Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/21/2013 04:00 PM House LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MARCH 21, 2013
3:46 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Hawker, Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice Chair
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Bill Stoltze
Representative Peggy Wilson
Senator John Coghill
Senator Dennis Egan
Senator Charlie Huggins
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Kevin Meyer
Senator Gary Stevens
MEMBERS ABSENT
There were no members absent
AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CONTRACT APPROVALS
OTHER COMMITTEE BUSINESS
CAPITOL SECURITY
SPEAKER REGISTER
TINA STRONG, Procurement Officer, Legislative Affairs Agency
JULI LUCKY, Staff to Representative Hawker and Chair of the IT
Subcommittee
DOUG GARDNER, Legal Services Director, Legislative Affairs Agency
4:04:27 PM
I. CHAIR MIKE HAWKER called the Legislative Council meeting to
order at 4:04 p.m. in room 532 of the State Capitol. Present at
the call were Representatives Hawker, Chenault, Gruenberg,
Johnson and Pruitt; Senators Micciche, Coghill, Egan, Huggins,
McGuire, Meyer, and Stevens.
II. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 26, 2013 MINUTES
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE moved that the minutes from the Legislative
Council meeting on February 26, 2013 be approved as presented.
The minutes were approved with no objections.
III. CONTRACT APPROVALS
a. Anchorage LIO Lease
CHAIR HAWKER noted that this facility is the Legislature's
major facility, and one of the larger, used outside of Juneau
during the interim.
Representative Peggy Wilson joined the meeting at this time.
TINA STRONG, Procurement Officer for the Legislative Affairs
Agency, stated that the Anchorage lease is due to expire on May
31, 2013, and there is one renewal option remaining that would
terminate on May 31, 2014. In response to a question by Chair
Hawker, Ms. Strong stated there were no options to renewing
this lease that would ensure office space for the Legislators
currently located in the facility.
CHAIR HAWKER, in response to a comment by Representative
Gruenberg, informed Council members that there has been a
procurement process underway, including the steering committee
appointed at the last meeting, to address this issue and he
would provide additional comment at the end of this meeting.
4:10:13 PM
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE moved that Legislative Council authorize
the chairman to approve a one-year renewal of the existing
lease agreement for the Anchorage legislative office for a cost
of $681,854.16.
The lease extension was approved with no objections.
IV. SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY
CHAIR HAWKER said that in past Legislative Councils there have
been extensive discussions of what the Legislature's policy is
for the access and use of social media by Legislators and
legislative agencies. An ancillary issue that has been
considered but not resolved by Council regards access
specifically to Facebook accounts.
JULI LUCKY, staff to Representative Mike Hawker-District 27,
testified as Chair of the IT Subcommittee. She noted that
members had several documents in their packet including the
history of access issues and highlighting actions Council has
taken to date. At this time, Legislators, legislative press
offices, web masters and Information Services Help Desks
continue to have access to Facebook from legislative computers.
The crux of the matter is access from legislative computers.
In addition to the current status and question of access for
Legislators and legislative staff, Council has received
requests from three legislative agencies: the Ombudsman,
Legislative Ethics and Legislative Audit, who believe access to
Facebook from legislative computers will help further their
missions. Although there is no request letter in the packet,
Ms. Lucky said she spoke with the Office of Victims' Rights and
they also find Facebook access to be useful in furthering their
mission. For those Legislators who currently have Facebook
pages, their staff must go to that Legislator's computer to log
in or use a personal handheld device or computer in order to
access Facebook to do what the Legislator considers to be their
staff's job.
The IT Subcommittee met February 28, 2013, and identified and
discussed the following three issues: (1) should the
Legislature adopt a policy that would be legislature-wide to
define acceptable usage, users and content; (2) who should have
access and if access is restricted who should make that
determination; and (3) should non-partisan agencies of the
Legislature be allowed to have Facebook pages or social media
accounts that are publicly visible. For research and audit
purposes, most of the subcommittee felt access was above-board.
A couple of agencies have requested to have a Facebook presence
to do outreach or recruit for job openings, which the
subcommittee felt was a distinct issue from just being able to
access Facebook from a legislative computer.
The Subcommittee was unanimous only on the issue that the
Council needs to take some definitive action on this issue.
The Subcommittee made three recommendations.
(1) Council should consider adopting a policy to define
acceptable uses and users - see current proposed draft policy
dated March 20, 2013, in the packet.
(2) Council should consider providing a method for Legislators
and agency directors to grant access to their employees. A
previous proposal by Council was for the Legislative Council
Chair to authorize use. The Subcommittee felt that it shouldn't
be Legislative Council's prerogative to approve an application;
it should be up to the supervisor, the Legislator or agency
director.
(3) With regard to public Facebook pages for nonpartisan
legislative agencies, the subcommittee had a difficult time
reaching consensus and didn't understand the need. Therefore,
the subcommittee recommended that each agency plead its case
directly to Legislative Council because each agency's needs and
what they would be putting on a Facebook page is different.
Ms. Lucky ended her testimony by making herself available for
questions and noting that there were attendees who could answer
technical questions about use of Facebook as well as the
Legislative Auditor Kris Curtis who can answer any questions
about her needs for an agency page.
CHAIR HAWKER said that Council should focus on the following
two questions: (1) whether Council should adopt the draft
social media policy and (2) whether Council will allow
Legislators and agency directors access to Facebook in
particular from legislative computers and a methodology for
allowing such access.
SENATOR MCGUIRE thanked Ms. Lucky for her work on this issue
and agreed it was time to address this issue in order to
communicate effectively with those constituents already using
Facebook. Her main concern was that any policy that may be
adopted not constrain how her office is currently utilizing
Facebook. She pointed first to Item III. Messaging Policy in
the draft, which forbids communication via social media
messaging features for official State business. She said she
has had exchanges with constituents about particular
legislative business through both her personal and Senate
Facebook pages. She next pointed to Item I. Content Policy (b)
- the part that specifically prohibits "Any action that
provides benefit to any person or organization, including
solicitations, endorsements, or promotions of products or
services of any financial, commercial, non-profit, or non-
governmental agency." She said her office often used her
Facebook page to promote the Girl Scouts or the Boys and Girls
Club, for example, which are both non-profits. She said in the
current form, she objects to the policy as written because it
limits her First Amendment rights to communicate with her
constituents.
MS. LUCKY clarified that the proposed policy is a reflection of
the concerns raised at the IT Subcommittee as well as a review
of relevant NCSL documents, several existing social media
policies, Alaska Legislative Ethics documents, and existing
Acceptable Computer Use documents that currently govern how the
Legislature uses State equipment. Specific to the Messaging
Policy, the concern was based on recent court cases relating to
someone using a private e-mail account to hide official State
business. It exists in the policy in order to bring to
Council's attention all the possible concerns related to using
social media with State equipment and to ensure an opportunity
for a full discussion. She asked Doug Gardner to speak to
potential legal issues regarding what is considered official
State business by a Legislator or legislative staff.
DOUG GARDNER, Director of Legal Services, confirmed he had
spoken to Ms. Lucky about this issue. He noted that there have
occasionally been records requests made of legislative offices.
Records maintained by a Legislator and in that Legislator's
office are protected and do not need to be provided to the
public, they are not considered public records based on
legislative immunity. There have not been many tests of this
protection. When it comes to procurement or employment issues,
legislative immunity does not generally apply. The concern is
that by using social media and Facebook specifically,
Legislators are putting themselves out there a lot more than
using traditional paper records kept in an office. There is not
an easy way to deal with this when a Legislator communicates
via Facebook. Another component might be that as a chair of a
committee working with a contractor and communicating with that
contractor, the concern is that those records are public and
not covered by immunity; there may be a record keeping
requirement. The way such a problem is managed is to not
communicate with said contractor using social media. With
regard to Senator McGuire's concern, a constituent may decide
to post any response they receive from a Legislator on another
website.
CHAIR HAWKER asked Mr. Gardner if it is the definition of
official State business that is the crux of this situation. Mr.
Gardner affirmed that it was.
MR. GARDNER said it might be possible to narrow the definition
to meet Senator McGuire's concern that we're not restricting
the use to deal with constituent matters; we're just trying to
avoid a situation where the Legislator takes on a record
keeping obligation for contracting or employment. It's a
legislative immunity and records retention concern,
specifically.
MS. LUCKY said that, with regard to the Messaging Policy, right
now a Legislator or legislative staff can use a legislative
computer to access a gmail, hotmail or yahoo free email account
and that is not currently prohibited; Facebook does not
necessarily open up another avenue that would otherwise not be
available through a free email account. Perhaps messaging in
general should be considered instead through the computer usage
policy rather than the proposed Social Media Policy.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated that she uses her Apple
computer to conduct State business. She does not use the
standard equipment provided. She said she is not allowed to use
her Apple computer so she has her staff forward emails from her
legislative account to her personal account. She wants to be
able to use her Apple computer as her work computer in place of
the standard equipment.
SENATOR MCGUIRE suggested that the Messaging Policy be removed
from the proposed Social Media Policy in that there is no
distinction between this outlet and free email and other
portals that are currently available. She thought the records
retention concern applies to very few lawmakers, such as the
Chair of the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee or the
heads of Legislative Affairs Agency who do high level contracts
and/or procurement. She added that she is an Apple user herself
and seconds in spirit the notion that we ask the IT
Subcommittee to look at pushing Information Services into how
we can get IT support for legislative Apple users.
Representative Stoltze joined the meeting at this time.
CHAIR HAWKER said that the non-standard equipment policy is
very much a separate issue than the access to social media
currently before Council. He noted the concern and that it is a
policy point that can be referred to the IT Subcommittee for
further consideration at the request of the members of this
Council.
Chair Hawker asked Mr. Gardner if it would place the
Legislature at unnecessary risk if Item III. Messaging Policy
was deleted from the proposed Social Media Policy at this time
for further consideration. Mr. Gardner said he did not think so
and that it could be placed elsewhere, as previously suggested.
With regard to the second concern raised by Senator McGuire
about promoting non-profit organizations, Chair Hawker said
that there are some fine lines as to what a Legislator can do
ethically in supporting organizations. He asked Mr. Gardner for
his thoughts on that issue and whether it resolved the problem
if there was a provision that said no action that violates
State ethics rules to put the onus on the ethics committee to
manage that aspect of this policy.
SENATOR MCGUIRE asked that Mr. Gardner look at the question of
a Legislator promoting non-profit organizations through social
media specifically.
MR. GARDNER said he concurred with the Chair's suggestion that
an ethics reference is a way to deal with that as there are
many combinations of facts that may lead to an ethics issue and
no one policy can take those all into account.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, who also serves on the Ethics
Committee, said the committee will take the policy or the
statute that Council presents and fit the action(s) inside that
policy and declare if it is or isn't an ethics violation. To
say it's going to interpret this and help formulate this is a
misunderstanding of how the Ethics Committee functions. A
policy with vague language may lead to an unintended
interpretation by the Ethics Committee. They will base their
determination against the policy or statute and make a
decision. He further pointed out that the Democratic and
Republican Parties are non-profit organizations.
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE wanted to know who defined whether there
was a financial, commercial or other sort of gain if there's a
community event held on a private piece of property, which may
be posted by a Legislator or their staff on a social media
site.
MS. LUCKY said that this is part of the difficulty. Once it's
allowable to use State resources for updating Facebook pages,
such as is being proposed, then we need to comply with the
ethics code. This is now saying what one can and cannot use
State resources for. The non-profit wording was an amendment
made at the IT Subcommittee level. Most of the language in
section (b) was taken out of the Ethics handbook given out
during the annual ethics training. One possible fix may be to
say "Any action that would violate the ethics code…" with a
statutory reference.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said that in previous conversations
about this issue, there was testimony by staff of what the
intent was and what was allowable including compiling campaign
lists. He remains concerned about this. He said we need to rely
on a combination of statutes and the best guess at the vagaries
of the decisions that the committee will come up with.
MS. LUCKY, in response to a question by Representative
Gruenberg, said there is no specific body created to enforce
the proposed Social Media Policy although any ethics violation
would fall under the purview of the Ethics Committee as happens
now for any ethics complaint.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that if we are looking to the
Ethics Committee to enforce a social media policy, we may have
to look at amending the Ethics Act to give them jurisdiction;
further, if they are tasked with enforcing it then there should
be some input from the Ethics Committee on the development of
any social media policy to ensure it is workable and in accord
with their other duties.
MS. LUCKY responded that in talking with Joyce Anderson, Ethics
Committee Administrator, any ethical violations would already
be covered as they would be violations of the existing code. It
is important to point out that the IT Subcommittee felt that
they could only police the actions of staff when using it on
State computers. There are many actions on Facebook that
Legislators can do on their private time from their home
computers that would not be covered by any policy as it is not
enforceable. The recourse is to stop the access from any State
account, which would be done through LAA Information Services.
The IT Subcommittee felt that the policy should be in place
prior to allowing legislative staff access from legislative
computers so staff would understand that the recourse of
breaking the policy would be a revocation of the privilege of
accessing Facebook from a State computer; however, any ethical
violation would be taken up by the Ethics Committee which would
be handled under their current complaint procedure.
Ms. Lucky further noted, in response to Representative
Gruenberg's suggestion that any enforcement action or
consequence be explicitly stated in the policy, that said
consequence was indeed included on the draft Facebook Access
Request and Policy Receipt Form accompanying the policy, which
an employee would have to sign in order to gain access to
Facebook. It states "By signing below, I am acknowledging that
I have reviewed this form, the Alaska Legislature Social Media
Policy, the Computer Systems Acceptable Use Policy, and the
Standards of Conduct Handbook for Legislators and Legislative
Employees. I understand that using social media websites in
violation of these policies may result in suspension of access
or an ethical complaint and that an ethical violation may
result in the imposition of fines and/or termination from
employment."
The policy was meant to govern social media as an umbrella - to
give guidelines and acceptable uses. The request form is
specific to Facebook, which is currently blocked from
legislative computers.
The IT Subcommittee identified three separate decisions before
Council: (1) allow access to Facebook for Legislators, IT staff
and media staff without adopting a policy; (2) adopt a policy
and still deny access to Facebook; and/or (3) set up Facebook
accounts for legislative agencies. The Subcommittee further
felt that if the decision was made to grant access to Facebook
then Council should consider adopting a policy to put some
clear guidelines in place so staff isn't unknowingly violating
ethics or acceptable use policies.
th
CHAIR HAWKER noted this is the third meeting of the 28
Legislature's Legislative Council; while some members have
great history with this topic, many do not and may need more
time for consideration. This is a policy issue as discussed in
detail and he would personally like to see it resolved soon,
but properly and expeditiously. He proposed setting aside this
item and asked the IT Subcommittee to continue working with Mr.
Gardner and staff at Ethics to bring forward a revised Social
Media Policy for consideration, including addressing access to
Facebook, the overall policy question and the access of
agencies to Facebook with a comprehensive policy structure in
place.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said that if Council chooses the option
to deny access to Facebook entirely, the IT Subcommittee may
not need to do further work on a policy.
CHAIR HAWKER said the State currently allows access to a number
of different social media sites. The proposed policy is an
umbrella policy that goes beyond access to Facebook.
MS. LUCKY said that the IT Subcommittee did discuss whether a
Social Media Policy was even needed given the Legislature's
ethics laws since, as Senator McGuire pointed out, it is up to
each individual to understand and abide by those in all forms
regardless of the communications avenue used to conduct State
business. At this point, access to Facebook is limited to
Legislators and media staff, so the question still remains,
with or without the policy, what is the Council's decision
regarding access to Facebook. There were some legitimate needs
brought forward by agencies that have to go to a personal
computer to conduct official investigative work when it comes
to accessing Facebook.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said that in his experience attending
conferences with other state Legislators, if access to Facebook
is allowed, a policy is definitely necessary.
CHAIR HAWKER agreed that Council could resolve the question
today of whether access to Facebook is allowed.
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE said he was convinced by the breadth of
this discussion that his staff has no reason to be on Facebook
and can't imagine that there is time to be on Facebook.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT said Facebook can be and is in many cases
a means of communication with constituents, friends and
neighbors. Recognizing the concern with potentially allowing,
as mentioned, a limited or incidental usage, he suggested that
perhaps access could be limited from State computers to a
specific Facebook page related to a specific office.
SENATOR MCGUIRE stated she was more concerned about the
limitation placed on, for instance, the Office of Victims'
Rights in being able to conduct their investigative work. The
issue of the Legislature accessing Facebook is not as big of a
concern and she would be comfortable voting it down at this
point. She and her office have found a way to access Facebook
without using a State computer and she doesn't want to
unintentionally find herself limited in her ability to
communicate with her constituents. She supports carving out an
exception for those agencies that need access to conduct
investigatory work with the caveat that we don't want to
encourage the public to communicate primarily through Facebook
with those agencies.
MS. LUCKY confirmed that most agencies have not requested to
have a page on Facebook for communication, but rather to be
able to access Facebook if a complaint is made involving a
posting on a Facebook page, for example, so they can confirm
the complaint; however, Legislative Audit has asked to have a
presence as well as the Office of the Ombudsman for the
purposes of recruitment and outreach. With regard to the
comment made about limited and incidental use, the IT
Subcommittee put in specific language that such use would be at
the discretion of the supervisor. Further, the IT Subcommittee
felt that any access or action by staff would be at the
discretion of their supervisor and that the supervisor would
have to approve each staff's access and usage request and could
set whatever policy they wanted for their individual office.
Policing would be difficult in general, but each supervisor is
better able to assess their staff needs and behaviors.
Facebook can be a useful tool for staff to keep abreast of
breaking news. There was an instance where a city that had a
Legislative Information Office was only issuing weather alerts
on Facebook and the LIO was unable to access the page to be
aware.
CHAIR HAWKER reiterated the suggestion that this item be set
aside to give members time for additional consideration as well
as to give agency staff time to communicate their needs to
individual members.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE reminded Council members that the
Legislature is currently operating under an expired policy put
forth by a previous Legislative Council. He asked for
confirmation that one of the options is to eliminate access to
Facebook altogether when the item comes back.
CHAIR HAWKER said that any existing policy set forth by a
previous Council is in effect until and unless changed by
Legislative Council.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said he is encouraged by what other
members have said about the possibility of eliminating Facebook
altogether. He said there is a possibility of deleting a lot of
this debate by having a motion to eliminate interaction with
Facebook.
CHAIR HAWKER said he would entertain such a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE, in response to those members who said
they didn't hear his comment, said he wasn't sure he wanted to
make a motion today without further consideration, but
reiterated he would support a motion today to eliminate
involvement with social media in this business/work
environment.
CHAIR HAWKER repeated that he would be happy to entertain such
a motion today.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE moved that Legislative Council rescind
the previous action that provided for legislative access to the
use of Facebook using State resources.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected to the motion.
CHAIR HAWKER clarified the motion for members saying that it is
to prohibit Facebook access by either Legislators or
legislative agencies from legislative computers.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE concurred and further clarified that the
term "for Legislators" would cover the whole legislative
office, by definition.
CHAIR HAWKER said it meant the entire legislative branch of
government.
VICE CHAIR MICCICHE, speaking out of courtesy for how folks are
currently doing things, asked if the person making the motion
would consider a friendly amendment of setting an effective
date for the end of the 2013 session.
5:10:34 PM
CHAIR HAWKER called an at-ease.
5:15:47 PM
CHAIR HAWKER called the meeting back to order after allowing
for informal discussion between members about the proposed
motion and amendment and the history behind it.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE, with no dimming of his ongoing concerns
with Facebook and potential misuses, withdrew his motion for
more thoughtful consideration of the issue.
CHAIR HAWKER offered a statement of historical perspective for
new members noting that the issue of a social media policy and
specifically Facebook goes back to a prior Legislative Council
meeting, February 3, 2011, where there was a motion that
carried approving a one year trial period allowing each
Legislator, legislative press offices, webmasters, and the
Information Services Help Desks access to Facebook for
legislative business only.
Chair Hawker asked unanimous consent of the committee to allow
him as Chair to extend that trial period for the amount of time
it takes to bring back to Council a more formal policy and
discussion and a full resolution of this issue.
In response to a question by Representative Stoltze regarding
the time frame for bringing the issue back to Council and
noting that it a busy time for everyone, Chair Hawker said he
was careful to state that the trial period be extended until
such time as a more formal policy and discussion can occur.
Those agencies requesting access will have to wait until such
time. In response to Representative Gruenberg, the Chair
reiterated the question asking the concurrence of the entire
Council to continue to operate under the previously approved
trial guidelines.
There was no objection to continuing the trial period until
further notice.
V. CAPITOL SECURITY
SENATOR STEVENS said that although most people want to keep
access to the Capitol Building as open as possible, there have
been some concerns expressed about security in general, and
specifically the quality of the existing security cameras as an
example. Juneau is a fairly safe place and that has perhaps led
to a more relaxed approach to security; there are a variety of
options worth considering and he asked that the Chair appoint a
subcommittee to discuss them and report back to the full
Council with recommendations by the end of session, even if the
final recommendation is to take no action.
CHAIR HAWKER asked that any Legislator, in addition to
appropriate security personnel, with a desire to serve on that
subcommittee to please contact his office.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said the definition of security can take
on a lot of permutations of how we can allow employees to
better defend themselves and that would be a worthy discussion
for the subcommittee to have.
CHAIR HAWKER remarked that security matters within the State
facility system do qualify for discussing in executive session
by statute specifically because this is such a sensitive issue.
As this issue is brought back before Council, the definition of
security and the scope of consideration and concern will happen
in executive session.
Chair Hawker said, in response to a question about whether
subcommittees formed by previous Legislative Council's
continued in force, that they do not; like all committees in
the Legislature, unless reappointed, they are no longer in
force or in effect under a new legislature.
He notified members that there is now a Legislative Council
link on the Legislature's website to ensure access to
information regarding complex issues and projects before
Council are available and easy to find. In particular, the
status of the restoration of the envelope of the Capitol and
the reports produced to date may be found on this site.
He reminded members that, in August 2012, Legislative Council
approved a contract with Paul Lukes for an evaluation study of
the Capitol exterior/envelope. That report is complete and
copies are available for every member as well as on the
Legislative Council website. At the December 2012 Legislative
Council meeting, a project design services contract based on
the Paul Lukes evaluation study was approved to be completed
and brought to bid. Phase I was issued as an intent to bid on
March 14, 2013, which is the work to be completed this summer
on the portico of the Capitol. The due date is April 5, 2013,
and in order to keep that project moving forward, there will be
a Legislative Council meeting on or around April 9, 2013, to
bring forward a proposal to approve a selection of a bidder
under that ITB. Jensen, Yorba, Lott is following through on
their contract to develop the second ITB for the greater design
for the rest of the Capitol envelope restoration. The Paul
Lukes study identified three options, which the Chair took to
the steering committee established at the last Legislative
Council meeting. They agreed with both the structural and the
restoration architects that there was a clear and efficacious
choice of those three. Option 2 had the most long-term benefit
and greatest bang for the money route forward. At this time,
Jensen, Yorba, Lott is moving forward to develop an ITB for the
full restoration of the exterior of this Capitol using Option 2
of the Paul Lukes evaluation study being distributed to members
now.
Chair Hawker said that the Anchorage LIO extension/lease issue
is being considered by the subcommittee tasked with that. There
will be some informal discussions taking place with those who
responded to a prior request for information on that project.
He said the subcommittee hopes to bring forward in the very
near future some concrete thoughts and proposals regarding the
Anchorage LIO building.
Chair Hawker said that the Legislature's budget brought forward
by Legislative Council has passed out of the House with some
additional monies removed and has passed out of the Senate so
will move on to conference committee for resolution in the
greater budget process.
Chair Hawker asked Ms. Varni if she would please come forward
in order that she be at the table when he notified everyone in
th
the room of the momentous occasion that marked her 35 year of
State service. In the midst of much applause and on behalf of
the entire Legislature, Chair Hawker, noting the daunting task
of ensuring the efficient and high level functioning of the
Legislature, congratulated Ms. Varni on 35 years of service and
sincerely thanked her for all she has given to the Legislature.
There being no further business before the committee, the
Legislative Council meeting was adjourned at 5:32 p.m.
5:32:47 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Agenda.pdf |
JLEC 3/21/2013 4:00:00 PM |
|
| Anchorage LIO Lease.pdf |
JLEC 3/21/2013 4:00:00 PM |
|
| Facebook Access Requests.pdf |
JLEC 3/21/2013 4:00:00 PM |
|
| IT Subcommittee Memo on Social Media.pdf |
JLEC 3/21/2013 4:00:00 PM |
|
| Social Media Policy Draft.pdf |
JLEC 3/21/2013 4:00:00 PM |
|
| Facebook Access Request Form Draft.pdf |
JLEC 3/21/2013 4:00:00 PM |
|
| REVISED Social Media Policy Draft.pdf |
JLEC 3/21/2013 4:00:00 PM |
|
| Capitol Building Security Memo.pdf |
JLEC 3/21/2013 4:00:00 PM |