Legislature(2021 - 2022)
12/16/2021 01:00 PM House 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
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
DECEMBER 16, 2021
1:01 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Sara Hannan, Chair
Senator Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Representative Matt Claman
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Chris Tuck
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Shelley Hughes (alternate)
Senator Mike Shower
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Gary Stevens
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Neal Foster
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Lyman Hoffman
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator David Wilson
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
ADJOURN
SPEAKER REGISTER
Jessica Geary, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs
Agency (LAA)
Tim Powers, Manager, Information and Teleconference, LAA
JC Kestel, Procurement Officer, LAA
Megan Wallace, Director, Legal Services, LAA
Rayme Vinson, Chief of Security, LAA
1:05:06 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
CHAIR HANNAN called the Legislative Council meeting to
order at 1:04pm on December 16, 2021, in the House Finance
Room 519.
Present at the call were: Representatives Claman, Edgmon,
Hannan, Stutes, Tilton, Tuck; Senators Micciche, Hughes
(alternate), Shower, Stedman, and Stevens.
Members absent were: Representative Foster; Senators
Bishop, Hoffman, Reinbold.
Senator Reinbold joined at 2:06pm.
Eleven members present.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
1:07:06 PM
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE moved and asked unanimous consent
that Legislative Council approve the agenda as presented.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON dissented to the motion to approve
the agenda. She moved that agenda items pertaining to the
COVID-19 contracts with Beacon be tabled pending a
discussion on the Legislatures COVID-19 mitigation
policies.
CHAIR HANNAN asked if she would rephrase her motion to, I
move to amend the agenda to delete Item IV(d) dealing with
the Beacon contract.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON agreed to the above.
CHAIR HANNAN asked if there was further discussion.
SENATOR HUGHES asked for confirmation that she had been
marked present at the roll call, which she received. She
then stated she agreed with Representative Tiltons
proposal.
SENATOR STEVENS asked for some explanation as to why
Representative Tilton sought to remove the agenda item.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON said that several members of this
committee had asked that members look at the mitigation
policies and adjusting based on current COVID-19 trends;
she cited Anchorages Assembly removing the citys mask
mandate as one reason the Legislature would do well to
consider before adding to a policy that could be
unnecessary.
SENATOR STEVENS said that now was not the time to be making
things worse; Alaskans were not out of the woods yet in
this continued pandemic with novel variants of the virus
still emerging. He said that putting off this contract
could lead to Beacon or other companies being unavailable
due to short notice and praised Beacons excellent work the
previous session. He said he is against removing this item
from the agenda.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he concurred with Senator
Stevens, citing news reports of the omicron variant coming
on much more rapidly than previous variants. He thought it
was appropriate to take up the item on the agenda rather
than wait.
SENATOR SHOWER said that every indication showed that the
omicron variant was less lethal and said he studied this
virus every day and suggested that some members of this
committee paid attention as well. He said this is why he
emailed the entire Council including staff requesting this
conversation. He said Representative Tiltons request was
reasonable because the contract involved spending money
before looking at the latest science and to make a wise
decision based on the trends. He said he understood the
fear of each new variant, but that as time went on, these
variants became less lethal, putting the trends in a
positive direction. He suggested calling another meeting to
discuss and said it was his opinion that the Council was
backwards in discussing a contract before discussion of
current trends.
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE said he saw Senator Showers
request for discussion of policy and thought it was
reasonable. He stated that Session would begin in a month,
these trends were like the ones occurring when the Council
eliminated the mask policy earlier, and it was worth having
a discussion to be able to make wise decisions regarding a
future contract. He said he would commit to another meeting
to have those discussion should it please the Chair.
SENATOR STEDMAN said he was not sure the logistics acting
today on this item versus potential future meetings where
the current policy would be modified. He said he saw
nothing wrong with having the discussion today. He
continued that he saw no reason to strike this item from
the agenda outright, but certainly supported tabling it
upon discussion today should members agree more
conversation was necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he did not want the Council
members to get ahead of themselves and suggested adding
talking about the existing policy for the upcoming session
to the agenda.
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE said he did not mind having a
discussion; rather than moving to fight about every issue
members might have, he would agree to approve the agenda.
He sympathized with the idea of making a policy this soon
being, jumping the gun, but again said he did not mind
discussing it, saying members might as well have the fight
in one place.
CHAIR HANNAN confirmed no further members desired to speak
on the matter and said that in the upcoming vote on the
amendment a yea vote would be in support of deleting Item
IV and a nay vote would keep it on the agenda.
1:17:29 PM
A roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Representative Tilton; Senators Hughes, Shower.
NAYS: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck;
Senators Micciche, Stedman, Stevens.
The motion failed with 3 yeas and 8 nays.
CHAIR HANNAN asked if there were any further motions to
amend the agenda or if members were ready for a roll call
vote to approve the agenda. Hearing and seeing no further
objections, she requested a roll call vote.
1:19:22 PM
A roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck;
Senators Micciche, Stedman, Stevens.
NAYS: Representative Tilton; Senators Hughes, Shower.
The agenda was approved with 8 yeas and 3 nays.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. June 16, 2021, Meeting
B. June 25, 2021, Meeting
C. August 16, 2021, Meeting
D. September 23, 2021, Meeting
1:22:57 PM
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE moved and asked unanimous consent
that the Legislative Council approve the minutes dated June
16, June 25, August 16, and September 23, all of 2021, as
presented.
CHAIR HANNAN, hearing no discussion or objection, approved
the minutes.
IV. COMMITTEE BUSINESS
A. Teleconference and Media Services Policy
1:23:58 PM
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE moved that Legislative Council
adopt the Teleconference and Video Streaming Policy dated
December 16, 2021.
CHAIR HANNAN introduced Jessica Geary and Tim Powers to
speak on the above policy.
TIM POWERS, Manager of Information and Teleconference, with
the Legislative Affairs Agency stated that the existing
policy that guides his section was written thirty-five
years prior in 1986 and has not been amended since. He said
a lot had changed regarding teleconferencing in those
years; initially an individual cart was wheeled between
committee rooms when teleconferencing was requested,
resources were scarce, and only one meeting could be
teleconferenced at any given time in the Capitol. The
public could not call in from their home phone lines as
they can today, he said, because the State was on a party
line system throughout Alaska, and attendance was mandatory
from an office within the teleconference network. Streaming
video was not even an idea at this time as the Internet was
not a household or a handheld utility, he said.
Prior to 2010, the Legislative Information Office (LIO) did
not staff or teleconference any finance budget subcommittee
meetings, Lunch & Learns, or other non-official
proceedings. This was the year that Media Services was
created and LAA began streaming video for all meetings. He
said that his department was asked to cover all finance
subcommittee meetings as well as a variety of other events
that were not official hearings. Since this time, requests
for coverage of events that are not official proceedings
have increased, and recently had even spilled into the
interim rather than just during session. As technology has
advanced and become more a part of the legislative process,
the LIO had provided more services without an increase in
budget. During session, he said, his department was staffed
for the busy and long daily schedules as needed but there
were not resources or staff for session-level activity
during the interim. He said he was looking for sideboards
to be added to the policy to help his team most effectively
deliver their services year-round.
Mr. Powers said that the primary differences in the
proposed policy focused on limiting demands of staff
outside of session. The current policy contained a priority
order, which did not provide guidance for when meetings
should occur, so he was requesting the policy be updated to
limit non-official proceedings to business hours during
interim. The second significant change, he said, addressed
when meetings would be available for streaming on AKL.TV.
BASIS contained information on official legislative
proceedings, facts of what has occurred, and what is
officially scheduled to happen. After he conferred with the
Chief Clerk and Senate Secretary, they reached a consensus
that a revision to the policy was needed to maintain that
only official business and information is found on the
official website. He thanked Council members for their
consideration and said he would be happy to answer any
questions.
CHAIR HANNAN, upon hearing no questions or concerns from
members, asked Ms. Geary if she had anything to add.
JESSICA GEARY, Executive Director of the Legislative
Affairs Agency, said that she had nothing to add at this
time and that Mr. Powers had done a great job summarizing.
CHAIR HANNAN asked if this policy had been brought up
before the IT Committee.
MR. POWERS said it had not.
CHAIR HANNAN asked if elements of this policy intersected
with capabilities of the Capitols IT infrastructure.
MR. POWERS said this policy update had more to do with
limitations of staff during interim; the small core staff
of year-round employees grew by nine people for session, so
it would take a lot for his interim staff to host meetings
after business hours.
SENATOR SHOWER asked if perhaps this policy should indeed
be brought before the IT Committee before moving forward.
CHAIR HANNAN said that Mr. Powers answer, when she asked
the question earlier, led her to believe bringing this
policy before the IT Committee was irrelevant because this
related to the staffing side of things.
SENATOR SHOWER asked if the IT Committee might have input
on that and said he was not trying to put a wrinkle into
discussion, but that the Chairs question had given him
pause.
JESSICA GEARY said that the Teleconference and Streaming
Policy was more of an LIO item than an IT item, so it had
not been brought before the IT Subcommittee because it had
less to do with IT than most of the other items that were
brought before that subcommittee.
CHAIR HANNAN, seeing no further comments, requested a roll
call vote.
1:30:16 PM
A roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Hannan, Stutes,
Tilton, Tuck; Senators Micciche, Hughes, Shower, Stedman,
Stevens.
NAYS: None.
The motion passed with 11 yeas and 0 nays.
B. Anchorage Legislative Office Building Security Services
Contract
1:31:20 PM
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE moved that Legislative Council
approve an extension of the current contract for Anchorage
security services with Phoenix Protective Corporation
through June 30, 2022, with a not to exceed contract value
of $75,000.
CHAIR HANNAN introduced JC Kestel to speak on matter.
JC KESTEL, Procurement Officer, LAA, said that the current
contract for security services at the Anchorage Legislative
Office Building (ALOB) would expire on February 28, 2022,
and the Security Subcommittee was currently reviewing
security protocols in all legislative facilities. He said
it was unlikely recommendations will be adopted before this
contract expired. LAA, he said, was seeking Legislative
Councils approval to extend the current contract through
June 30, 2022, allowing enough time for a thorough review
and incorporation of any adopted changes. The contract
extension required the funding to be increased by
approximately $40,000 and not to exceed $75,000 for FY22.
He said he would be happy to answer any questions.
SENATOR SHOWER asked what caused the increase of $40,000
and listed a few possible answers he entertained.
MR. KESTEL said the increase was due to the extension in
time for the period of legislative session. He explained
that this was a length increase rather than a rate
increase, so there was no extra cost to the Legislature
than the previous contract.
CHAIR HANNAN confirmed that this was an extension to the
end of Fiscal Year 22, June 30. Seeing no further
questions, she requested a roll call vote.
1:34:37 PM
A roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Hannan, Stutes,
Tilton, Tuck; Senators Micciche, Hughes, Shower, Stedman,
Stevens.
NAYS: None.
The motion passed with 11 yeas and 0 nays.
C. Amendment to Legislative Procurement Procedures
1:35:56 PM
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE moved that Legislative Council
adopt Amendment 1 to the Alaska Legislative Procurement
Procedures.
1:36:08 PM
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE then moved that Legislative
Council adopt Amendment 2 to the Alaska Legislative
Procurement Procedures.
CHAIR HANNAN asked Mr. Kestel to summarize the above
amendments.
MR. KESTEL said that LAA wanted to propose these two
amendments to the Alaska Legislative Procurement
Procedures. The first, he said, reduced the administrative
burden for routine expenditures and the second allowed the
Legislature to benefit from cooperative purchasing
agreements. Amendment 1, he said, increased the application
of the procedures limit from $35,000 to $50,000 in section
020(a)(2), titled Applications. Many routine
expenditures, he said, had increased or were steadily
increasing in cost, and are close to or exceeded the
current application limits. Approval of this amendment
would allow for greater efficiency in allocating resources
or customary procurements by reducing required staff time
and related Legislative Council authorizations. He then
paused for questions.
SENATOR STEVENS clarified that this would not allow LAA
staff to make decisions for procurements up to $50,000 but
would allow the chairperson of the Legislative Council to
make those decisions without needing approval through the
committee.
MR. KESTEL confirmed that he was correct.
SENATOR STEVENS said he appreciated increasing to $50,000;
he felt it was needed and that the Chair had the
responsibility for making that decision.
SENATOR SHOWER asked for some examples to help him
understand how much money the updated policy would be
compared to the current policy.
CHAIR HANNAN said she believed Senator Shower was asking
questions about Amendment 2; the one currently being
discussed, she said, would allow the Legislative Council
Chair to approve contracts or expenditures up to $50,000.
SENATOR SHOWER said she was incorrect and spoke at length
about what he was trying to ask.
CHAIR HANNAN said she believed he was trying to ask how
many contracts were approved by the Chair in a year between
$35,000 and $50,000.
SENATOR SHOWER confirmed she was correct.
MR. KESTEL said he did not have that number before him
today but could report back to the committee.
CHAIR HANNAN asked how long the cap of $35,000 had been in
place.
MR. KESTEL said the cap was placed in November of 2013.
SENATOR STEVENS said that when he was Chair of Legislative
Council there were a few times he went beyond the former
cap of $25,000 and at the point, the Council changed it to
$35,000 because it would have required emergency meetings.
He said it was a standard, easy, thing, and that members
could trust the Chair to make sure it was a legitimate
issue. He said it was an easier way to do business and
going from $35,000 to $50,000 made sense and allowed the
Council to be more effective.
SENATOR SHOWER said his concerns were not because he did
not have trust in the Chair, he just wanted to know before
voting yes on an amendment that would allow authorization
to spend a significant amount of money; a one-third
increase in purchasing power. He said he was seeking more
data before voting, for the record.
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE asked how many times she had run
into instances of needing approval for spending between
$35,000 and $50,000 since she had chaired Legislative
Council.
CHAIR HANNAN responded that she had not tracked these
instances; that every instance of an item above $35,000 had
thus far just gone straight to Legislative Council. She
said she could think of one incident where the procurement
was beyond her threshold, and she had to call a Legislative
Council meeting because the contract was running out.
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE asked if there had only been one
instance in ten months.
CHAIR HANNAN responded that as anything over $35,000 would
go straight to Legislative Council for approval, she had
not tracked instances between $35,000 and $50,000.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if this would also apply to
Legislative Budget & Audit authority.
MR. KESTEL said that he believed that was correctit would
be across the board for the Legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK thanked him and said that he could only
think of one time when he was Legislative Budget & Audit
Chair that he went between those figures and brought it to
the committee; Council members in this case did not approve
it and it had to do with the Dittman Poll. He said he could
understand why these checks and balances were in place and
if the committee did not want to proceed, the Chair should
not be able to pursue it further.
SENATOR HUGHES asked how many times Chair Hannan had items
that had to go to the full Council that were between
$35,000 and $50,000 since she had been Chair of this
committee.
CHAIR HANNAN repeated that she had not tracked this, and
said that for instance, on todays agenda, the security
contract that had just been approved might have been one
that could have applied except the upper limit of $70,000
exceeded the Chairs proposed authority. However, had it
been $45,000 and the limit of policy been $50,000, she
could have approved that extension without bringing it to
the full Council. She said that the reason she had not
tracked these instances was because LAA had kept that line
clearly with her as Chair and had not presented her with
anything for single approval that was even a dollar over
$35,000.
MR. KESTEL said that there were several LIO leases that LAA
brings before Council every year that are between that
range; with raising CPI increases coming due to inflation,
Council would see more and more of these leases hit that
threshold, causing more Legislative Council meetings in the
future, especially in the coming year. He said he could not
put an exact number on the leases of this nature he had
brought before Council this year but estimated at least
half a dozen in just the leases, as well as other basic
service agreements for routine operations.
SENATOR HUGHES said she wanted to understand the history of
the item Representative Tuck brought up where there was
something over $35,000 that did not reach approval by the
Council. Who brought forward the request for the Dittman
Poll, under what circumstances might the Council not agree
with something like that. She said she just wanted to
understand.
CHAIR HANNAN explained that Representative Tuck was
speaking about Legislative Budget & Audit, and in her
tenure as Chair of Legislative Council she had not had
either opportunity or guidance to initiate something like
this; what had been brought before her were generally
service contracts, alarms, fire extinguisher inspections,
Xerox, security contract, she said, which was about as
glamorous of contracts she had seen. When larger contracts,
such as LIO or district offices, had come across her desk,
some had been much larger; it tended to be the rollover
contracts for the smaller LIOs that had been under $50,000.
Extensions of contracts of larger LIOs with greater numbers
of district offices would have to come before the Council
due to their cost of over $50,000. She said the only
contract under this amount that she initiated was in Tok
she was able to execute this contract without the Council
because the entire contract was under $35,000.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked how many contracts the Chair
could recall under $35,000 that she had approved during her
tenure using the current policy.
CHAIR HANNAN said she believed about a dozen.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked for a rough idea of what those
dozen procurements she had approved pertained to.
MR. KESTEL said that as the Chair had mentioned, those
items under $35K had been smaller LIO leases, a few with
district office space, routine service agreements for the
ALOB and a couple in Juneau, in his recollection.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON asked whether this policy would apply
to Chairs of other committees, or just the Legislative
Council Chair.
CHAIR HANNAN clarified the question for Ms. Geary and Mr.
Kestel and asked to whom section 020(a) of Procurement
Procedures applied to.
MR. KESTEL said that the application of 020 would apply to
any committee that has budgetary funds in the Legislature
or subdivision. He said that in the procurement procedures
there was a section that called out for contract award on
page 10 of the Legislative Procurement Procedures on the
intranet which talked about some of the committees within
the House & Senate and said that section 150, subsection B,
involved contracts, amendments to contracts, and how they
are authorized. He said these committees were likely the
ones that would be authorizing various contracts if pursued
under this application. Once the application was applied to
give the Chair the power of approval up to $50,000 and
asked the Chair to please repeat the second half of
Representative Tiltons question.
CHAIR HANNAN asked which committees would have the budgets
and this authority extension.
MR. KESTEL deferred to Ms. Geary on this question.
MS. GEARY said that any committee that has a budget, such
as the Finance Co-Chairs, the Budget & Audit committee,
Legislative Council, Presiding Officers, including Rules
Chairs, who oversaw the Legislative Operating Budget and
the Session Expenses Budget.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON asked for transparency, has there
been thought given to allowing the committee Chair to sign
on contracts up to that amount, but then it comes over to
the Council as ratification as is done with sanctioning an
event.
MR KESTEL said that it had not yet been brought up or
explored.
SENATOR STEDMAN said in follow up to Representative
Tiltons question, it seemed to him like the busy-work is
directed to Legislative Council, and the other committees
such as Finance and LB&A, which he had been involved with
many times over the years, less so with Rules and Presiding
Officers budgets. He said he was not sure that the Council
needed to give the Chair that much authority. He said the
Chair might want to discuss parsing out Legislative Council
to avoid the busy work and have a different amount than the
other committees. He said in the past there had been rogue
Chairs who led joint committees and caused difficulties; he
didnt believe the Chair of the Finance Committee needed
$50,000 authorization, and that the current authorization
was significant. If it were up to him, he said, the
authorization would be even less than that. He saw no
reason why these Chairs would not bring issues to the
committee for discussion and action of significance,
including items involving significant spending. He believed
this policy proposal was too far-reaching; it could be
beneficial for just Legislative Council to avoid the busy-
work of LIOs and such but did not support it for the rest
of the mentioned committees.
SENATOR SHOWER agreed with Senator Stedman and asked what
the inflation rate had increased to from 2013 that had
driven a one-third increase in cost authorization.
MS. GEARY said the inflation would have amounted to an
increase to approximately $42,000; LAA chose $50,000 as a
round number after looking into some of the existing
service contracts.
1:58:19 PM
SENATOR HUGHES also agreed with Senator Stedman and moved
that Legislative Council amend the above motion by
inserting the words for the Legislative Council Committee
at the end of the first sentence.
1:58:52 PM
CHAIR HANNAN called a brief at-ease.
2:00:35 PM
Council returned from at-ease.
CHAIR HANNAN said that Legislative Legal Services had some
concerns about drafting this policy amendment here at the
table and recommended taking the motion as a conceptual
amendment that Legal could then draft it in a way that
bifurcates Legislative Councils specific actions discussed
today in those procedures, but that policy right now does
not address Legislative Council as a standalone entity. She
asked Senator Hughes if she would prefer to do the above,
or to table the motion and return to it next meeting.
SENATOR HUGHES said she was happy to follow the Chairs
preference as she had mistakenly voiced her amendment to
the wrong part of the original motion.
CHAIR HANNAN said she would prefer Senator Hughes offer a
conceptual amendment, and then ask Megan Wallace to
summarize her understanding back, to ensure that she had
captured the concept that Legislative Council was
proposing.
2:02:33 PM
SENATOR HUGHES moved that Legislative Council adjust the
first amendment so it just applied to Legislative Council
Committee and that this be a conceptual amendment that
would be worked on.
MEGAN WALLACE, Director of Legal Services, stated that she
understood Senator Hughes conceptual amendment would amend
the Procurement Procedures to not apply to contracts that
do not exceed $50,000 for Legislative Council contracts;
other entities that are subject to the Procurement
Procedures would remain at the existing $35,000 limit. She
asked the Senator if she had captured her intent correctly.
SENATOR HUGHES said yes.
CHAIR HANNAN asked if she was correct in thinking a roll
call vote was required even though it was a conceptual
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK wanted to ensure he understood the
conceptual amendment: there would remain a $35,000 limit
for an extension of a contract or sole sourcing a contract,
as he knew LB&A had that authority under this provision. If
the amendment passed, that would raise it to $50,000, but
only for Legislative Council.
CHAIR HANNAN confirmed that yes, this was the case, and
noted that Ms. Wallace was nodding her head in the
affirmative. She then requested a roll call vote.
2:04:59 PM
A roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Hannan, Stutes,
Tilton, Tuck; Senators, Micciche, Hughes, Shower, Stedman,
Stevens.
NAYS: None.
The conceptual amendment was adopted with 11 yeas and 0
nays.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked to make another conceptual
amendment that the other committees upper limits be
increased to $40,000.
SENATOR STEDMAN said he did not believe that increase was
needed; if one looked at the purchasing power of $35,000 is
actually equal to about $42,000, there had actually been a
decline over time, and in a few years, the other groups may
come back and have requests for modifications. He believed
members should stick to the number on the table today,
saying it was more than healthy for the Finance Committee
as they had two Chairs, and therefore double the amount. He
could not speak for the Presiding Officers, Rules Chairs,
or members online, saying that Senator Stevens had held
both roles, so he would be better informed.
CHAIR HANNAN noted for the record that Vice-Chair Reinbold
had joined on-line at 2:06pm and asked if there was any
further discussion on the motion at hand.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK spoke to his motion, saying it was just
to keep up with inflation and keep things balanced with
projected inflation downturns and upticks.
SENATOR STEVENS said that he felt okay about the current
proposals; before 2013 it was $25,000 that was moved up to
the current $35,000, making it $40,000 would be fine and
the upper limit could be adjusted as necessary. This
Procurement Policy only came into play a limited number of
times, he said, and was not controversial. He said he was
sure that the Chairs of committees would want to bring any
controversial procurements to their committee members in
any case.
CHAIR HANNAN, seeing no further comments, requested a roll
call vote.
2:09:32 PM
A roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck;
Senators Micciche, Stevens.
NAYS: Representative Tilton; Senators Hughes, Reinbold,
Shower, Stedman.
The motion passed with 7 yeas and 5 nays.
CHAIR HANNAN asked if members were ready to vote on the
main motion to adopt the new Procurement Policy.
2:10:58 PM
A roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck;
Senators Micciche, Hughes, Stedman, Stevens.
NAYS: Representative Tilton; Senators Reinbold, Shower.
The policy was adopted with 9 yeas and 3 nays.
CHAIR HANNAN asked Mr. Kestel if he would please speak to
Motion 2 of this item, made earlier by Senate President
Micciche.
MR. KESTEL said Amendment 2 created a new section in the
procedures: Section 037, Cooperative Purchasing Authorized
which allowed the Legislature to participate and create co-
op purchasing agreements. By approving this amendment, he
said, the legislature would be allowed to use existing
contracts for goods and services procured for cooperative
purchasing by publicly funded entities at the municipal,
state, federal, and/or local level. States participating in
cooperative purchasing agreements work together to
determine the scope, conduct solicitations, and produce
contracts of greater benefit than what any one state might
realize. This amendment also, he said, included an update
to section 040, Exemptions, to group applicable procurement
exemptions for easier reference. He offered to take any
questions and provide additional details upon request.
2:13:05 PM
CHAIR HANNAN called an at-ease.
2:14:17 PM
CHAIR HANNAN came back on the record and said she realized
she had made an error. She said Representative Tucks
conceptual motion to amend had passed with 7 yeas, but
Council needed 8 yeas for it to have passed. So if the
committee agreed, she proposed members take that vote again
because it also invalidated the vote on the amended main
policy motion. She asked if members understood the
situation.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked the Chair to explain whether this
was a majority of the full committee or if this had a more
than a fifty percent plus one threshold.
CHAIR HANNAN asked Ms. Wallace for her expertise and said
that in a 14-member committee, 8 votes were necessary to
affirm passage.
MS. WALLACE said that the Chair was correct, and it was a
long-standing Legislative Council policy that all
substantiative motions have an eight person vote threshold
for adoption of any motion.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked if a formal motion was necessary to
rescind the erroneous motion or if members could simply
take it up again.
MS. WALLACE said that if members were going to re-vote, a
motion should be made to rescind the committees action in
failing to adopt Amendment Number 2 to Contract Amendment
1.
2:16:26 PM
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE moved to rescind the Councils
action on the final vote of Amendment Number 1 first.
2:16:41 PM
CHAIR HANNAN called an at-ease.
2:17:03 PM
Council returned from the at-ease.
CHAIR HANNAN asked that the Senate President please restate
his motion.
2:17:10 PM
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE moved that Legislative Council
rescind action on adoption of Amendment Number 1.
CHAIR HANNAN asked if a vote was required to confirm the
above motion.
2:17:30 PM
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE moved that Legislative Council
rescind action on the vote on Amendment Number 2 to
Amendment Number 1.
CHAIR HANNAN stated that the Council had rescinded the
action which brought members back to the conceptual
amendment from Representative Tuck to raise the threshold
limit from $35,000 to $40,000.
SENATOR HUGHES said she wanted to note that when an at-ease
was called, online members could not hear the conversation
in the room and asked if things could be changed to allow
this.
CHAIR HANNAN said that she was seeing Nos from people
with knowledge in the room, but she said she would give the
opportunity to the experts in the room who spoke during the
at-eases to come on the record and explain what had been
discussed during them. She asked if members needed any
further update in regard to recension of the main motions
final passing and the second amendment to it, or if members
were ready to vote.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he thought technically all that
was necessary was announcing the proper passage/non-passage
of the amendment, but if people wanted to vote on it again,
he would be happy to vote on it again.
CHAIR HANNAN said Senator Stedman voiced desire to vote, so
she would ask members to vote again. A roll call vote was
requested.
2:19:36 PM
A roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck;
Senators Micciche, Stedman, Stevens.
NAYS: Representative Tilton; Senators Hughes, Reinbold,
Shower.
The motion was adopted with 8 yeas and 4 nays.
2:20:39 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the main motion that has two
conceptual amendments.
YEAS: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck;
Senators Micciche, Hughes, Stedman, Stevens.
NAYS: Representative Tilton; Senators Reinbold, Shower.
The motion was adopted with 9 yeas and 3 nays.
CHAIR HANNAN asked if Mr. Kestel would please again
summarize Amendment 2 to the Procurement Policy.
MR. KESTEL said Amendment 2 created a new section of
procedures: Section 037, Cooperative Purchasing Authorized
which allowed the Legislature to participate and create co-
op purchasing agreements. By approving this amendment, he
said, the legislature would be allowed to use existing
contracts for goods and services procured for cooperative
purchasing by publicly funded entities at the municipal,
state, and/or federal level. States participating in
cooperative purchasing agreements work together to
determine the scope, conduct solicitations, and produce
contracts of greater benefit than what any one state might
realize. This amendment also, he said, included an update
to section 040, Exemptions, to group applicable exemptions
to the procedures for easier reference in one section. He
offered to take any questions and provide additional
details upon request.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked Mr. Kestel to rephrase this into
laymans terms using a scenario of what the problem was and
demonstrate how this was a solution, as he was having
trouble following. He also asked if these agreements were
only between the Legislature and other government entities,
such as a contract between two such entities, or if it was
some sort of deal where, for example, the Municipality of
Anchorage has procurement with a certain organization or
vendor and then the Legislative Procurement could use that
same vendor utilizing the Municipal process.
MR. KESTEL said the Representatives example was correct.
This amendment, he said, did not have the Legislature
contracting directly with other government entities, it
just allowed for the joining or using of that service or
goods contract so if it was procured as a cooperative
purchasing agreement to the Legislatures benefit, to avoid
lengthy solicitations or costly procurements. So, for
instance, snow plowing in Anchorage: if the Department of
Transportation (DOT) has a contract that would be more
beneficial for the Agency to use for the ALOB, he would be
able to pursue using that contract directly with the vendor
because it was likely set up as cooperative purchasing for
all State offices. He said the Executive Branch did use
cooperative purchasing throughout its procurements similar
to Alaska Statute 36.30.780, which allowed the Executive
Branch as well as other State agencies that are not subject
to their own procurement procedures to utilize cooperative
purchasing. He then asked Representative Tuck to repeat the
second half of his questions.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he believed his questions had been
answered and repeated back his understanding of Mr.
Kestels explanations: cooperative purchasing agreements
allow the Legislature to work with another government
entity to be able to utilize their procurement method in
securing one of their vendors to work for us. He repeated
Mr. Kestels example of DOT having a contract with a vendor
for snow removal that the Legislature could use at the ALOB
without going through a bidding process or the normal
procurement process.
MR. KESTEL said he was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked, in that scenario, would the
Legislature be using the same price as DOT or would there
be a way to possibly get a better price out of the vendor?
MR. KESTEL said that the price of contracts such as this
could be negotiated lower, but chances were that it would
end up in the Agency using the existing contracted price.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked who was asking for this policy
change.
MR. KESTEL said he believed it was a request of the Agency
to benefit the Legislature as a whole for routine purchases
and operating service agreements.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if there were two or three
specific examples that Mr. Kestel could share.
MR. KESTEL said one recent example conducted through the
National Association of State Procurement Officers (NASPO),
which is one of the largest co-op purchasing agreements,
was the fire alarm system for the Capitol. That, he said,
was a co-op purchasing agreement signed onto by the State
of Alaska at a national level which provided deeper
discounts than anything the State could have realized on
its own. Another example, he said, was the fact that
several of the States contracts originally published in
the Contract Awards Manual for reference, had migrated over
to NASPO contracts in the past decade. One of the benefits
of this, he said, was freeing up procurement staff, writing
himself out of a job so to speak, but allowed staff to
complete more complicated procurements rather than routine
purchases for office supplies and tires for vehicles and
other routine operating expenses. He said a third example
was in recent years the General Services Administration
(GSA), the contracting administration with the federal
government, had opened up some of its GSA contracts for
State and federal contracts to use which would allow the
Legislature to participate in those.
SENATOR HUGHES asked about the possibility of achieving a
lower price such as in Representative Tucks DOT snow
removal vendor example, is there anything in this that
would prevent us working before the other agency would
procure the services and by adding the job that we have, we
might receive a better rate.
MR. KESTEL said no, there is nothing that would prevent us
from doing it before hand and actually it would be quite
beneficial; this would allow the Legislature to do that.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON asked about liability in case of
failure with such contracts she imagined there would be
provisions that would uphold the liability to a minimum on
the part of the State; for example, a failure of the other
party not completing the contract.
MR. KESTEL said that yes, this Cooperative Purchasing
Authorized would allow the Legislature to use or form a
contract with another entity and would also allow the
Agency to have a separate contract with the same terms. He
said that Legislative Legal would help draft the contract
with the Agencys conditions and terms; there could be some
provisions relating to delivery of goods and how the
procurement was originally written that could be at odds
with LAAs original clauses, but the Agency could add its
own indemnification subject to appropriation, standard
clauses that would appear in its normal contracts and
release liability and insurance requirements.
SENATOR SHOWER asked for clarification about the approval
processwould it be the exact same as what the Legislature
used now, or would approval authorities change, etc.
MR. KESTEL said that the approval process would not change.
The cooperate purchasing would still be subject to the new
thresholds that had been amended and would go through the
same committee process as any other agreements applicable
to the Procurement Procedures.
SENATOR SHOWER said just for clarity: it would be the same
process, same approval authorities, nothing in the language
would change how members were currently doing business
except that this language as written would allow the
Legislature to enter into these contracts with other
entities as described.
MR. KESTEL said Senator Shower was correct.
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE said on page 2, section E, there
could be the possibility of the Legislature being in a
collective purchasing agreement with another state or the
federal government.
MR. KESTEL acknowledged the Senator's question and said he
was quickly reading the section to be able to respond.
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE asked to clarify and said he had
used collective purchasing agreements in the private sector
and believed they worked, that it was a smart way to do
business, especially with the approval level. He said
another state or the federal government might have a very
different procedure and if it was not something that the
Legislature may take advantage of, he was not sure it was
necessary.
MR. KESTEL said he would have to think more about this as
an example, but that this amendment was drafted to mirror
some of the Executive Branchs cooperative purchasing
agreements so that section E might not be an item that
would be used by the Legislature but would give them the
option of adding it. Without further research on how the
Agency might benefit from that section, he said it was the
best answer he could give at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said his concern was that as someone
who supported Alaskan jobs by hiring Alaskans, contracting
with Alaskans, etc., he hated to see the Legislature start
procuring things at a national level that would not give
opportunities to locals. He understood that cost may be a
driving factor but expressed concern about the
ramifications.
MR. KESTEL asked to follow up on both Senate President
Micciche and Representative Tuck's comments. First Senate
President Micciche's questions regarding Item Ethe example
we would use Item E for is GSA contacts. In response to
Representative Tuck's questions, for example, the NASPO
organization is comprised of both national and local
vendors. For instance, the Johnson Controls fire alarm
project ongoing at the Capitol is a national agreement but
administered by a local contractor. Mr. Kestel offered a
few other examples of Alaska businesses who may benefit.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK noted that some of the examples given
are national chains that may not have offices here.
SENATOR REINBOLD apologized for being late. She agrees with
Representative Tuck regarding local hire and is a huge
believer in state sovereignty issues and legislative
supremacy. She is concerned that this may be caught up with
illegitimate federal mandates. She said she is
uncomfortable because the mask mandate has caused
tremendous uproar in our economy and with workers and is
leaning toward a no vote.
SENATOR HUGHES as far as the concerns that have been
expressed, the Legislature would have a choice whether to
enter these agreements; the Legislature could decide if it
would jeopardize local hire. She asked for clarification on
that.
MR. KESTEL responded that is correct, these agreements
would still come before the committee.
SENATOR STEVENS said this is something that is common in
business. When the Legislature purchased the Wells Fargo
building in Anchorage, it made use of this in both modeling
and property management. It is not unusual for Legislative
Council to take advantage of those opportunities.
CHAIR HANNAN said seeing no further comment, she requested
a roll call vote on motion number 2 on Alaska Legislative
Procurement Procedures.
2:44:37 PM
A roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Hannan, Stutes,
Tilton; Senators Micciche, Hughes, Shower, Stedman,
Stevens.
NAYS: Representative Tuck; Senator Reinbold.
The motion was adopted with 10 yeas and 2 nays.
D. BEACON OHSS COVID-19 Services Contract
2:45:44 PM
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE moved that Legislative Council
reinstate the Beacon OHSS contract that expired on June 30,
2021; extend it through June 30, 2022; authorize an
increase to the contract in the amount of one million
dollars using existing Legislative Capital funds; and
retain the remaining $618,427.88 previously authorized
under the original contract.
CHAIR HANNAN asked Ms. Geary to please speak to this item
and noted that Ms. Amanda Johnson from BEACON is online to
answer questions if needed.
MS. GEARY, Executive Director of the Legislative Affairs
Agency, said she was asked to look into options for putting
a testing program in place for the upcoming legislative
session and reached out to Ms. Johnson with BEACON to
determine their interest since they had the contract that
just expired at the end of June. She was receptive, is
familiar with our environment, and did an excellent job
last session. We discussed that pre-travel testing is
important, especially for those traveling through Canada,
so having testing services available in Anchorage,
Fairbanks, and Kenai would be very helpful. Offering
booster shots and vaccinations to those who want them was
another service we requested. One item we did not request
this time was symptom screening at the Capitol front
entrance. This would just be testing services and some
vaccination services upon request. She said she is happy to
answer questions and Ms. Johnson is online as well.
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE asked if the $618,427.88
remaining on the original contract is not available for
testing at this time.
MS. GEARY responded that amount is not available because
the contract expired, so the Legislature would need to
renew the contract to be able to utilize those funds.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if there is no mandatory testing, as
that policy was modified at the last meeting.
MS. GEARY said testing is required, but on an honor system.
That is the policy that was passed at the last Legislative
Council meeting and is the current Mitigation Policy.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she is not supportive of spending
money on this. With the vast majority of people either have
had COVID or have been vaccinated and this is a two-year
old virus. She is skeptical. Omicron is, allegedly, for
vaccinated people more mild. She said she leans strongly
against this and believes people need to make their own
health care decisions at their own health care providers
and is aware there may be differing opinions in this group.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said the Legislature is self-screening
and he believes the Legislature and legislative staff
probably are more vaccinated than the general public. His
concern is about the public. He did not think there would
be limitations on them coming into the building and said we
have done a really good job over the last year of reducing
exposure and it does not make sense testing ourselves and
not the public. He said he thinks testing may mitigate the
spread more than anything and that masks are not as
effective as testing. He said that if the Legislature is
going to regularly test, then why have a mask mandateif
someone has symptoms, then wear a mask, but we will no
longer be testing for those symptoms at the front door. He
continued that none of this lines up with a good, solid
policy to protect ourselves in the building and that BEACON
services should allow the public to test before entry for
better protection in the Capitol. He said that he thought
this is partly why people are hesitant about passing this
new contract, because members have to figure out this
policy for the next ninety to one-hundred-twenty day
session before we know the costs.
2:53:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON said she will again reference what
she said earlier in the meeting regarding tabling this
action, as the previous vote did not table it. This has
nothing to do with Beacon or the way they provided
services, but she said she feels very strongly that there
should be a discussion of Legislative Council of what the
COVID policy will look like before encumbering funds. She
moved that Council postpone action until that conversation
regarding the COVID policy happens.
SENATOR REINBOLD seconded the motion.
CHAIR HANNAN noted that a second is not required and asked
Representative Tilton if she was moving to table the motion
on the contract.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON responded table or postpone. She said
when this was discussed earlier that is a term that was
used by another member, but yes, she would like to table
the action to another time.
CHAIR HANNAN said she could not recollect if the motion to
table is debatable.
SENATOR STEVENS said it is not debatable.
CHAIR HANNAN confirmed it is not debatable and requested a
roll call vote on the motion to table action on the Beacon
contract.
2:54:55 PM
A roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Representative Tilton; Senators Micciche, Hughes,
Shower, Reinbold.
NAYS: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck;
Senators Stedman, Stevens.
The motion has failed with 5 yeas and 7 nays.
SENATOR STEDMAN said he would still like a little clarity
on the contract. There is a lot of interest on the Senate
side who want to move on a little bit and have flexibility
and protection from people coming in the building, so if we
decide to change our mask policy in a month what effect
will that have on the contract and what flexibility do we
have built into this contract. Also, he asked for clarity
on the ability of the public to access this group with a
fee, etc. In follow up to an earlier question from another
member about the public, he said he is more concerned about
the public entering than employees since most have been
vaccinated or had COVID and are protected. The concern is
to try to avoid the mask and still be protected from the
public. He asked how we deal with this contract if we
modify the policy in a month.
MS. GEARY asked Amanda Johnson with BEACON to comment on
whether the existing contract would allow for testing of
the public. She said she believed it would, it would just
be a matter of how to pay for it since BEACON's estimate
did not include testing the public.
MS. JOHNSON with BEACON responded that Ms. Geary is correct
that the current contract's estimate does not include the
public, however the scope of services is generally defined
as testingwe do not define it as a specific population in
the current contractit is up to the discretion of the
Legislature. Therefore, we could extend to support public
testing, whether that be sponsored by the Legislature or a
combination of the individual paying and a portion covered,
or fully covered by the individual and that would include
point of sale collection options as well as with insurance
billing if necessary for public access.
SENATOR STEVENS said that makes sense and both
Representative Tuck and Senator Stedman have identified an
important issueit is the public we are more concerned
about. He said the public could either pay BEACON to have
the test or bring a recent test with them, is that correct.
MS. GEARY responded that could be true we would just need
to figure who would be verifying that status. Right now we
can work out a process with BEACON if the public went over
and got tested, they could get some sort of card or
sticker, etc. She said she was just unsure at this point
how we would verify tests from other entities.
CHAIR HANNAN said the current policy does not provide for
screening people at the Capitol entrance.
SENATOR STEVENS said he thought we need some expert advice
from perhaps the State's Medical Doctor. Things he has read
lately would indicate masking, if everyone is tested and
vaccinated, may not be as important as once thought. Along
with Senator Stedman's comments, that the Finance Committee
would be interested in not having masking if testing were
more available, it would be good to have some expert advice
to help us through this. He nor anyone on this call is a
doctor, so he would appreciate having more knowledge.
CHAIR HANNAN said to remind everyone, the contract with
BEACON is to reflect our testing protocols reflected in our
policy. The masking policy is our policy and BEACON is not
engaged in that.
MS. GEARY affirmed that is correct; the masking policy is
separate and is not part of the BEACON contract at all. She
said she thought she heard Senator Stevens say he would
appreciate someone with a medical background coming before
Council, at some other point, before the policy is
addressed, separate from this contract.
SENATOR STEVENS replied yes, absolutely, thank you.
SENATOR SHOWER he asked, again, since Council is discussing
spending money on a contract and there are many questions
on what the policy is, he said it is reasonable to hold off
on making the decision on the BEACON contract for several
million dollars, especially not knowing if the Legislature
is going to test visitors which could further increase
cost. He said perhaps Council should get that additional
medical advice and have this policy discussion before
making the decision because it may be re-done anyway. He
said it feels like putting the cart before the horse; these
questions are generated by the fact that Council is
discussing the contract before knowing how to handle it. He
did not want to put a motion forward yet until everyone on
Council feels like they have asked their questions and had
the debate, but he thought Council should consider holding
off on decisions on this contract until these questions are
answered.
SENATOR STEDMAN expressed a similar concern in that we may
modify the policy soon and asked if there was flexibility
in the proposed contract to change it to modify that
agreement should we change the policy.
MS. GEARY responded that the contract is very flexible;
whatever policy is passed we would provide to BEACON and
they would ensure testing is following the prescribed
schedule in policy. BEACON gets direction from us and will
provide whatever services asked.
SENATOR STEDMAN said apparently there is a lot of
flexibility with this contract. Is there flexibility on the
monetary side of the contract and would the contract enable
us then to make sure that we do not enter a contract today
that is much more expensive than what is needed in a few
months. There are two sides to the flexibility - one is of
the entity itself, and then the bill they send to the
State.
MS. GEARY said the amount she put forward is based on
conducting four-hundred tests per week with a certain
number of staff coming down. We can modify that level
BEACON can provide less service, we may need to add money
to the contract if more service is requested, but they will
only bill for services they provide. It is hard to know
exactly how many tests they will conduct, how many people
will get sick, and if contact tracing or quarantine
services are required that is an added expense. She asked
if Ms. Johnson had anything to add.
MS. JOHNSON just confirmed that BEACON will only bill for
services rendered and will scale according to the scope of
work requested, similar to the last session as during the
phase of policy changes.
SENATOR REINBOLD said if there is a medical person who
speaks to Council, she asked for a broader perspective than
just Dr. Zink. If Council chose to bring back Dr. Zink, she
wants to ensure she has clinical data and can back up her
statements because she finds her information to be
extremely controversial and often lacks a lot of clinical
data. She said it is critical that Council make informed
decisions based on clinical data that has been peer
reviewed and is high quality. Dr. Zink also has to be able
to tolerate opposing views that are very well founded as
well. So that is issue number one. Issue number two is if
the Legislature will screen for COVID are we screening for
tuberculosis, if people are drunk, other colds and flus, we
could go on and on. She said she did not want to block the
public based on a whole long series of different testing.
She said tuberculosis is far more contagious and dangerous.
She asked what is the entire purpose of this. She did not
want the Capitol to become a medical clinic. She believed
the constitution provides everyone access to the Capitol.
She said she does not think we are in a state of emergency
and believes that needs to be validated. The emergency use
product, such as a PCR test, is illegal to mandate. She
said she is happy that the Legislature has gotten away from
mandating them but is going down a slippery slope with the
public and what if they are only there for a day or so.
People can take precautions for themselves. She said she
supported if people wanted to vaccinate then vaccinate, if
people want to mask, then mask, but those who choose not to
should have that choice as well and that includes testing.
She said again she will be a passionate no vote on this
BEACON contract.
3:10:03 PM
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE said he is seeking compromise
because he understands there is hesitance about adding
dollars to the contract without discussion. He said Council
is putting the cart before the horse. He wants the Capitol
to be open but finds it ironic that many legislators fly
back and forth from Juneau sitting eight inches away from
someone who is not tested and we are talking about possibly
having a testing requirement for the public. He said
discussion is needed prior to understanding what the policy
will be for the 2022 session, everyone agrees to that. With
numbers falling now, we do not know what the new Omicron
will look like in Alaska, but we have been able to adjust
as the risk profile in accordance with COVID numbers. He
said he was going to propose an amendment and moved that
Legislative Council reinstate the BEACON OHSS contract that
expired on June 30, 2021, and extend it to February 15,
2022, with the remaining $618,427.88 previously authorized
under the original contract. He offered to speak to that
upon request.
CHAIR HANNAN asked Senate President Micciche to please
speak to his motion.
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE said this gives Council time to
get together, talk about what the policy is going to look
like, and adjust accordingly. When Council gets back
together and decides on a policy, we can adjust the
contract dollars as necessary, but this gives us the
$618,427.88 to deal with anything that comes along in the
meantime, without adding a million dollars to the contract.
He said this applies a little pressure to have a discussion
about the policy going forward prior to session, but it
could get some who are concerned about there not being any
contract at all in place some comfort that there will be
adequate dollars prior to getting back together on a
decision on the policy.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked if Council extends this as proposed
and does not take up this amendment, then in February
decides to abandon masks, testing, and return to things
pre-COVID, what is the financial exposure to the State.
MS. GEARY asked the Senator to please repeat the question.
SENATOR STEDMAN said if Council extends this contract as
presented, and has deliberations, then in February decides
to return to pre-COVID style access to the building this
contract is in place until June. He asked what the
financial exposure is, if any, to the State when the
Legislature would no longer need the company from say
February on.
MS. GEARY thanked Senator Stedman for the clarification and
said she understood the question. The contract is drafted
through June 30 but could end prior to that date at the
Legislature's discretion with agreement from BEACON. She
asked Ms. Johnson to please comment on the Legislature's
ability to end the contract early and what that might look
like.
MS. JOHNSON with BEACON said if they mobilize under the
current policy and set up services within the scope and the
decision is made to reverse on those policies and return to
prior operations, pre-mitigation strategies, BEACON would
only be billing for the services in which we rendered and
the mobilization/demobilization so there would be a quick
turn around on it, but we will not enforce any additional
costs beyond the services we rendered and period in which
we rendered it.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked for confirmation that there is no
financial exposure other than the remobilization cost of
sending the folks back to Anchorage or wherever.
MS. JOHNSON said that is correct.
SENATOR STEDMAN said the Legislature does not have much at
risk and can deal with this internal policy how it wants in
the building at any time between now and June.
MS. JOHNSON said that is correct from BEACON's perspective.
MR. KESTEL added as a follow up that he spent significant
time writing and drafting this contract with Legislative
Legal. There are a couple clauses that allow us to
terminate the contract with or without cause and it
specifies, as Ms. Johnson said, that the contractor can
only bill us for services rendered at that point. The other
ability to cancel is the subject to appropriation language,
but I do not think that is a question at this point.
CHAIR HANNAN said there is a motion to amend from Senate
President Micciche which is to change the date that this
contract would be through which would be February 15, 2022
instead of June 30, 2021, and to only authorize the
previously authorized amount of $618,427.88.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if this has to go out for bid.
CHAIR HANNAN responded no.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked why.
CHAIR HANNAN asked Mr. Kestel or Legislative Legal to
please respond.
MR. KESTEL said that in the original contract there is a
clause that specifies if the contract can be extended,
amended, or for whatever length of process we use beyond
the original contract period. So that is where this
amendment would come into play for the extension process.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON asked the continuation of the
contract with BEACON based on the amount of the dollars
that are left available is what would make this contract
not have to go out to bid. If we were to increase the
contract and add dollars outside of what the original
contract was, we would still not have to go out to bid to
amend the contract because there was an option in the
contract to change the terms.
MR. KESTEL responded that at some point it would have to go
out to bid and that is when either there are no more
extensions available or no more provisions that would allow
for that contract to be extended further. He said, to his
knowledge, the Legislature does not have any procedures
that limit the increase of contracts but asked Legislative
Legal to please comment on that if they are online.
CHAIR HANNAN noted they are not currently online.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON followed up that at some point she
would like to know where that line is crossed of where it
must go out to bid. If Mr. Kestel could provide that
information later, that would be appreciated.
MR. KESTEL responded yes, he would provide that information
to Council.
CHAIR HANNAN said seeing no further comments, she restated
Senate President Micciche's motion and requested a roll
call vote.
3:20:35 PM
A roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Hannan, Stutes,
Tilton, Tuck; Senators Micciche, Hughes, Reinbold, Stedman,
Stevens.
NAYS: None.
The main motion has been amended with 11 yeas and 0 nays.
CHAIR HANNAN said the main motion has been amended, but
final passage is still required on the main motion. She
requested a roll call vote.
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE said on the main motion, he would
support it because of the compromise and he appreciates
that, but he strongly requested that within the next couple
of weeks there be a discussion on the policy that would
determine what this future contract would look like as
well.
CHAIR HANNAN clarified that the Senate President meant
after the first of the year.
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE confirmed he meant that
discussion should take place prior to convening the next
session.
CHAIR HANNAN confirmed prior to convening the next regular
session regarding the policy, not the contract.
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE said yes.
SENATOR STEVENS said he hoped at that point Council would
bring in expert advice and assumed there was a lot of trust
in what Dr. Zink, the State's Chief Medical Officer, has
said and perhaps the State Epidemiologist. He would
appreciate it if the Chair would arrange for Council to
hear from knowledgeable people about what kind of a policy
members can come up with.
CHAIR HANNAN said yes, her staff will work on that asap.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she does not respect a lot of the
advice from Dr. Zink and from others, including the
epidemiologist. She said she would absolutely like to see a
more global uh, this is a hugely controversial issue and
they have not provided enough clinical research data that
is peer reviewed and backed. She asked for opposing views
to be present as well.
SENATOR HUGHES said she wanted to bring to everyone's
attention on this committee, and the public, that her
concern is Council is considering spending a fair amount of
money for one building in Alaska, when other public office
buildings, school buildings, city government, and
businesses do not have this level [of protection]. She said
these are public dollars and she does not feel like she is
extra special that she needs additional protections that
other Alaskans do not enjoy. Council is talking about
spending quite a bit of money for this kind of protection.
She said she understood some people are very concerned
about their health and appreciated that but does not think
it is right to spend public dollars to a greater degree
than what can be afforded in other entities across the
state.
CHAIR HANNAN said seeing no further comments, she requested
a roll call vote on the main motion which has been amended.
3:26:10 PM
A roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck;
Senators Micciche, Stedman, Stevens.
NAYS: Representative Tilton; Senators Hughes, Reinbold.
The motion passed with 8 yeas and 3 nays.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted this meeting was originally
scheduled from 1:00-3:00pm and he had another meeting that
he has already postponed, but now must sign off this
meeting.
SENATOR REINBOLD AND SENATOR HUGHES both said they too had
other commitments and needed to sign off.
CHAIR HANNAN said with members leaving Council may lose
quorum to pass the next item, session per diem.
3:27:58 PM
CHAIR HANNAN called a brief at ease.
3:28:40 PM
CHAIR HANNAN called the meeting back to order and said
discussion will continue on the agenda items.
E. Transfer of Funds for 2022 Session Per Diem
3:29:19 PM
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE moved that Legislative Council
approve the transfer of one million, nine hundred and
ninety-five thousand dollars ($1,995,000) from existing
legislative capital funds to the legislative operating
budget salaries and allowances allocation for the purpose
of paying FY22 legislator session per diem.
He further moved that legislative council support the
restoration of the governor's FY22 veto in a supplemental
appropriation; once approved the transfer will be reversed.
CHAIR HANNAN asked if there was discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON said there is already in the
supplemental budget, as Senate President Micciche pointed
out, a line item that would restore those dollars for the
per diem and so at this point she feels that there is no
urgency to transferring those dollars within the budget. In
her opinion Council should not be making that transfer at
this point but deal with this situation through the
budgeting process.
SENATOR STEDMAN said his understanding is the governor's
fast track supplemental has the funds in it. But the
Legislature do not know when we will take action on the
fast track supplemental, fast track just means an early
effective date. That may not get through the Legislature
for several months and it is not uncommon for us to wrap up
the supplementals in the final budget. We may have several
budgets; we have not even convened to have those
discussions. The per diem issue needs to be addressed
immediately because the session starts on January 18 and we
have to conduct our business. We are quite a way out from
having a piece of legislation sitting on the governor's
desk to sign to fix this.
Senator Stedman also noted that this was an unprecedented
move by a sitting governor to intercede in the
Legislature's budget. We normally accept the governor's
budget as presented, not his entire budget, but the
governor's office, regardless of the governor's political
positions or relationship with the Legislature or the
bodies of either political party in control of the
Legislatureit is just not done. We need to take action now
and moot transfer these funds, then work through the normal
budget process and as the motion is written when that
budget issue is signed by the governor, the per diem issue,
then we can reverse it in the accounting on our side. We
need to take action on this or it will create a lot of
problems, especially for elected officials, who have
families and come to Juneau. He looked forward to
discussion but urged members to support this as it is in
the best interest of the entire Legislature and will help
run a smoother budgetary process going forward.
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE said he views this as an
insurance policy. He supports that the governor is adding
per diem funding back into his supplemental budget, but he
does not want this to turn into a rich man's game. He said
he has several members who are on the margins for the cost
of being in Juneau that if per diem was delayed, these are
both majority and minority members, because we did not have
adequate funds it would impact them and their families very
dramatically. He said he would support it and looked
forward to passing that part of the supplemental
appropriation and reversing the transfer, but he said he
does have to look out for our members who are on the
margin. All Alaskans should be able to serve in the
Legislature no matter what their financial situation is and
he worries about those members which is why he will support
this.
SPEAKER STUTES said she agreed with both Senators. She said
she had several members tell her that it would be
financially difficult to come to Juneau without knowing the
status of per diem. She said she is in full support of
this.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said he supports the previous
comments and views this as a contingency measure, having
seen supplemental budgets get caught up and not reach the
governor's desk until later in the session. If this vote
fails then the supplemental bill process gets slowed and
continues through the end of session, he will not be one to
call for it to be fast tracked just for per diem and is
prepared to go the entire session, if necessary, without
per diem.
CHAIR HANNAN said seeing no further comments, she requested
a roll call vote on the motion of transfer of funds for
2022 session per diem.
3:37:41 PM
A roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Representatives Edgmon, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck;
Senators Micciche, Stedman, Stevens.
NAYS: Representative Tilton.
The motion has not passed with 7 yeas and 1 nay, as 8 votes
are needed to pass.
F. Adoption of Identification Badge Policy
3:38:44 PM
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE moved that Legislative Council
adopt the Identification Badge Policy dated December 16,
2021, with the effective date of January 12, 2022.
CHAIR HANNAN explained this item came out of the Security
Subcommittee earlier this week and asked Ms. Geary and
Chief of Security Rayme Vinson to please speak to the
policy and answer questions.
MS. GEARY, Executive Director of Legislative Affairs, said
as Chair Hannan mentioned this policy came out of the
Security Subcommittee which Rayme Vinson, Chief of
Security, Chairs. She will ask him to walk the Council
through the high points and why we think this is an
important measure for Capitol security.
RAYME VINSON, Chief of Security for the Legislature, said
this badge policy basically follows some existing
guidelines that require ID badges for contractors,
lobbyists, members of the press, that a badge must be worn
and visible when in the building. Chief Vinson said he
could review some things that have happened in the past,
but basically this identifies legislators and staff. There
are numerous people in the Capitol and this would help
identify everyone and ensure access is appropriately
granted to certain areas. We have asked that this be
included with the card reader badges so employees have just
one item, not two. Also, if the card reader badge is lost,
it is easily identifiable.
MS. GEARY noted one thing on this policy that is a change
from how we currently do business is right now lobbyists
are not required to register to be in the building or wear
an identification badge and this would require that they
register, have their photo taken by Media Services, and
wear an ID badge - similar to the media. She added this
policy does not require legislators and staff to wear and
display ID, they can already obtain a Legislative ID if
requested, this would simply allow for them to get one
printed on a key card and utilize it that way.
3:42:19 PM
CHAIR HANNAN took a brief at ease.
3:43:47 PM
Council returned from the at ease.
CHAIR HANNAN said Council will continue with the
presentation and explanation of the badge policy and take
up member questions. She noted a few requests from members
to recess until tomorrow. She said when Council adjourns
today, the next meeting will be after January 1, 2022, but
prior to session convening. There are fewer members
available tomorrow, so we will continue discussion today.
She asked if members have questions about the badge policy.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if this was to provide everyone
in the building with a badge, using different colors, etc.
to indicate who they are.
MS. GEARY said they would be different colors based on
category. Members of the press, lobbyists, legislative
employees, interns, and legislators would have photos on
their ID, contractors and visitors would not. She asked if
that answered the Representative's question.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said yes, but asked for what purpose.
MS. GEARY this ID badge policy is to allow Security to
quickly identify who might be in the building who is not a
legislator or staff.
CHIEF VINSON said this would not only be used by Security,
but by others in the building to identify people. It also
would be effective should we have a viable threat and we
put on additional Security or even the Police Department,
we will already have an ID system in place so people can
identify themselves as being allowed in the building or who
they are in the building. This is something we have sought
for a while, and this would implement it. At any time,
Council could adopt a policy where those need to be
displayed based on future perceived threats.
MS. GEARY noted one other thing this policy does is require
that new staff, within ten days of hire, have their photo
taken with Media Services for display on the intranet,
another helpful tool for Security to identify who belongs
in the building and who does not.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for an example of when someone
does not belong in the building, whether a public member, a
legislator, staff, etc.
MS. GEARY said that was a poor choice of words and will let
Chief Vinson elaborate on what he would be looking for.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for clarification as to what
problem is trying to be solved or an example of an actual
situation. He said he wants action to have a purpose and
does not like locking down the Capitol or adding a burden
to the public.
CHIEF VINSON said this does not require any photos for the
public so it should not be any burden on them. Actual
situations include when people have taken access badges and
used them to enter the Capitol and the ALOB which has
happened several times in his tenure.
CHAIR HANNAN interrupted and summarized Chief Vinson's
comments.
CHIEF VINSON said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said in solving the new hires who do
not get a photo taken, that should be a policy. He did not
understand the necessity of everyone having badges.
MS. GEARY said one advantage to having the public and
visitors register upon entry is really if something
happens, a threat, a fire, etc. - it would help Security
identify who is in the building.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he understand the concept, but did
not see that it was a significant concern.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked if this policy would require
lobbyists to have their photos taken and posted online.
MS. GEARY said yes, their photos would be required to be
taken by Media Services and their photo and name displayed
on our intranet.
SENATOR STEDMAN said he thought this is long overdue. This
discussion has happened over the years with some pushback,
a different issue from what Representative Tuck mentioned.
He said it is a disadvantage to elected officials to not
know who lobbyists are if they do not identify themselves.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he agreed that it would be nice to
have at least the lobbyists on the intranet. He noted that
the press is on the intranet and all staff should be on the
intranet. It is important to identify lobbyists and press,
but he is not yet convinced about the public. He asked to
hear other comments before possibly suggesting an
amendment.
CHAIR HANNAN said a few members from the Subcommittee are
no longer on this call, so she intended to not vote on this
item today but carry this item to the next meeting to allow
everyone an opportunity to explore it further, consider it,
and have questions answered before moving forward. She
asked if there were other questions about the ID badge
policy.
V. ADJOURN
3:58:22 PM
CHAIR HANNAN said seeing no further questions, the meeting
is adjourned.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ALOB Security Services Contract Extension Request to LC 12.13.2021.pdf |
JLEC 12/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Beacon Contract Amendment Memo 12.13.2021.pdf |
JLEC 12/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Amendments to Legislative Procurement Procedures Request to LC 12.13.2021.pdf |
JLEC 12/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Identification Badge Policy 12.16.2021.pdf |
JLEC 12/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Leg Council Meeting Minutes August 16, 2021.pdf |
JLEC 12/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Leg Council Meeting Minutes June 25, 2021.pdf |
JLEC 12/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Leg Council Meeting Minutes June 16, 2021.pdf |
JLEC 12/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Leg Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2021.pdf |
JLEC 12/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Leg Council Teleconference and Video Streaming Policy 12.16.2021.pdf |
JLEC 12/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Revised Agenda--December 16, 2021, Legislative Council Meeting.pdf |
JLEC 12/16/2021 1:00:00 PM |