ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE  LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL  APRIL 23, 2018  4:30 PM      MEMBERS PRESENT    Representative Sam Kito, Chair  Senator Bert Stedman, Vice Chair  Representative Matt Claman  Representative Bryce Edgmon  Representative David Guttenberg  Representative Charisse Millett  Representative Dan Ortiz  Representative Louise Stutes  Representative David Eastman, Minority Alternate  Senator John Coghill  Senator Cathy Giessel  Senator Lyman Hoffman  Senator Pete Kelly  Senator Anna MacKinnon  Senator Peter Micciche    MEMBERS ABSENT    Representative Harriet Drummond, Majority Alternate  Senator Mia Costello, Alternate    OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT    Representative Les Gara  Senator Donald Olson    AGENDA    APPROVAL OF AGENDA  APPROVAL OF MINUTES  RATIFICATION OF CHARITABLE EVENTS  CONTRACT APPROVALS  OTHER COMMITTEE BUSINESS  EXECUTIVE SESSION    SPEAKER REGISTER    Tina Strong, Procurement Officer, Legislative Affairs Agency  4:30:31 PM    I. CHAIR KITO called the Legislative Council meeting to order at  4:30pm on Monday, April 23, 2018, in Room 519 (House Finance)  of the State Capitol. Present at the call were Representatives  Claman, Edgmon, Guttenberg, Millett, Ortiz, Stutes, Eastman  (Alternate) and Kito; Senators Coghill, Giessel, Hoffman,  Kelly, MacKinnon, Micciche, and Stedman. Absent were  Representative Drummond and Senator Costello (Alternates).    II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA    CHAIR KITO asked if there were any proposed changes to the  Agenda. Prior to meeting, the order was switched for item VI  Policies so that the Sexual and Other Workplace Harassment  policy will be heard before the Per Diem policy. He asked for  a motion to approve the agenda.    SENATOR MACKINNON moved that Professional Workplace Conduct  Policy be added to the agenda under Other Committee Business.    CHAIR KITO objected as that is an issue we started discussing  with respect to the Sexual and Other Workplace Harassment and  it is something I've not had adequate time to review in any  draft form until Friday when it was submitted to my office and  I did acknowledge there are workplace civility issues that  needed to be addressed and that the Subcommittee that was  identified for Sexual and Other Workplace Harassment would  return the recommendations to Legislative Council who would  then have a discussion about putting together a group to look  at the workplace civility because there were people other than  those identified in the Sexual and Other Workplace Harassment  Subcommittee that had interest in engaging in the workplace  civility discussion.    SENATOR MACKINNON said that with all respect, we have notified  and been working on this policy since the beginning of Session  and it was the intent of the Subcommittee to have both  policies included together and be brought forward to this  Committee for consideration. On advice of Legal Counsel we  chose two phases: phase one being the legal issues that our  staff and colleagues might face and then the issues that were  related to professional workplace conduct, but they needed to  go hand in hand together for this Committee's consideration in  adopting any policy. For those reasons, I've asked for your  consideration in amending the agenda to include both policy  discussions. The meetings were all public, your staff and all  folks in the Legislature were kept abreast to everything we  did, it was recorded, we brought National Conference of State  Legislatures (NCSL) to review the policies that were before us  and had an exchange and dialogue there. We put these products  out for review for over a week, if not two, to ensure all  staff and Legislators had an opportunity to review both  policies and provide feedback to our Subcommittee. I hope the  Subcommittee will support us in amending the agenda so that we  can have both policies in front of us to protect our staff and  the colleagues that we work with today.    SENATOR MICCICHE said that the Co-Vice Chair of the Committee  covered it well. It was actually meant to be one. We were  charged with this product. Legal had us split it out, but we  were charged with this product and Mr. Chairman, this is not  directed at any individual person, but we've had issues, not  only with workplace harassment but we've had conduct issues  and our staff and the public have been subject to the lack of  a basic expectation for conduct in this building by  Legislators and others. This is one package, I don't feel that  it's two and I would just strongly request that you consider  supporting adding? it's two pages? it's a very brief document  and it's the very basics about human behavior in the workplace  and I just hope you'll consider supporting it.    CHAIR KITO said to Senator Micciche, with respect, the task of  Legislative Council was to address the legal, sexual, and  other workplace harassment which is the reason that our Human  Resources Manager, Skiff Lobaugh, was put as the Chair of that  group. Mr. Lobaugh indicated that he did not feel comfortable  chairing a group that dealt with workplace civility and that  was one of the other reasons I requested that a request to  deal with workplace civility come back before Legislative  Council before another workgroup was established.    SENATOR MICCICHE responded that Mr. Lobaugh was uncomfortable  having a voting seat on the second because of the employment  law implications, but he was there as a mediator who led the  meetings and we believe that this is, again, a very basic  document about behavior in the workplace in this Legislature,  in this Capitol that I think is very important. I don't think,  in fact, I have a very difficult time understanding why you  feel that it's different than what we were charged to do with  the assignment.    CHAIR KITO said to Senator Micciche, my understanding is that  the Sexual and Other Workplace Harassment document is a legal  document that protects the Legislature employees and  Legislators in respect to violation of Federal law. That was  the reason we put our Human Resources Manager as Chair of the  Subcommittee. I will maintain my objection. Please call the  roll.    CHAIR KITO the question is whether we add the civility policy  component to the motion on the policy for Sexual and Other  Workplace Harassment.    A roll call vote was taken.    YEAS: Claman, Edgmon, Guttenberg, Millett, Ortiz, Stutes,  Coghill, Giessel, Hoffman, Kelly, MacKinnon, Micciche, Stedman    NAYS: Kito    With 13 yeas, one nay, the civility policy has been added to  the agenda.    4:39:08 PM  VICE CHAIR STEDMAN moved that Legislative Council approve the  agenda as amended.    The motion passed without objection.    III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES    CHAIR KITO stated there are minutes from: March 28, 2017;  April 12, 2017; April 27, 2017; May 18, 2017; June 20, 2017;  August 17, 2017; October 25, 2017; November 21, 2017; February  3, 2018; and February 15, 2018.    4:39:49 PM  VICE CHAIR STEDMAN moved that Legislative Council approve the  minutes dated: March 28, 2017; April 12, 2017; April 27, 2017;  May 18, 2017; June 20, 2017; August 17, 2017; October 25,  2017; November 21, 2017; February 3, 2018; and February 15,  2018.    The motion passed without objection.    IV. RATIFICATION OF CHARITABLE EVENTS    4:40:25 PM  VICE CHAIR STEDMAN moved that Legislative Council ratify the  Chair's sanctioning of the following charitable events per AS  24.60.080(a)(2)(B): The Canvas at REACH Annual Fundraising  Dinner (1/28/18); 2nd Annual Catholic Community Service Formal  Gala (2/3/18); 26th Annual Girl Scouts Fundraiser (2/10/18);  Thanksgiving in March (2/22/18); The Silver Gala (2/22/18);  Legislative Skits (2/23/18); Reach 40th Anniversary (2/27/18);  Lawmaker's Round Up (3/3/18); Juneau's Got Talent (3/12/18);  Haven House (3/14/18); 33rd Annual Sham Jam (3/17/18); and  Juneau Lyric Opera Spring Gala (4/28/18).    The motion passed without objection.    V. CONTRACT APPROVALS    CHAIR KITO asked Ms. Strong to come forward.    4:42:08 PM  CHAIR KITO called a brief at-ease.    4:42:29 PM  CHAIR KITO we are going to bring up contract approvals one  approval at a time.    a. Ketchikan Lease Extension    4:42:45 PM  VICE CHAIR STEDMAN moved that Legislative Council approve  Renewal No. 2 of the Lease Extension with Ketchikan Gateway  Borough in the amount of $47,569.44    CHAIR KITO objected for discussion. Ms. Strong, can you give  us a briefing on the Ketchikan Gateway Borough?    TINA STRONG, Procurement Officer for the Legislative Affairs  Agency, said that the original lease between the Legislative  Affairs Agency and Ketchikan Gateway Borough for Office Space  in Ketchikan, Alaska was for a five-year term that began March  1, 2012, and terminated Feb. 28, 2017. There were five  additional one-year renewals available. We have exercised one  of the five renewals. The Renewal No. 1 of lease expired on  February 28, 2018. We would like Legislative Council's  approval to proceed with Renewal No. 2 for the period March 1,  2018 through February 28, 2019 for an amount of $47,569.44.  Additional lease information is attached to your memo and I'd  be happy to answer any questions.    CHAIR KITO asked if there were questions about the Ketchikan  lease? Seeing none, he removed his objection. That lease moves  forward. Are there any further objections to this lease?  Seeing none, the lease is approved.    b. Bethel Lease Extension    4:44:15 PM  VICE CHAIR STEDMAN moved that Legislative Council approve  Renewal No. 1 of the Lease Extension with Tunista, Inc. in the  amount of $79,593.60.    CHAIR KITO objected for discussion. Ms. Strong?    TINA STRONG, Procurement Officer for the Legislative Affairs  Agency, said that the original lease between the Legislative  Affairs Agency and Tunista, Inc. for Office Space in Bethel,  Alaska, was for a three-year term that began July 1, 2015, and  will terminate June 30, 2018. There are three additional one- year renewals available. We would like Legislative Council's  approval to proceed with Renewal No. 1 for the period July 1,  2018, through June 30, 2019, for an amount of $79,593.60.  Additional lease information is attached to your memo. Please  note that on this attachment it lists Representative Fansler  as one of the occupants. This memo was written before  Representative Fansler's resignation. Please replace  Representative Fansler with Representative Zulkosky.    CHAIR KITO asked if there were questions? Seeing none, he  removed his objection. Are there any other objections to  approval of the Bethel lease? Seeing none, the Bethel lease is  approved.    c. Juneau Storage - Goldstein Lease Extension    4:45:36 PM  VICE CHAIR STEDMAN moved that Legislative Council approve  Renewal No. 3 of the Lease Extension with Goldstein  Improvement Company in the amount of $37,768.68.    CHAIR KITO objected for discussion. Ms. Strong?    TINA STRONG said that the original lease between the  Legislative Affairs Agency and Goldstein Improvement Company  for Juneau Goldstein storage was for a five-year term that  began July 1, 2011 and, and terminated June 30, 2016. There  were five additional one-year renewals available. We have  exercised two of the five renewals. The Renewal No. 2 of lease  expires on June 30, 2018. We would like Legislative Council's  approval to proceed with Renewal No. 3 for the period July 1,  2018 through June 30, 2019 for an amount of $37,768.68.  Additional lease information is attached to your memo and I  would be happy to answer any questions.    SENATOR MACKINNON said that as I recall when we discussed this  particular renewal before we were looking at consolidation and  actually getting rid of this storage unit. Can you tell me  what we've done? As I understand it, we had hardware that was  being stored there that we needed to go through and we could  dispose of those items, or relocate to other facilities.    TINA STRONG replied we are continuing to consolidate, but that  is not to get rid of this entire section. We were trying to  consolidate to minimize the square footage that is in this  location. We have not minimized the square footage at this  time. We do have several locations where we may be able to  reduce a few hundred square feet, but that has not happened at  this time, but we do continue to consolidate.    SENATOR MACKINNON asked what is being stored there for  $37,000? Is there an increased value to what is being stored  there? Is there personal records? What is being housed?    TINA STRONG responded that each department in the Agency has a  section down there. Supply has all their extra supplies for  the supply room. At the beginning of each session, we do a  large order to reduce pricing so we do store a lot of our  extra supplies there, then when we run out of supplies, we run  down to the Goldstein and bring them up to the Capitol. Supply  has quite a bit of room down there. We have a "Save For"  section when Legislators come to Juneau and you have boxes  that you want us to save for you, that is where we store the  "Save For" boxes. Legislators are allowed to store files  there, so we have several Legislators who have files in that  location. Accounting has all of their past years items that  they have to retain. Does that answer your question Senator  MacKinnon?    SENATOR MACKINNON Thank you Tina. Mr. Chairman, it answers the  question. I wonder whether someone should go throughwe have a  new Executive Directorto audit what is in there. I do not  feel able to vote no on this particular proposal that is  before us at this time, but this particular lease space has  been under scrutiny for multiple years and we are not seeing a  reduction of lease space in the square footage and we have  asked for that repeatedly, so I will pass.    CHAIR KITO asked if there were any other questions about the  Goldstein space? He removed his objection. Are there any other  objections to the approval of this lease? Seeing none, the  Goldstein lease is approved.    CHAIR KITO asked Ms. Strong to talk about where we are at with  the Ombudsman procurement.    d. Ombudsman Anchorage Lease Extension Update    TINA STRONG said that the original lease agreement between the  Office of the Ombudsman and JRW Ventures, Windward Town and  Country Plaza, Inc. for the Office of the Ombudsman's  Anchorage office space was for a three-year term that began  May 1, 2013, and terminated April 30, 2016. There were three  renewals of lease available under the lease agreement, each  for a one-year period. We have exercised two of the three  renewal options. The new Ombudsman does not want to exercise  the third renewal option and would like to relocate their  Anchorage office.    We had contacted the State of Alaska, Executive Branch, to  see if they had available space that would work for their  office. There was space available, however, the leasehold  improvement costs needed to make the space work was over  budget.    We then issued RFP 624 to solicit for office space for them.  We did receive proposals and conducted evaluations, however,  it was determined that the RFP did not provide for  consideration of all factors of significance to the Office of  the Ombudsman. Therefore, the RFP was canceled. We issued the  new RFP 627 today and it closes on May 23, 2018. We hope to  come back before Legislative Council by the end of June for  award of an RFP.    Our current Renewal No. 2 of Lease expires April 30, 2018.  Section 36 (Holding Over) of the Lease allows the Office of  the Ombudsman to continue tenancy in a hold over status for a  period up to six months at the same monthly lease rate. This  gives the Office of the Ombudsman through October 31, 2018, to  have a final decision and any leasehold improvements needed  completed.    No action is needed at this time. This was just an update for  the Ombudsman's office.    CHAIR KITO Thanked Ms. Strong for that information.    SENATOR MACKINNON asked Ms. Strong if we found space inside an  existing State facility what was the improvement cost?    TINA STRONG replied that it was over $100,000 for leasehold  improvement costs. The new Ombudsman did not want to move  forward with that option.    VICE CHAIR STEDMAN maybe we should ask Ms. Strong to come back  to the Committee with a comparison so that we can actually see  some of those numbers if we are going to take a new position,  new location, and spend whatever we are going to spend versus  the lease.    TINA STRONG said she can provide that information when we come  back to the Council.    CHAIR KITO said he can have his office work with Ms. Strong to  come up with a memo that outlines the information on the  Ombudsman.    e. Office of Victims' Rights (OVR) Lease Extension    4:53:13 PM  VICE CHAIR STEDMAN moved that Legislative Council approve the  Lease Extension with L92, LLC for the time period July 1, 2018  through June 30, 2023, in the amount of $47,250 per year  excluding CPI-U adjustments each July 1.    CHAIR KITO objected for discussion.    TINA STRONG said that the OVR lease between the Legislative  Affairs Agency and L92, LLC expires June 30, 2018 with no  renewals available. We contracted with Bond Filipenko  Commercial Properties, LLC to do a market rental analysis  under AS 36.30.083. We received the completed analysis and  proposed a rate of $2.10 per square foot to the landlord or  $47,250.00 per year. The landlord accepted our offer. This is  for a 5-year lease extension with five, one-year renewals. Our  current rent is $54,179.64 each year. This is a $6,929  reduction in lease costs. We would like Legislative Council's  approval to proceed with the lease extension for the time  period July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2023 in the amount of  $47,250 each year excluding CPI-U increases each July.  Additional lease information is attached to your memo and I  would be happy to answer any questions.    SENATOR MACKINNON Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have no additional  lease information. I actually asked for that earlier today  because the backup documents I have for the Office of Victims'  Rights shows an increase of .25 cents, actually .259 and  $60,000. Is there new backup information that we should have  received?    TINA STRONG said that, yes, the last email that Crystal sent  out had the updated information.    SENATOR MACKINNON said maybe it was not printed for me. I'll  take a look, thank you.    CHAIR KITO asked if there were any other questions?    REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said to make sure I understand the CPI- U, is there a CPI adjustment each year, or for the first five  years there is no CPI?    TINA STRONG said that each year there is a CPI-U adjustment.    REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN continued that if we approve this, we  are going to five years with an adjustment each year based on  the Anchorage consumer price index?    TINA STRONG said yes.    CHAIR KITO removed his objection. Are there any other  objections? Seeing none the Office of Victims' Rights space  lease has been extended.    f. Kodiak Lease Extension    4:56:05 PM  VICE CHAIR STEDMAN moved that Legislative Council approve the  Lease Extension with Trident Seafoods Corporation for the time  period November 1, 2018 through October 31, 2023 in the amount  of $66,015.60 per year excluding CPI-U adjustments each July  1.    CHAIR KITO objected for discussion. Ms. Strong?  TINA STRONG said that the Kodiak lease between the Legislative  Affairs Agency and Trident Seafoods Corporation expires on  October 31, 2018 with no renewals available. We contracted  with Bond Filipenko Commercial Properties, LLC to do a market  rental analysis under AS 36.30.083. We received the completed  analysis and proposed a rate of $2.03 per square foot to the  landlord or $66,015.60 per year. The landlord accepted our  offer. This is for a 5-year lease extension with five, one- year renewals. Our current rent is $71,383.92 each year. This  is a $5,368.32 reduction in lease costs. We would like  Legislative Council's approval to proceed with the lease  extension for the time period November 1, 2018 through October  31, 2023 in the amount of $66,015.60 each year excluding CPI-U  increases each July. Additional lease information is attached  to your memo and I would be happy to answer any questions.    SENATOR MACKINNON Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank you,  your team, and Ms. Strong for negotiating a lower cost lease  in the Kodiak region. Good job, thank you.    CHAIR KITO asked if there were any other comments, questions?  With that I will remove my objection. Are there any other  objections? Seeing none the Kodiak Lease has been extended.    SENATOR MACKINNON said in our January 28, 2018, scheduled  meeting that did not take place, there were multiple other  leases that were being considered at that time and I am  wondering if we can get a procurement update on at least Homer  and the Eagle River location. They were both over $30,000 and  it appears we have taken care of Southeast Alaska with lease  space, to some extent, and I am wondering what is happening  what is happening with some of the other areas of the state  that were on that agenda.    TINA STRONG said that Eagle River and Homer we will need to  come back to Legislative Council for approval at a later time.  Those do not expire until October, I believe. The Kodiak lease  was also in October, but we had already done the market  analysis so we had the information for that, so we went ahead  and moved forward with Kodiak. The other leases that were on  that agenda were just for your notification, they did not  require Legislative Council's approval. So those we are still  taking care of with Chair Kito's office, like we normally do.  It does not require Legislative Council's approval, so we are  still handling those in-house.    SENATOR MACKINNON said there are multiple leases that are  under $30,000 and I appreciate that and I appreciate you going  forward and negotiating that. The other item that was on that  particular Council meeting was the Juneau Department of  Administration yearly leases for surplus warehouse costs for  $65,000 and there were multiple other high ticket items on the  memo dated January 24 for interagency leases; I'm wondering if  you have negotiated those and those will come back before us  at a later time or whether something else has happened with  those leases?    TINA STRONG said that those leases do not fall under the  Alaska Legislative procurement procedures because they are  contracts with another State agency, so those do not require  Legislative Council's approval. We do still negotiate those,  but for the most part, like Legislative Budget and Audit, Kris  Curtis takes care of her lease, so each department would  typically take care of their leases under that section.    SENATOR MACKINNON said that again, this is lease space, it's  2825 square feet rented at $1.92 per square feet for a total  of $65,123.98 and we are storing furniture, tires for vans,  maintenance supply, lumber, carpet, packing supplies. I am  just wondering if we can dispose of some of that lease space  so that there is less cost for the State.    TINA STRONG said that is our surplus warehouse and that is  very full. I would be happy to give anyone a tour, but we do  have our excess furniture there, which helps us keep costs low  for purchasing new furniture. Many staff and legislators have  gone out to look through the items out there. We have a binder  that has all the items that are out there. Maintenance has all  of their carpet that they use during their carpet projects.  There is no possible way at this time that we could reduce  that square footage.    SENATOR MACKINNON thank you Mr. Chairman.    CHAIR KITO said that completes the leases. Thank you Ms.  Strong.    VI. OTHER COMMITTEE BUSINESS    a. Policies    i. Sexual and Other Workplace Harassment    CHAIR KITO said we do have a document from the Subcommittee.    SENATOR MACKINNON said there are two documents in front of  you. Did you want to take up the Legal policy first?    CHAIR KITO replied, yes.    5:03:04 PM  VICE CHAIR STEDMAN moved that Legislative Council adopt the  revised Sexual and Other Workplace Harassment policy.    CHAIR KITO objected for discussion.    SENATOR MACKINNON said that she did not prepare a  presentation. This document was distributed to all members of  Legislative Council as well as the entire Legislature. It  updates Alaska's sexual assault workplace harassment policy,  it tells individual staff members where they can go to make  reports, it talks about confidentiality, it creates a  formal/informal reporting process, it addresses reports and  investigations involving a Legislator and how a Legislator may  take that policy to an outside investigation in consultation  with the Human Resource Department. It has final reports and  disciplinary actions, as well as an appeals process, and it  speaks to, as I've said before, confidentiality and ethics  duties and training.    CHAIR KITO asked if there were any questions?    REPRESENTAIVE CLAMAN noted that the committee spent many, many  mornings early working on this policy and we had tremendous  assistance from our Personnel Director, Skiff Lobaugh, and the  best comments were what we got from NCSL who said we have a  strong policy and the changes made it much stronger.    CHAIR KITO asked if there were any other comments or  questions?    REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said his only question was have we  gotten public comment to the policy? I haven't heard much from  my constituents and I'm curious if the public has been given a  copy and we've gotten any input one way or the other.    SENATOR MACKINNON replied that this is an internal working  document. Like a business, a business develops their own  policy. It certainly has been on Gavel to Gavel for every  meeting recorded and available for the general public to  comment on, as well as distributed wide with a survey to all  those that are in the Legislature and our staff for comment.  And it's been publicly posted.    CHAIR KITO said without other questions, I will remove my  objection. Are there any other objections to moving the policy  forward?    SENATOR MICCICHE said he wanted to point out that we have a  Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document which is the result  of the survey that went to every employee that is associated  with LAA if you will. We had numerous comments and questions  and we tried to answer them, thanks to Skiff and his team,  tried to answer them in a way that points them to the  different sections of the policy.    CHAIR KITO said with that, the Sexual and Other Workplace  Harassment policy has been adopted by Legislative Council.    ii. Professional Workplace Conduct    5:06:11 PM  VICE CHAIR STEDMAN moved that Legislative Council adopt the  professional Session Workplace Conduct Policy.    CHAIR KITO objected for discussion. Any comments or questions?    SENATOR MACKINNON said what we found out when we were going  through the legal aspects of the policy that we currently had  in place that there were opportunities for clarity for both  staff and Legislators in understanding what is a safe and  professional workplace environment. And so, to the best our  ability, we presented the two pages before you that some  consider broad, but do discuss appropriate behavior in an  attempt to define, not all inclusively, what disruptive  behavior would look like, what threatening behavior looks  like, what violent behavior looks like, and prohibitive sexual  conduct. It also speaks to that retaliation is prohibited.  Thank you Mr. Chairman.    REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said for the record that I share the  Chairman's concern that the policy is not been fully vetted  yet. I did discuss it with my staff and my impression, having  looked at it briefly, is that it is very one sided. It is very  one sided in terms of protecting Legislators and protecting  staff, but I don't see the appropriate balance in taking in  for the public and the fact that we do undertake our business  on their behalf and they have an interest in this policy.    As a brief example, I know we do have in this policy a  statement with regards to how making a false statement is  going to be prescribed by this policy and I know there are  many statements that are made every day in this body, or in  this building, which some of us might view as true and factual  and others of us might view, for our political perspective, as  inaccurate and not factual. By way of two personal experiences  this Session, I know one member of leadership got to  complimenting other members on the floor about how average we  all look, lest there be an interpretation that somehow there  was something subjective or inappropriate in commenting. I  think that was just in response to the fact that there are a  lot of things that are subjective that this policy touches on.  I know in my own personal experience this session, I was  spoken with by leadership after I asked another Representative  why it was they voted a particular way on a particular  measure. I was told that was kind of a form of harassment  because that might be intimidating if I voted a different way  and was asking someone why it was they voted the other way,  perhaps they could be taking that in the wrong manner, other  than what it was intended. So if our job is to be asking hard  questions, certainly there is tact and a good way to ask hard  questions, but I fear that by not putting the public interest  squarely in the document, that we could fail to allow  Legislators to ask some of the hard questions that the people  sent us here to ask. Thank you.    CHAIR KITO added that I do think trying to address workplace  civility is an extremely important discussion. I do think that  this document is a step in the right direction, but in my view  I think there a lot of other things that the Legislature needs  to do in order to promote workplace civility and I do think  there might be some opportunities within our existing  policies, or even to look at all of our policies, and consider  additional policies. That is why I was requesting that  civility be discussed as a separate working group. I don't  have any problem specifically with the information presented,  I just do think there is a lot more to it than doing this and  I hope that this does not become the only opportunity we have  to address workplace civility, because there are a lot of  other things I do believe we could do. With that I will remove  my objection.    SENATOR MICCICHE requested an opportunity to chat about this  just for a moment. What this document says is that we expect a  safe and respectful workplace and this does include the  public. It is Legislators, legislative employees, interns, and  third parties that are in the building and, frankly, I am  obviously not going to point out any specific incidences  through the years, but it is a gap. We have a gap. We have a  gap in our existing policies. Is it perfect? Probably not. Let  me give you an example of some of the prohibited,  unprofessional conduct and you can tell me if you think it's  appropriate in this document: workplace harassment; sexual  harassment; disruptive behavior; threatening behavior; violent  behavior; and prohibited sexual conduct. All of these have  been issues.    These are basic expectations in the workplace that every other  workplace has in policy, in code, and we expect the same level  of behavior here. If there is something in here that needs to  be improved, and I think there probably is in time, but I will  tell you that we spent a significant amount of time on this  document, it is the basic expectations of operating in this  building for everyone. We put Legislators on equal footing, we  expect the same out of them. People should not operate, and I  can tell you right now, I am not one who is easily  intimidated, but I expect a certain level of professionalism  and courteous behavior and that is what this basic one and  half page document covers, and it goes no further than that. I  certainly invite improvements in the future as people have  suggestions, but I support this level at this point.    REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN began to comment, but an at-ease was  called.    5:12:49 PM  CHAIR KITO called a brief at-ease.    5:13:02 PM  CHAIR KITO said he actually removed his objection. Are there  additional objections or are you just wanting to provide  comment?    REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he had wanted to make a comment  before you removed your objection.    CHAIR KITO reinstated his objection so that Representative  Claman can comment.    REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said this also got a lot of discussion  in the committee and it was actually an area that the National  Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) recommended that we  have both a legal policy and a conduct policy and their  comments on this was that it was an improvement over what we  have today, which would make sense, because currently we don't  have any conduct policy and so I broadly think this is good  work and we should support approving this. Thank you.    CHAIR KITO removed his objection. Are there any other  objections to movement of the civility policy? Seeing none the  policy is approved.    iii. Per Diem policy    The next item before us is the Per Diem policy and I have  provided a memo and will provide a brief discussion where I  ended up coming from and where I do believe we should go, not  that I am expecting support at this point.    Starting last Fall, I was dealing with the Alaska Officers  Compensation Commission, they provided several recommendations  and ultimately ended up with a recommendation that reduced the  Juneau Legislator or the Legislators within fifty miles of the  Capital from receiving per diem. The more I looked at the  issue, the more I realized that there was an inequity in  compensation that was not addressed by the Alaska Salary  Compensation Commission. In my memo, I reference AS 39.23.580  that says it is the policy of the Legislature that the  Commission recommend an equitable rate in form of  compensation, benefits and allowances for Legislators. As the  Alaska Salary Compensation Commission did not address  equitability, I felt compelled to do a review of equitability  for compensation and have provided a recommendation that  appears before you in this memo that addresses the Salary  Compensation Commission discussion of removing per diem for  Juneau Legislators, it also addresses a change that is in  process right now, which is suggesting that the Legislature  receive a flat per diem annually, and it also addresses the  additional issue of compensation for per diem when a  Legislator is only in the Capital city or in the location of  the meeting place to receive that per diem.    This memo was quite difficult for me to put together because I  knew I would make 59 enemies in this body, but I felt as the  Chair of Legislative Council, in order to try and make sure  that, and it doesn't apply to me as I have decided very  clearly that I am not going to continue my service in the  Legislature, but the situation as it rests is infinitely  inequitable to those Legislators that are currently residing  in Juneau, therefore I felt compelled to bring this issue of  per diem before the Legislative Council. Legislative Council  certainly has the ability in this case to choose whether or  not to support my recommendation moving forward or not support  my recommendation moving forward, but because I am the Chair  of Legislative Council, I have the ability and the  responsibility to put policies forward that provide for  equitability of compensation, I felt compelled to move this  memo to Legislative Council for consideration. I would like to  open it up to any discussion, if there is any discussion.    REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said he introduced legislation in  this Legislature to disapprove of the salary commission's  recommendations because their reasoning was irrational and  poor public policy. I listened to two of their meetings and it  was some of the least thoughtful, comprehensive, and public  debate I have heard in any body that was charged with doing  the public's duty. Because of that I introduced the statute  which is what is required to not accept the salary  commission's recommendations. There is a long and larger  dialogue to go forward if we were to do these recommendations  from you Mr. Chair. This is as inequitable as anything else I  have seen. There are lots of conversations between what it  takes to maintain homes, what it takes to maintain distances.  It's not just between Juneau and everyone else, there are  considerable calculations built into what it costs to not be  in Juneau, besides what the per diem might be to rent a house  or an apartment or bring your car down here, so I am not going  to be supporting this. This is a much larger dialogue. There  are things that needed to be built into the calculation as to  what is fair. For two years I represented a district that came  out of the coast, came out of Fairbanks and went to the coast,  I had to fly to Anchorage, to Bethel, and get on local  commuter flights all over that area. Responsibilities for  having a district so far fetched, so far and wide is  inherently unfair to people who live in the urban areas. So  there is a much larger conversation between Juneau and just  everybody else. If we want to have a conversation about the  differences and what is fair, then we should have that, but  this does not represent that. I am not going to be supporting  the motion at this time.    SENATOR HOFFMAN stated that the Legislature set up a salary  commission. That commission is responsible for recommending to  the Legislature salary and salary structure. When we set that  up as a body, it was not the salary and per diem commission.  Obviously, the salary commission has addressed it. I don't  think it was their purview to make any recommendations, they  can make suggestions if they want to, but that was never an  issue that was allowed by law. It is the right of this body to  review per diem and set the standards and I believe you as a  Chairman can make those recommendations, but I also agree with  Representative Guttenberg. The proposal that is set forth is  not equitable. Many people here have to maintain their homes.  Everyone realizes, I think Representative Guttenberg alluded  to it, that maintaining a home in rural Alaska compared to  maintaining a home in Anchorage, Fairbanks, or Juneau is much,  much different. I am not suggesting there should be an  adjustment for those in rural Alaska, but for individuals that  are getting per diem, it is to replace the cost of what we are  expending in our homes back home. We have to be compensated  for the housing that is down here, maintaining basically two  homes. When you look at it from that perspective, everyone  needs to take that into consideration and to have a seventy- five percent reduction if we ended up dealing with this and we  ended up in a special session, hotel costs down here are going  to run us anywhere from $130-$200. In many instances, we are  not the ones that are brought down here. The Governor calls us  into Special Session and we have to be down here. But for us  to consider something to the magnitude of a seventy-five  percent reduction is wrong. If this council wants to discuss  the issue of per diem and what level or whether or not a  fifty-mile radius is adequate, this council should do it and  that would fall under our purview, but basically we need to  look at the policy and what is a fair policy for all members  of the Legislature.      5:23:08 PM  CHAIR KITO called a brief at-ease.    5:23:22 PM    CHAIR KITO added that he did do research with respect to the  authority of the Alaska Salary Compensation or Officers'  Compensation Commission and they have broad authority in  statute actually to set compensation, per diem, allowable  account, anything that a Legislator is entitled to receive -  the Compensation Commission has the authority to provide  recommendations on and those recommendations will take effect  unless the Legislature reacts in the negative within sixty  days of the start of session, so I do understand theoretically  that they should be dealing with compensation, but in reality  they deal with everything.    In my review of the compensation, one of the things, I think  just off the top, a ninety day session, currently, with the  Salary Compensation Commission recommendations Juneau  Legislators are receiving $18,000 plus less than they would  have before. all other legislators receive $24,000 in ninety  days for per diem. That does seem a bit on the excessive side  for being able to maintain two households, so it does not seem  equitable. And when pressed with respect to the Department and  the Governor and oversight of the Compensation Commission in  their keeping with the policy of the Legislature to provide  equitable compensation no action took place, so I am bringing  this forward to Legislative Council to provide for some  discussion of equitability with respect to compensation.    SENATOR STEDMAN stated he does not support this proposal in  front of us. There will be another one following this  discussion for us to consider. Clearly we have an issue.  Historically, in this building when we had easy access to some  of our colleagues that were financially strapped and made them  susceptible to behavior that is unbecoming of a Legislator and  we've seen that in the press and in the courts. Going down  this road I think will help put us in the same position that  we came from several years ago when we had Veco Bill and  company in the building. There are sixty of us, they only have  to find a couple weak targets. As we all know it's easier to  stop stuff than move issues.    I do not support this. I think the issue of singling out  Juneau is problematic. I think the fifty mile radius could hit  other communities around Juneau where you would still have to  come, like Hoonah, if you had to come from Hoonah. If you live  in Hoonah or you live in Bethel, you still have to relocate to  Juneau, you can't drive to Hoonah every night. We have some  issues I think to sort out here at the Committee over the next  several months, through the summer and maybe into the fall,  and get this addressed. But I cannot Mr. Chairman support such  a draconian policy that I think will weaken the stability of  the Legislature immensely and we deal with hundreds of  millions and in the billions of dollars in decisions. We need  to have and be able to attract middle-aged men, like yourself  Mr. Chairman, with a family. Not guys my age that are closer  to the geezer patrol on the end of the age section, but we  have made it very difficult for working families in the  thirties, forties and fifties that have come to Juneau and  participate in the democratic process. We need to take some of  that into account Mr. Chairman, so I will not support your  action and like I mentioned, there will be another motion  following this to help deal with this just for members  information.    CHAIR KITO stated he did understand that and respect that. I  guess one of the things I really want to be very clear about  is given the current Officers Compensation Commission decision  and the Legislators that will be coming in representing Juneau  starting in January, I worry that what we have established now  becomes the new normal and that there will not be motivation  from 57 other Legislators to address an issue of inequity for  Juneau and I do fear, and the reason I brought this forward,  again not because of myself, but because I fear that Juneau  will end up short. As you had mentioned Senator Stedman about  the concerns over inadequate compensation and making people  vulnerable to corruption, we just created a similar situation  like that for Juneau legislators, no other Legislators. To me  that is not equitable and this committee has the ability to  address per diem in order to make compensation more equitable  and I wanted to give this committee that choice. If that  choice is to vote in the negative, then that is certainly the  choice of members of this committee.    SENATOR MICCICHE stated he did have a comment, but do we have  a motion on the table?    CHAIR KITO stated he will be asking for a motion.    5:29:17 PM  CHAIR KITO moved that Legislative Council Policy on Travel and  Per Diem to reduce per diem for Legislators living within  fifty miles of their primary residence to zero, and a  reduction of per diem to twenty-five percent of the Federal  winter rate and that Legislators who are not in the Capital,  or the meeting site location, during a regular or special  session would not be entitled to receive that per diem.    SENATOR STEDMAN objected.    CHAIR KITO asked if there were any comments?    SENATOR MICCICHE said he just wondered what is the question we  are addressing? I feel like the question is, respectfully, how  do we get back at the other 57? The reason I bring that up is  the question should be what is a fair rate that compensates  Legislators for their expenses while serving, the definition  of per diem. I worry about the unintended consequences here.  What a rate like this does is it attracts the wealthy and the  destitute, and no one in between. I want it to be available to  all Alaskans, no matter what their financial situation may be.    I agree that we probably don't have it right, but we talked  about putting together a working group on evaluating what is a  better system of per diem. We talked about it, but you brought  this forward without that result. I think the result in the  other policy we just passed was a good result, we had people  from both bodies, both genders, representing different groups  that came together in a pretty good policy. I would propose  that we, we may have another change here, but still for the  longer term Mr. Chairman, I would propose that we put a  diversified working group together that can be a public  discussion that avoids those unintended consequences that  results in an adequate system of compensating Legislators for  their expenses.    CHAIR KITO responded to Senator Micciche, with due respect,  we've actually given that responsibility to the Salary  Compensation Commission and that's a challenge for us to do  something that would be different than that, unless we  considered statutory changes and I had not seen the desire to  work on a statutory change to address compensation commission.    SPEAKER EDGMON said the he does not support the motion either.  I do recognize the genesis of your concerns and I would go so  far as to say the Salary Commission I think having been  somewhat reconstituted in the last few months with a couple of  Legislators as part of a five member commission I think brings  forward, certainly has the opportunity to bring forward, a  more balanced viewpoint and I would also go as far as to echo  your comments, put it in my own terms, I thought that the  Salary Commission that made the recommendation to remove per  diem for Juneau, essentially acted in a punitive manner.  That's my comments and I think to echo what the Vice Chair  said, it is highly problematic and I hope we, as the  Legislative body with appropriating powers, can do something  about that so that we make it more equitable for the three  Juneau Legislators, vis--vis what the other 57 Legislators  are receiving.    I would hope that this discussion today, which to me, again to  join in to what others have said, is sort of coming at us  pretty quickly here at the latter part of the session without  sort of the benefit of having the deliberative process built  around it, which I would definitely be supportive of for going  forward, but that this discussion still serves to inform the  Salary Commission and future deliberations of their own that  they should take another look at rates for Juneau Legislators.  I strongly believe that. So for those reasons I can't support  the motion before us, I think it came too quickly and without  the benefit of us being able to really look into this. I would  certainly support going forward looking into the matter, but  in a more comprehensive way.    CHAIR KITO said he would just like to add one more item on the  Salary Compensation Commission. One of the things I did look  at when I reviewed the Salary Compensation Commission was  their actions in regard to compensation and up until January  of this year, the Compensation Commission provided no  recommendations on Legislative compensation one way or the  other. On two separate occasions, the Compensation Commission  has recommended increases to executive salaries. On one of  those cases, the increase was accepted and the other case the  increase was rejected by our chief executive, but never in the  last three times that the Compensation Commission met since  their first decision increasing Legislative salaries to  $50,400 in 2008 or 2009 session, had they ever even discussed  compensation of Legislators. They did not discuss it at all.  So that is a concern to me. They are not adequately reviewing  compensation and trying to make an informed decision and I  felt compelled to respond. With that I will keep my motion  active and I think we still have an objection.    A roll call vote was taken.    NAYS: Claman, Edgmon, Guttenberg, Millett, Ortiz, Stutes,  Coghill, Giessel, Hoffman, Kelly, MacKinnon, Micciche, Stedman    YAYS: Kito    With 13 nays, one yay, the motion has failed.    5:36:29 PM  SENATOR STEDMAN made a motion that we set the per diem rate at  the Federal winter rate $275 for the Second Session of the  Thirtieth Legislature.    To explain, that would match our budget and we would not have  st a bump up to the summer rates on May 1. So we hold it  constant at the winter rate.    CHAIR KITO asked if there was any objection to the motion as  stated. Seeing none, the motion passes.    VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION    5:37:15 PM  SENATOR STEDMAN moved that Legislative Council go into  executive session under uniform rule 22(b)(2) and (3),  discussion of subjects and matters that may, by law, be  required to be confidential.    Any Legislators not on the Council are welcome to stay. The  following staff may stay in the room: Jessica Geary; Doug  Gardner; Crystal Koeneman; David Scott and Randy Ruaro.    The motion passed without objection.    Legislative Council went into executive session.    5:58:37 PM  Legislative Council came out of executive session.    VIII. ADJOURNMENT    CHAIR KITO said with no other business to come before  Legislative Council we will stand adjourned. Thank you.    5:58:37 PM