Legislature(2021 - 2022)
08/18/2022 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
AUGUST 18, 2022
1:00PM
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Sara Hannan, Chair
Senator Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair
Representative Matt Claman
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Chris Tuck
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Gary Stevens
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Cathy Tilton
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Shelley Hughes (alternate)
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Mike Shower
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Jesse Kiehl
AGENDA
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
SPEAKER REGISTER
Jessica Geary, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs Agency
(LAA)
JC Kestel, Procurement Officer, LAA
Megan Wallace, Director, Legal Services, LAA
Emily Nauman, Deputy Director, Legal Services, LAA
1:09:39 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
CHAIR HANNAN called the Legislative Council meeting to order.
Present at the call were Representatives Claman, Hannan, Stutes,
Tuck; Senators Bishop, Reinbold, Stedman, Stevens.
Eight members present.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
1:11:11 PM
VICE CHAIR REINBOLD moved and asked unanimous consent that
Legislative Council approve the agenda as presented.
The motion passed without objection.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1:11:29 PM
VICE CHAIR REINBOLD moved and asked unanimous consent that the
Legislative Council approve the minutes dated February 23, 2022,
and March 23, 2022, as presented.
The motion passed without objection.
IV. COMMITTEE BUSINESS
a. Janitorial Contract renewal
1:12:01 PM
VICE-CHAIR REINBOLD moved that Legislative Council approve renewal
No. 1 of the contract for [the Anchorage Legislative Office
Building] janitorial services with Q1 Services LLC in the amount
not to exceed $56,000.
CHAIR HANNAN objected for the purposes of discussion and asked JC
Kestel to speak to this item.
JC KESTEL, Procurement Officer with the Legislative Affairs Agency,
stated that in each members packet was a memo regarding renewal
No. 1 of the contract with Q1 Services LLC for janitorial services
at the Anchorage Legislative Office Building. The one-year renewal
period is September 1, 2022, through August 31, 2023, with no
funding/price changes.
1:13:20 PM
There were no questions, and a roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Representatives Claman, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck; Senators
Bishop, Reinbold, Stedman, Stevens.
NAYS: None.
The motion passed 8-0.
b. Discovery Preschool Contract Assignment
1:14:11 PM
VICE CHAIR REINBOLD moved that Legislative Council approve the
assignment of a contract for the operation of the childcare center
in the Capitol complex from Rosemary Williams to Kristen Dutson for
the duration of the contract and any optional renewal periods.
CHAIR HANNAN objected for the purposes of discussion and asked Mr.
Kestel to speak to this item. She further noted that Ms. Williams
and Ms. Dutson were on teleconference for questions if necessary.
MR. KESTEL stated that the Discovery Preschool contract
(established by RFP 639) is before Council because the business has
been sold; and, for the contract to continue with the new owner,
Legislative Council must approve a contract assignment to that new
owner. He noted that a detailed memo regarding this item was
included in each members packet.
1:15:47 PM
There were no questions, and a roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Representatives Claman, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck; Senators
Bishop, Reinbold, Stedman, Stevens.
NAYS: None.
The motion passed 8-0.
c. Amendment to the Alaska Legislative Procurement Procedures
1:16:35 PM
VICE CHAIR REINBOLD moved that Legislative Council adopt the
amendment to the Alaska Legislative Procurement Procedures and
allow Legislative Legal to make technical and conforming changes to
the draft amendment.
CHAIR HANNAN objected for the purposes of discussion and asked Mr.
Kestel, Executive Director Jessica Geary, and Legal Services
Director Megan Wallace to address this item.
MR. KESTEL stated that if approved, this amendment would allow the
Agency, or any other subdivision of the Legislature, to solicit and
contract for general contractor and construction management type
contracts. This would bring Legislative Procurement Procedures in
line with most common practices of government procurement and
solicitation.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked if this amendment would allow the
Legislature to engage in design-build contracts where the design
and build is done by the same organization.
MR. KESTEL responded yes.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that the problem he has with design-
build is that once the general contractor is selected, not all the
subcontractors have been pre-determined. The general contractor
will then shop for subcontractor bids without Agency oversight.
Under the current system, the subcontractor bids are normally
included in the overall bid package or are submitted within five
days of bid opening. He said its his belief that the design-build
process advantages certain contractors and doesnt allow for
competition from new or smaller contractors who may not have a
design team on staff. He acknowledged that the design-build model
was more efficient, especially for department or Agency staff, but
also meant those same staff werent as involved in the overall
process. He closed by saying he feels the design-build process was
cumbersome and wasnt fair to subcontractors.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if Agency staff could respond to
Representative Tucks comment.
MS. GEARY stated that the Legislature does not undertake many
construction projects. She believes this is the most efficient and
economical process for getting the Legislatures projects designed
and put together for a total bid package.
MR. KESTEL stated regarding the subcontractor portion, there are
two types of contracts. During the preconstruction services and
work contract for the design portion, subcontractors are disclosed
within five days of requesting the subcontractor list. During the
construction services portion of the negotiations on a project
under design-build, it does allow for the contractor to use
different subcontractors. Once the contract has been successfully
negotiated, the Agency will have the ability to review those
subcontractors before a contract is entered into.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK shared an example of when a design-build
process used by Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
caused harm to an Anchorage neighborhood for which the State took
no responsibility to illustrate his frustration and lack of support
for this type of procurement; however, he noted that he was not
opposed to the Agency using a design-build process.
MS. GEARY clarified that this amendment allows the ability to enter
into this type of contract, but it isnt a requirement. Any big
contract would still need to come before Legislative Council and
the use of a Proposal Evaluation Committee for award.
CHAIR HANNAN noted that Senator Kiehl has been present since the
beginning of the meeting.
1:29:07 PM
There were no further comments or questions, and a roll call vote
was taken.
YEAS: Representatives Claman, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck; Senators
Bishop, Reinbold, Stedman, Stevens.
NAYS: None.
The motion passed 8-0.
d. Office of Victims Rights Attorney Compensation
1:29:50 PM
VICE CHAIR REINBOLD moved that (1) Legislative Council approve a
transfer of $75,000 from Legislative Council Funds to the Office of
Victims' Rights for the purpose of placing four attorneys on the
new attorney salary schedule in AS 39.27.011(l); (2) that
Legislative Council direct the Legislative Affairs Agency to
request an FY23 supplemental to cover the transferred funds and an
FY24 increment, and (3) that Legislative Council authorize
legislation for consideration of the 33rd Legislature to amend AS
24.65.060 and AS 24.65.070 accordingly.
CHAIR HANNAN objected for the purposes of discussion and asked Ms.
Geary speak to this item.
MS. GEARY said HB 226 was intended to give State of Alaska
attorneys a 15% raise effective October 31, 2022, as a recruitment
and retention tool; however, the four attorneys in the Office of
Victims Rights (OVR) were inadvertently excluded in the bill. The
motion before Legislative Council would ensure OVR attorneys
receive the salary increase through a FY2023 supplemental request,
as well as a FY2024 increment request as a placeholder for a
statutory amendment, if necessary, to make the increase permanent.
Without this action, OVR is at a disadvantage in competing to fill
attorney positions and being left out of the original bill was
unfortunate and demoralizing for existing staff. She noted that
Katherine Hansen, the Acting Victims Rights Advocate, is on the
phone for questions as well.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated that not including the Office of
Victims Rights attorneys was a mistake and asked if there was any
precedent that allowed Legislative Council to correct a legislative
mistake like this and pay someone more than was authorized by
legislative action.
MS. GEARY stated the Legislature can operate within existing
authority and Legislative Council can approve a transfer of funds;
however, a permanent fix will require action in the next
legislature. This motion would be a band-aid to get through the
rest of this fiscal year.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN clarified that his question was whether
Legislative Council has the authority to authorize a pay raise
which, through a mistake, the Legislature did not authorize.
MS. GEARY responded that she worked with Legal Services Director
Megan Wallace and Human Resources Manager Skiff Lobaugh on crafting
this solution, and asked Ms. Wallace to speak to his question.
MS. WALLACE, Legal Services Director, stated she concurred with Ms.
Geary that the proposal before Legislative Council is a temporary
fix and not a long-term solution. Specific to his question,
Legislative Council does not have the authority to override
statutes, or to amend or change the law as was passed by the
Legislature, but there is some flexibility with respect to the
compensation of the attorneys at the Office of Victims Rights. She
said AS 24.65.070 relates to the compensation of OVR staff and the
statutory authority governing pay is very broad and gives a lot of
discretion to the Victims Advocate and the Legislature to
determine pay. The permanent solution that the motion contemplates
would be to amend that statute to expressly state that OVR
attorneys will be compensated at the attorney rate that was passed
in HB 226. Ms. Wallace said it is her opinion that the Legislature
does have some flexibility to determine compensation in this
temporary manner.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked Ms. Wallace if section 24.65.070(a)
gives enough flexibility that Legislative Council can overlook the
Legislatures mistake for the current fiscal year.
MS. WALLACE said that 24.65.070(a) combined with (c), which
specifically says that the staff are in the exempt service and are
not subject to the employment policy under AS 24.10 or 24.20 allows
this action.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked if the Legislature does not pass a
statute next session, would it result in a pay cut in FY24 for the
attorneys at the Office of Victims' Rights.
MS. WALLACE said that was correct. She said that since there was no
permanent statutory solution available during the interim, this
temporary solution before Council would allow OVR attorneys to
receive the same pay raise until a statutory fix is possible in the
next legislative session. Without a statutory change, it was her
opinion that there was a risk to continuing this temporary solution
beyond the current fiscal year.
SENATOR REINBOLD agreed with Representative Claman.
1:42:35 PM
There were no further questions or comments, and a roll call vote
was taken.
CHAIR HANNAN called a brief at ease during the roll call when it
appeared that Senator Stedmans call had been dropped. Senator
Stedman was reconnected, and the roll call resumed.
YEAS: Representatives Claman, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck; Senators
Bishop, Reinbold, Stedman, Stevens.
NAYS: None.
The motion passed 8-0.
e. Update to Legislative Council Social Media Policy
CHAIR HANNAN said that members were considering draft #2 of the
Social Media Policy, asked Ms. Geary to summarize this draft, and
noted that Legal Services Director Megan Wallace, Deputy Director
Emily Nauman and Attorney Noah Klein were available for questions.
MS. GEARY stated the new draft social media policy would replace
the 2011 policy. She said these are recommendations, not mandates.
If members were to follow all the recommendations, the likelihood
of a lawsuit would be very small and unlikely to have merit. This
policy does not prohibit a legislator from allowing posts and self-
monitoring the comments and content. It simply says that if members
choose to do so and block or censor any commenters, they will be
personally liable for any legal fees and no State funds will be
used. This policy does not render existing platform protections
useless as one can still flag inappropriate or defamatory content
for review and potential removal by platform officials. She
continued that using social media as a bulletin board by disabling
interaction might not be how members choose to conduct business and
that is a choice each legislator must make. If a legislator is sued
for deleting comments or blocking someone, they will be personally
liable for their own legal defense. This policy protects the
Legislature from unknown legal costs and the need for Legislative
Council to make case by case decisions based on each individual
social media decision.
SENATOR REINBOLD cited sections of the Alaska and U.S. Constitution
and stated that she believed the draft policy violated those
sections and restricted legislators unconstitutionally. She said a
First Amendment lawyer should be at this meeting.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if an attorney could speak on the subject.
MS. WALLACE stated that, in her opinion, the draft policy does not
present any First Amendment concerns by means of restricting the
freedom of speech of legislators because the information set out in
the policy are a best practices guide. This gives legislators some
guidelines to follow for the least amount of risk of the individual
legislator being challenged for infringing on the free speech of
someone who is interacting on the legislators social media page.
These guidelines as drafted do not mandate any action, do not
mandate that legislators have a social media account, and do not
mandate what type of account a legislator decides to maintain. It
sets expectations that if a legislator creates a public forum and
allows interaction (comments and posts) to be made by the public,
then subsequently blocks, deletes, or takes some other action that
potentially gives rise to a claim of infringement of free speech or
some other claim, that legislator will bear all the risk of that
action.
SENATOR STEVENS agreed that the policy does not restrict the rights
of legislators, but rather protects the State by noting that the
legislator bears all the risk by blocking a commenter. He said he
was comfortable with the draft as written.
SENATOR REINBOLD disagreed with Ms. Wallace and, pointing to
portions of the draft policy, asked what defines a personal and
official social media account.
MS. GEARY responded that an official legislative account would not
be managed by the State. Those designations are simply suggesting
that a legislators personal account, which is for family and
friends, should be kept separate from an account that would be
considered official which would be used to post about constituent
gatherings, legislation, etc. those things pertaining to ones
duties as a legislator. She said she recognizes sometimes these
areas blend and restated that these are just recommendations for
the lowest risk of litigation possible and based on past court
cases where courts have determined what constitutes an official
account versus a personal account.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked what an official legislative account is.
MS. GEARY stated that what this policy is contemplating is that an
official account would be one where members post about legislative
business. The format would depend on the social media platform
structure; and this policy recommends that you designate or create
an account or page that specifies that you are a public official,
and that account or page should be kept separate from an account or
page for personal matters on the same platform.
SENATOR REINBOLD stated that the wording for an official account is
wrong and that there is no such thing as an official legislative
account.
MS. GEARY asked Senator Reinbold for a recommendation for an
amendment to clarify the policy language.
SENATOR REINBOLD stated that she fundamentally disagrees with the
policy.
CHAIR HANNAN reminded members that she, as Chair, directed staff to
provide a draft policy based on emerging knowledge, discussion at
several meetings, and members concerns and input as to what they
would like to see in such a policy. This area continues to be
concerning and the current social media guidelines are not
adequate, and the goal of Legislative Council policies is to
provide members of the Legislature guidance and direction as
needed. This document remains a draft that Legislative Council
continues to craft and there is no anticipated motion to adopt it
at this meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked, other than Colorado, what other state
policies have been reviewed and how does this draft compare to
Colorados policy.
EMILY NAUMAN, Deputy Director of Legal Services, stated that this
draft was very similar to the Colorado policy.
MS. GEARY stated that Colorado took a more restrictive approach
because they had to pay for several lawsuits. How states choose to
handle social media is very different, but broadly it seemed that
if a legislator has a social media account to interact with
constituents, which creates a public forum, then they cannot block
people from doing so. Other state policies and approaches were
considered when crafting the draft before members.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN followed up to ask whether this draft policy,
which is similar to Colorado's, was recommended in order to protect
the Alaska Legislature from being financially responsible for the
actions of individual legislators.
MS. GEARY confirmed that was correct.
SENATOR STEVENS agreed with the policy but acknowledged that there
were not enough votes present for it to pass. With agreement of the
Chair, he moved to table the discussion until the next meeting.
2:10:08 PM
The discussion was tabled without objection.
CHAIR HANNAN requested that any specific comments members would
like integrated into the Social Media Policy prior to the next
meeting be sent in writing to her staff Tim Clark or Executive
Director Jessica Geary. She noted that in the absence of hearing
any feedback, there was an assumption that the draft was
acceptable.
V. ADJOURN
2:12:01 PM
There being no further business before the committee, the meeting
was adjourned at 2:12 PM.