision. I would be hopeful
that we would get something in early 2021. That's certainly
not a guarantee. I'm happy to take questions if anyone has
any.
CHAIR STEVENS: Well, thank you, Megan. It's good to
know that that's the only piece of litigation we are dealing
with at this point.
Any questions of Megan on the forward-funding of
education funds?
Okay. Well, thank you so much, Megan. I
appreciate your time, and I appreciate everyone spending this
time. It's gotten to be pretty long here. I realize that.
We have three contracts to approve, and then I've asked Tim
Banaszak to give us an IT update, and then we can conclude
this meeting.
V. CONTRACT APPROVALS
A. RFP 639 ALASKA STATE CAPITOL CHILDCARE PROVIDER
CHAIR STEVENS: So let's move ahead to the approval
of these contracts. Representative Stutes.
11:46:48 AM
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that
Legislative Council authorize the award of RFP 639 for a
child care provider in the Capitol Complex to Discovery
Preschool for a three-year contract and three optional
two-year renewals.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. And I will object for
purposes of discussion.
JC Kestel, do you have some comments on this
contract? JC, are you with us?
MR. KESTEL: Thank you, Chair Stevens. Yes, I'm here.
For the record, my name is JC Kestel, procurement officer for
the Legislative Affairs Agency.
In August the Legislative Affairs Agency issued
RFP 639 to solicit child care providers to operate a child
care center in the Thomas Stewart Building here at the
Capitol Complex. RFP 639 closed on September 18, 2020, and
Discovery Preschool's proposal was the only one that was
received for review by the PEC.
The PEC is a Proposal Evaluation Committee that
was comprised of Senator Jesse Kiehl; Katrina Matheny, chief
of staff for Senator Stevens; Tyra Smith-MacKinnon, staff for
Speaker Edgmon; Greg Smith, staff for Representative Story;
Jessica Geary, executive director of the Legislative Affairs
Agency; and Sant Lesh, administrative operations manager for
Legislative Affairs Agency.
The PEC individually reviewed Discovery's proposal
and met as a group to discuss the results. The PEC is making
a recommendation of an award of RFP 639 to Discovery
Preschool to provide a child care program at the Capitol
Complex.
I'd be happy to answer any questions about the RFP
process, and Jessica Gary is available to answer questions
regarding the child care program.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you very much, JC. I appreciate
all of your efforts and with that RFP process.
Any questions of JC or of Jessica? Hearing and
seeing none, I'd remove my objection and ask Jessica to take
a roll call.
MS. GEARY: Senator Coghill?
SENATOR COGHILL: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senate President Giessel?
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senator Hoffman?
SENATOR HOFFMAN: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senator Stedman?
SENATOR STEDMAN: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senator von Imhof?
SENATOR VON IMHOF: Yeah.
MS. GEARY: Speaker Edgmon?
SPEAKER EDGMON: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Representative Foster?
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Representative DeLena Johnson?
Representative Johnston?
Representative Kopp?
Vice-Chair Stutes?
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens?
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes.
MS. GEARY: 9 yeas, 0 nays.
CHAIR STEVENS: So by vote 9 to 0, that motion passes,
and that contract has been approved.
B. LEASE EXTENSION FOR HOMER OFFICE SPACE
CHAIR STEVENS: We'll move on to the second contract,
which is for the Homer office space.
Representative Stutes.
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move
that the Legislative Council approve the lease extension
for Homer office space in the amount of $54,961.92.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you for that motion. And I'll
object for purposes of discussion.
And, JC, again, you're up for this one. Can you
tell us what's going on in Homer?
MR. KESTEL: Thank you, Chair Stevens. For the
record, again, my name is JC Kestel, procurement officer
for the Legislative Affairs Agency.
The current lease agreement between the
Legislative Affairs Agency and Mr. and Mrs. Ellington for
office space currently occupied by the Legislature in
Homer, Alaska is due to expire October 31, 2020, with no
renewal options available.
Under Alaska Statute 36.30.083, there is a
provision where we may extend a real property lease for up
to ten years if a minimum cost savings of at least
10 percent below the market rental value can be obtained
for the extension. The market rental value must be
established by a real estate broker's opinion of the rental
value or by an appraisal of the rental value.
The agency contracted with a real estate broker
to determine the market value of the property located in
Homer. We received their fair market rental analysis, and
it is their opinion that the market rental value for the
property, with full service lease, is $1.75 per square foot
as of October 1, 2020.
Per Alaska Statute 36.30.083, the agency offered
Mr. and Mrs. Ellington a rate of $1.56 per square foot for
a new five-year lease extension with 5 one-year renewal
options that are at our option to exercise to Mr. and Mrs.
Ellington, and they have accepted our offer.
Based on the above, I recommend approving the
lease extension for the Homer office space located at 270
Pioneer Avenue in Homer, Alaska for a price of $1.56 per
square foot. The lease extension exceeds 35,000 in one
fiscal year, therefore, Legislative Council's approval is
required.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. I appreciate all of your
efforts, JC, in getting that. It looks like a pretty good
deal for us.
Any discussion on this motion to approve the
Homer office?
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: I have a question.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Representative Stutes.
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What was the previous square footage rate that
we were paying for that same space?
MR. KESTEL: Through the Chair, Representative
Stutes, the previous price per square foot was rounded to
$1.72 per square foot.
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Representative Stutes.
Again, well done, JC. Appreciate your efforts
there.
Any further discussion?
I will then remove my objection and ask for a
roll call, Jessica.
MS. GEARY: Senator Coghill?
SENATOR COGHILL: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senate President Giessel?
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senator Hoffman?
SENATOR HOFFMAN: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senator Stedman?
SENATOR STEDMAN: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senator von Imhof?
SENATOR VON IMHOF: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Speaker Edgmon?
SPEAKER EDGMON: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Representative Foster?
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Vice-Chair Stutes?
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens?
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes.
MS. GEARY: 9 yeas, 0 nays.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. By a vote of 9 to 0 then,
we have approved the lease of the Homer office space.
C. RENEWAL NO. 2 OF THE SUBLEASE FOR UTQIAGVIK OFFICE
SPACE
CHAIR STEVENS: Moving on to the sublease, renewal
No. 2 of the sublease for Utqiagvik office space.
Representative Stutes, a motion, please.
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Certainly, Mr. Chair. I move
that Legislative Council approve renewal No. 2 of the
sublease for Utqiagvik office space in the amount of
$35,599.80.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. And I'll object for
purposes of the discussion, and, again, ask JC to give
us a brief explanation and answer any questions that may
come up.
MR. KESTEL: Thank you, Chair Stevens. The current
sublease renewal agreement between the Legislative
Affairs Agency and Arctic Slope Telephone Association
Cooperative for office space in Utqiagvik terminates
December 31, 2020.
There are two sublease renewal options
available under the sublease agreement, each for a
one-year period. We have exercised one of those renewal
options. Legislative Affairs Agency would like approval
to proceed with renewal No. 2 for the period of
January 1st, 2021, through December 31, 2021.
If Legislative Council approves renewal No.
2, this will be one more renewal of the sublease option
available for the agency. The renewal period exceeds
35,000 in one fiscal year, therefore, Legislative
Council's approval is required.
I'll be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, JC.
Any questions on this sublease?
SENATOR VON IMHOF: Senator Stevens, this is
Senator von Imhof.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator von Imhof.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: So is this for a legislator to
use, like legislative offices, or is this for an LIO for
citizens to come and testify and so forth?
MR. KESTEL: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof,
the space in question is a Legislative Information
Office. There are no legislators located there.
SENATOR VON IMHOF: Okay. Thank you. So, Senator
Stevens, follow-up, I'm assuming then there's not
necessarily offices, per se, it's just a space for
citizens to come and speak and testify for committee
hearings; is that correct?
CHAIR STEVENS: Let's ask Jessica to comment on
that.
Do you have any thoughts, Jessica, on that
issue of who's in that space and what it's used for?
MS. GEARY: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof,
we have a an Utqiagvik LIO officer that works out of
that office, and then the public can come and testify
for legislative hearings, and it's a way for them to
interact with their Legislature.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.
Any follow-up, Senator von Imhof?
SENATOR VON IMHOF: No. Thank you.
CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Thank you very much. Any
further discussion on the issue of this office space?
I'll remove my objection and ask for a roll
call vote, please.
MS. GEARY: Senator Coghill?
SENATOR COGHILL: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senate President Giessel?
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senator Hoffman?
SENATOR HOFFMAN: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senator Stedman?
SENATOR STEDMAN: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Senator von Imhof?
SENATOR VON IMHOF: Yeah. Yes.
MS. GEARY: Speaker Edgmon?
SPEAKER EDGMON: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Representative Foster?
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Vice-Chair Stutes?
VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Yes.
MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens?
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes.
MS. GEARY: 9 yeas, 0 nays.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Jessica.
By a vote of 9 to 0, that office space has
been approved.
MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens --
CHAIR STEVENS: So I was asked to add a last-minute
update on --
MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens --
CHAIR STEVENS: -- what's happening here in our
various LIOs and how we're going to be dealing with
working together in this way.
Tim, are you with us, Tim Banaszak?
MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens, Tim is here, but I
skipped Representative DeLena Johnson on that roll call.
I would like her vote on those issues, if that's okay.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes.
Representative Johnson, are you with us?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Yes, sorry. It took me a
minute to get to my mute button. I would be a yes vote
on the last two votes, or it sounds like they passed, so
I wanted to let you know that I'm here for the next one.
CHAIR STEVENS: Sorry we missed you on that. We'll
add your name in the positive side on those last two
votes then. Thank you.
And that's what you needed to add, Jessica?
MS. GEARY: Yes. I apologize for that. Thank you.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.
IT UPDATE - TIM BANASZAK
CHAIR STEVENS: And, Tim, if you could give us an
update, Tim Banaszak.
MR. BANASZAK: Certainly. Mr. Chairman and
committee members, Tim Banaszak, for the record, IT
manager for the Legislative Affairs Agency for the
Legislature.
So I think we were talking a little bit about
maybe some of the videoconferencing here. I have a
couple of points and want to be respectful of everyone's
time with a lot of folks around the table today.
So just a quick recap on the
videoconferencing. We're obviously using it today.
There's a lot of folks that have been involved in
testing this. There's a state contract that allows us
to take advantage of this videoconferencing. We also
have kind of the older, traditional videoconferencing
that has been used. That contract and technology is
really being phased out, and so this is really timely.
I think that the COVID social distancing and
folks having to work more remotely has really
accelerated the pace of adoption of this technology, and
so far we're fairly pleased with what we're seeing.
We have spent quite a bit of time this summer
with our counterparts across the 50 states, through the
NCSL organization, what's working, what isn't working,
where are there the gotchas, where are the problematic
issues, the technology issues, the logistical issues.
There's no perfect solution, but we're pretty
adept and nimble, I think, in Alaska because of the
nature of our remote environment that we have to operate
in. So we're already ahead, I think, quite a bit with a
lot of the technologies that the Legislative Information
Office, under Tim Powers' leadership, has provided
throughout the LIOs throughout the state.
Really we're looking at trying to supplement
some of those technologies. It has taken a fair amount
of resources and equipment and investigation, but I
think that we do have some options available to us.
The Senate president mentioned earlier -- I
think there was a brief discussion on these technologies
that we're using here. Early on, at the behest of some
of the leadership, we wanted to explore these
technologies. So we've had the opportunity to test, and
going into session will be really important that we can
support different scenarios that may face us. How many
can be together? Do we have to have people remotely?
There's logistical issues, the policy issues, the
constitutional issues with that. But we want to make
sure that we've got some offerings and some technologies
that are available, and I think you're seeing a little
bit of that today.
There's certainly a cost associated with
that. There's resource overhead in order to maintain
that. We have quite a few people on the line today just
to make sure that this technology works. We had one
hiccup in the middle of this and had to bring on our
Chair back into the meeting through Kodiak. So those
are just things to be aware of. They're not
show-stoppers, but it's just the nature of what we're
doing.
Most of us -- I think probably all of us have
been involved with videoconferencing throughout the
summer and the different platforms. This is the
platform that's been adopted for governments to use. So
it meets our security criteria, our requirements, and
our due diligence. While there's other technologies out
there, certainly it's not something that we would want
to use and assure both the public and our organization
that would suffice for our environments.
There's a couple of other technologies and
projects that have been underway. You may recall the
Capitol Camera Project that we had to really enhance.
It's a blending of efforts between for Gavel to Gavel
and AK Leg TV. That project is moving along quite
nicely, on time and on budget. That's going to give us
some improved camera capabilities for both on-the-floor
sessions, during the floor sessions, as well as out in
the committee rooms as well. So that effort is going
forward on time and on budget, and we fully anticipate
that to be available in time for session.
And it will also help -- given that we can
remote control some of that equipment, it will also
further support social distancing, where if we get into
a situation where we need to limit the number of people
on the floor in a committee room, it still will support
and ensure that we've got the public well-connected
through the tools and technologies for audio and video,
which will be really important, and, as the speaker
brought up, really important issues coming up this year.
We're trying to do everything we can,
exploring the different technologies, but I think we're
going to be pretty well positioned to address what we
need to and just stay close with the council here. And
if you have a quick panic request or something coming
through, we're trying to be nimble. We want to be ready
and be prepared. But just know that the 50 states are
working together and no one has this figured out one-
hundred percent, but I believe we can be proud of where
we are in the Legislature here and what we're doing
across Alaska.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you very much, Tim. Could
you discuss the security issues? I'm hearing things
about Zoom, that anybody can get on and interrupt
meetings. Do we have that security in this platform
that keeps that from happening?
MR. BANASZAK: Mr. Chairman, so security is really
a risk management approach. That's how you have to
treat security. There's no one-hundred percent. Any
system could be hacked and attacked and breached; with
enough time and enough money and enough persistence, you
can do that.
At the outset of the comments here, what I
will say for this videoconferencing technology is that
it has been certified for government use at the federal
level, the individual state level. And what that means
to us is we can have the assurances and the confidence
that the reasonable level of investment to protect the
platform has been done, and we've done our due diligence
and our research on it, and it avoids things like people
just coming into meetings or people getting access to
your accounts or things like that.
And the technology that we use, no technology
can come into our environment unless it's been approved
for government. And when I speak of "government," I
mean government at the federal and the state level. And
we benefit from that as well. So we're trying to keep
that safe border around there so that we can address the
obvious things.
As an IT professional, I would never sit here
and say we're one-hundred percent, but I think that the
council can be assured that we have made the investments
and that this is a good platform.
When you hear these other platforms that come
along, sure, they're usable. Sometimes easier to use in
some cases, but we really want to make sure we use a
platform that we can have the confidence is appropriate
for legislative business.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Tim. Any questions?
Any further questions?
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Yes, I have a question --
CHAIR STEVENS: So, Tim, it does seem like a little
training would be effective. I mean, I've used Zoom
this summer a lot, and it is pretty easy to raise your
hand and make sure everyone is taken care of. If things
get worse and there's a larger outbreak by the time we
come together, if we pass the ability to meet at a
distance, we have the capabilities, and do we need
further training individually to know how to use this
platform?
MR. BANASZAK: The two short answers are yes and
yes. Training is always helpful, and then more
capabilities and capacity also would be really
important.
You know, there was the recent additional
bandwidth being allocated out to set up across Alaska.
So things like just the resources, capability. This
call has been fairly stable. The video streams have
been good. But, yes, training, resources -- this is a
few of us that are on a call today. Imagine this scaled
out through multiple committee meetings going on at
once, floor sessions going on at once. You don't want
to be moving this technology all around. It needs to be
in place. We need to have the resources and the
staffing to be able to have multiple technologies
effective so that when you gavel into a committee
meeting, you know that folks can conduct business and
then have a good meeting and close out.
And, Mr. Chairman, I think there may have
been another question in there.
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Senator Stevens.
CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator Giessel.
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Thank you. That is one of the
challenges is we can't raise our hand. I'm on a phone,
right?
My question is for Tim regarding the
cameras -- did you say what LIOs you have them deployed
in and are they functional?
MR. BANASZAK: Through the Chair, Madam President,
I didn't list those here today, but we did get a half a
dozen of those. So today we have Mat-Su, Kodiak,
Fairbanks on line, Anchorage is on line, we have Kenai
Peninsula, and we have one more I think. And then we --
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Is it Ketchikan?
MR. BANASZAK: Yes. Thank you very much,
Ketchikan. So to the first part of your question where
we have those installed, we have them at those
locations; and then, secondly, we've tested those there.
We have -- with the success of this, we have
purchased -- anticipating that we may need some of these
units around in different perhaps rooms in the Capitol,
perhaps ad hoc in different locations, if we have to go
off-site for some reason, we've purchased a handful of
these so that potentially, if this platform seems to be
successful, we could perhaps include the rest of the
LIOs as well, depending if that's a decision we want to
make going forward.
PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Thank you.
CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you Senator Giessel. Thank
you, Tim. Any further questions? So thank you very
much, Tim. I appreciate that update.
VI. ADJOURN
CHAIR STEVENS: I appreciate everyone's steadfastness here
in sitting through this very, very long meeting. We've
accomplished our agenda. If there's nothing further for this
meeting, then we are adjourned at 12:37pm.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 10.29.20 Leg. Council Meeting Agenda.pdf |
JLEC 10/29/2020 10:00:00 AM |
10.20.20 Leg. Council Packet |
| JLEC 061820.pdf |
JLEC 10/29/2020 10:00:00 AM |
10.20.20 Leg. Council Packet |
| Memo Moving and Travel Policy Update 10.2020.pdf |
JLEC 10/29/2020 10:00:00 AM |
10.20.20 Leg. Council Packet |
| COVID-19 Memo.pdf |
JLEC 10/29/2020 10:00:00 AM |
10.20.20 Leg. Council Packet |
| Legal Memo 10.27.20.pdf |
JLEC 10/29/2020 10:00:00 AM |
10.20.20 Leg. Council Packet |
| Copy of Second Draft Capitol Bulding COVID Protocols Juneau Alaska.pdf |
JLEC 10/29/2020 10:00:00 AM |
10.20.20 Leg. Council Packet |
| RFP 639 contract approval request to LC.pdf |
JLEC 10/29/2020 10:00:00 AM |
10.20.20 Leg. Council Packet |
| Homer Office Space Lease Extension Request - 2020.pdf |
JLEC 10/29/2020 10:00:00 AM |
10.20.20 Leg. Council Packet |
| Utqiagvik Office Space Lease Renewal No. 2 Request.pdf |
JLEC 10/29/2020 10:00:00 AM |
10.20.20 Leg. Council Packet |