Legislature(2023 - 2024)ANCH LIO DENALI Rm
12/12/2024 09:30 AM 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 12, 2024
9:30 AM
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson, Chair
Representative Kevin McCabe, Vice Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Matt Claman
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Senator Bert Stedman (alternate)
Senator Gary Stevens
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Cathy Tilton
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Donny Olson
Representative Craig Johnson
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Jesse Bjorkman
Senator Cathy Giessel
Representative Louise Stutes
AGENDA
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CONTRACT APPROVALS
OLD COMMITTEE BUSINESS
EXECUTIVE SESSION
NEW COMMITTEE BUSINESS
SPEAKER REGISTER
Jessica Geary, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs Agency
(LAA)
JC Kestel, Procurement Officer, LAA
Shay Wilson, Chief Information Officer, LAA
Tim Powers, Chief Technology and Outreach Officer, LAA
Emily Nauman, Director, Legal Services, LAA
Sara Race, Account Executive Gartner
I. CALL TO ORDER
9:32:58 AM
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON called the Legislative Council meeting to
order in the Anchorage Legislative Information Office Denali
Room. Present at the call were: Senators Bishop, Claman,
Hoffman, Kiehl, Stedman, Stevens, Gray-Jackson;
Representatives Edgmon, Hannan, Tilton, McCabe.
Eleven members present.
Representative Saddler joined at 9:46am and Representative
Rauscher joined at 9:49am, both via teleconference.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
9:34:55 AM
VICE CHAIR MCCABE moved and asked unanimous consent that the
Legislative Council approve the agenda as presented.
The motion passed without objection.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
9:35:20 AM
VICE CHAIR MCCABE moved that Legislative Council approve the
minutes for the September 26, 2024, meeting as presented.
The motion passed without objection.
IV. CONTRACT APPROVALS
a. Anchorage Security Contract Renewal
9:35:41 AM
VICE CHAIR MCCABE moved that the Legislative Council approve
renewal number 2 of the contract for armed security services
with Security Services Northwest in an amount not to exceed
$199,449.20.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for the purpose of discussion and
asked that JC Kestel, Procurement Officer, speak to the item.
JC KESTEL, Procurement Officer, Legislative Affairs Agency
(LAA), stated that in the packet is a memorandum regarding a
renewal of the current contract (Renewal No. 1) with Security
Services Northwest for armed security services at the
Anchorage Legislative Office Building currently set to expire
on December 31, 2024. The Legislative Affairs Agency is
satisfied with the contractor's performance and requests
Legislative Council's approval to proceed with Renewal No. 2.
This renewal would extend the contract for the period of
January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025. If approved, three
additional one-year renewal options will remain before a new
solicitation is required.
SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS asked if the contracted security
officer also patrols Wells Fargo and does Wells Fargo have
their own security officer. He asked if the legislature should
offer security services to Wells Fargo as a tenant to keep
them in the building and continue to help offset the Anchorage
Legislative Office Building (ALOB) operating costs.
MR. KESTEL responded that the legislature is not responsible
for the Wells Fargo area. Wells Fargo is to contract their
own security officer, which they do not have currently.
Extending security services to them would need to be discussed
with the Executive Director and Legislative Council Chair to
amend the contract and extend their duties. The contract
currently does not include the coverage of Wells Fargo.
SENATOR CLAMAN offered praise to the security team.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked if the dollar amount was for 24/7
coverage.
MR. KESTEL responded that the coverage was Monday through
Friday 7am-6pm with two to three evening patrols and as needed
for extra duties on weekends.
There was no further discussion. Chair Gray-Jackson removed
her objection and asked for a roll call vote.
9:40:35 AM
YEAS: Senators Bishop, Claman, Hoffman, Kiehl, Stedman,
Stevens, Gray-Jackson; Representatives Edgmon, Hannan,
Tilton, McCabe
NAYS: none
The motion passed 11-0.
b. Technology Services Contract
9:41:30 AM
VICE CHAIR MCCABE moved that Legislative Council approve a
three-year partnership with Gartner and a Year 1 price of
$179,200.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for purposes of discussion and
asked Shay Wilson, Chief Information Officer, and Tim Powers,
Chief Technology and Outreach Officer, as well as Sara Race,
Account Executive with Gartner, to speak to this item.
SHAY WILSON, Chief Information Officer, LAA, referred members
to the related memo in their packets and said he planned to
speak to the issue this contract is trying to solve. He said
technology is a fast moving industry where a significant
effort must be spent to keep up with changes. Recently
technology is becoming a more vital component and touching
more aspects of our work. Despite the awe-inspiring
collection of talent the legislature has cultivated in your
Division of Technology and Information (DTI), we simply
cannot be experts in every new technology and the costs of
missed opportunity and choosing the wrong technology are just
too high.
Mr. Wilson continued that after choosing technologies, and
carefully configuring and securing to protect our systems
from the severe costs of a cybersecurity incident, DTI could
use expert guidance and a second set of eyes overlooking our
work to help us find the right technologies and in assessing
and finding our blind spots. Mr. Wilson then introduced Sara
Race to talk about how Gartner might address some of these
issues.
SARA RACE, Account Executive, Gartner, presented an overview
of Gartner's expertise and proposed support for the
Legislature. She highlighted Gartner's 46 years of experience
as a leading research and advisory firm, emphasizing their
ability to deliver unbiased information and a vendor-agnostic
approach. This contract would allow DTI access to over 2,500
subject matter experts who have experience providing IT
support for organizations across all business functions, from
Fortune 500 companies to the White House to local governments,
as well as international organizations. Gartner's depth and
range of experience ensures awareness of the latest
technology trends and pitfalls. This allows Gartner to better
advise and direct an organization's use of limited resources.
Ms. Race explained that Gartner's support in this contract
would focus on three primary areas: cybersecurity and
information risk management, efficient IT management and cost
optimization, and AI implementation to achieve operational
outcomes. She highlighted the importance of ensuring
preparedness against cyberattacks, aligning risk tolerance
levels, and benchmarking against industry standards.
Additionally, Gartner would support in assessing current IT
operations, identifying gaps, and recommending best practices
to improve services and optimize costs. In the area of AI,
she stressed the value of clear definitions and strategic
frameworks to align initiatives with agency objectives and
prevent cost overruns.
Ms. Race emphasized Gartner's service model is designed to
support a wide range of needs beyond the three outlined
initiatives. She concluded by reiterating the importance of
leveraging Gartner's unbiased insights and comprehensive
resources to ensure the legislature can make informed,
strategic decisions that align technology initiatives with
agency and legislative needs.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED focused on the potential risks and
benefits of artificial intelligence (AI) for the legislature.
Senate President Stevens highlighted nationwide concerns
about AI and asked for insights from Ms. Race, who stressed
the importance of defining AI before addressing its
implications. She referenced a prior executive briefing on
AI's impact and best practices.
Representative Edgmon inquired whether the AI partnership
could assist in policy making, including enforcing legal
penalties. Ms. Race clarified that while Gartner can provide
research and best practices, it does not offer policy
guidance.
Senator Bishop asked if Gartner had reviewed the State's IT
program for gaps and whether, if approved, the partnership
would include assessments for LAA. Ms. Race confirmed that no
partnership has been established yet but emphasized the value
of self-assessments for cybersecurity and operations. She
affirmed that Gartner would provide these assessments to LAA.
Senator Claman asked about the frequency of updates on the
assessment process. Mr. Wilson explained that updates are
typically provided through the IT Subcommittee, which reports
to the Legislative Council, but a direct reporting method
could be established if needed.
JESSICA GEARY, Executive Director, LAA, at the request of
Senate President Stevens, said that she fully supports the
proposal, emphasizing the value of an external firm ensuring
alignment with industry best practices in a rapidly evolving
landscape. She views it as a responsible measure to safeguard
legislative operations and is open to reporting updates as
needed, depending on the findings and appropriate reporting
level.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON noted that Alaska is in the early stages
of AI policy development and referenced a past AI-related
bill that did not pass. He asked whether the proposed
arrangement with the advisory firm would support the
legislature in developing AI policy by providing information
through LAA. He also compared AI policy to broadband
regulation, highlighting the need for legislative action and
wondered if this partnership would facilitate that process.
SENATOR BISHOP, in follow-up to Representative Edgmon's
comment, acknowledged the perceived significant cost of the
proposed arrangement but emphasized the need for perspective,
suggesting that if compared to the potential financial impact
of a legislative shutdown, that would likely outweigh the
expense of this proposal which seems to him a bargain.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON thanked the previous speaker and members
for the discussion and before withdrawing her objection
expressed familiarity with Gartner, noting its successful
partnership with the Municipality of Anchorage, and voiced
support for the Legislative Affairs Agency's proposed
partnership, pending the vote. Seeing no other comments, she
withdrew her objection and asked for a roll call vote.
10:03:07 AM
YEAS: Senators Bishop, Claman, Hoffman, Kiehl, Stedman,
Stevens, Gray-Jackson; Representatives Edgmon, Hannan,
Tilton, McCabe
NAYS: Representative Rauscher
The motion passes 11-1.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Representative Rauscher intended to vote
yes on this item but was participating via teleconference and
misunderstood the motion.
V. OLD COMMITTEE BUSINESS
a. Social Media Policy
10:04:07 AM
VICE CHAIR MCCABE moved that the Legislative Council adopt
the Social Media Policy as amended and authorize the
Legislative Affairs Agency the authority to make technical
and conforming changes.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for purposes of discussion and
asked Emily Nauman, Director, Legal Services, to speak to the
item.
10:04:33 AM
Council took a brief at-ease.
10:14:16 AM
Council returned from a brief at-ease.
10:14:20 AM
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON repeated her objection and requested Emily
Nauman to speak to the item.
EMILY NAUMAN, Legal Services Director, LAA, began by
reminding the committee that the U.S. Supreme Court issued a
ruling on the use of social media by public officials in the
Lindke v. Freed case (March 2024), which resulted in Legal
Services proposing updates to the Social Media Policy at the
April 30, 2024, Legislative Council meeting; those updates
were not adopted. In response to questions and comments at
that meeting, Legal Services amended the proposed updates as
follows:
Recommendation 1(d) was updated to include a suggestion that
if the information being posted was available elsewhere,
legislators include a link to the other option, as courts are
more likely to view exclusive postings as an official
government action. This change, proposed by Senator Claman,
provides evidence that the information is publicly
accessible, reducing the risk of First Amendment violations.
Recommendation 2 was updated to acknowledge that not all
social media platforms allow universal comment disabling,
noting that where that option was available, it should be
used and further advising legislators to turn off comments
where possible or manage them on a post-by-post basis.
Recommendation 5 was added to clarify when legislators can
legally filter, hide, or block comments and users, regarding
the removal of obscene content which should not constitute
viewpoint discrimination.
Ms. Nauman concluded by emphasizing that Lindke serves as a
framework for determining whether public officials' social
media actions could be considered government conduct and, if
so, whether they infringe on First Amendment rights.
VICE CHAIR MCCABE asked Ms. Nauman if, under Lindke, whether
a legislator, who he said cannot solely represent the State,
could ever be considered a public official with exclusive
authority to speak for the State.
MS. NAUMAN responded explaining that under Lindke, "State
action" requires both possessing and exercising actual
authority, making it difficult for an individual legislator
to meet this two-pronged test. While roles like committee
chairs or legislative leaders might come closer, Alaska's
public records system (BASIS) reduces the likelihood of
exclusive authority to make committee announcements or
exclusive authority for leadership announcements as it takes
an entire body to make a decision. Ms. Nauman said as she
understands Lindke, it would make it very difficult for an
individual legislator to act with the authority of the state;
she qualified her response by saying that Lindke is related
to a municipal employee, therefore this is still a gap in
legal precedent to know how the courts would take that
decision and apply it to legislators.
VICE CHAIR MCCABE emphasized that, unlike a mayor or city
manager who holds sole authority to act for their entity, an
individual legislator cannot act unilaterally without votes
from others and the governor. He stressed the importance of
this distinction and indicated he had additional amendments
to propose.
10:21:14 AM
VICE CHAIR MCCABE moved to amend page 1 paragraph 2 by adding
the word "solely" to the last sentence so it reads, "it is
the policy of Legislative Council that a legislator assumes
all risk and responsibility for legal defense of any action
resulted from filtering, deleting, or hiding comments on a
social media post related to legislative matters or from
blocking, banning, or otherwise restricting user access to a
social media account used solely for legislative matters.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for purposes of discussion.
SENATOR CLAMAN asked a clarifying question on the proposed
amendment, that the word "solely" is being added on the last
line of the paragraph before "legislative matters."
VICE CHAIR MCCABE responded stating that was correct.
MS. NAUMAN noted that this policy change is a Council decision
but could shift its meaning by raising the question of Council
liability for social media accounts that mix legislative and
personal content, a concern highlighted in Lindke.
VICE CHAIR MCCABE contended that without the word "solely",
the policy could infringe on legislators' First Amendment
rights by restricting their ability to discuss legislative
matters on personal social media accounts. He emphasized that
State officials have private lives and constitutional rights,
including the ability to share job-related information and
control speech on their personal platforms.
MS. NAUMAN acknowledged the concern and clarified that the
policy primarily defines when the Legislative Council would
cover a legislator's legal defense. She noted that adding
"solely" raises the question of whether the Council would
defend legislators sued over mixed-use social media accounts.
While supporting the legislator's First Amendment rights, she
also cited Lindke, which warns that failing to separate
personal and official posts increases liability.
VICE CHAIR MCCABE responded expressing appreciation for the
discussion as well as concern that without the word "solely"
the policy could expose the legislature to a First Amendment
lawsuit from legislators who feel it restricts their ability
to share job-related updates on personal social media. He
argued that such a restriction could be legally challenged as
a violation of free speech rights.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED between Ms. Nauman and Senator Claman,
focused on whether adding the word "solely" to the Social
Media Policy would impact legislators' ability to seek legal
representation from the Legislative Council. Clarifying that
the policy as presented without "solely" would categorically
deny coverage for litigation related to social media actions.
Noting that adding "solely" could create flexibility,
allowing legislators with mixed-use accounts to request
defense, as the policy would then apply only to accounts used
exclusively for legislative matters. The Legislative Council
would continue to evaluate such requests on a case-by-case
basis.
SENATOR CLAMAN concluded his questions by verifying his
understanding that adding "solely" would give legislators
more flexibility to request legal representation from the
Legislative Council, which would decide on a case-by-case
basis.
MS. NAUMAN confirmed that is how she reads it, yes.
VICE CHAIR MCCABE said that if a legislator posts non-
legislative content, their account would no longer be
considered "solely for legislative matters". He then asked
whether any legislative Facebook accounts are funded,
operated, or managed by the legislature on behalf of a
legislator.
MS. GEARY answered she was unaware of any legislative Facebook
accounts funded or operated by the State, though caucus press
staff might have accounts, but not State-funded ones.
VICE CHAIR MCCABE noted that Lindke considers whether a social
media account is state-managed or funded. He referenced the
Alaska Public Offices Commission's (APOC) view that personal
effort in maintaining an account equates to personal funding.
Since legislators fund their own accounts, the legislature
would not be obligated to defend them if they choose to use
an account solely for legislative matters.
MS. NAUMAN responded that Lindke suggests using State
resources, such as staff or a State computer, to manage a
social media account could indicate State action.
SENATOR BISHOP stated that he is unfamiliar with social media
and asked if blocking someone on Facebook is equivalent to
refusing mailed responses to a newsletter and whether there
is a legal connection between the two actions.
MS. NAUMAN responded that a newsletter differs from social
media because it does not create a public forum for
interaction. Courts have ruled that allowing comments on a
social media account establishes a public forum, meaning
officials cannot remove posts based on viewpoint. Unlike a
newsletter, where responses are private, deleting comments or
blocking users from a public social media forum can raise
First Amendment concerns.
SENATOR BISHOP clarified that "solely" creates the ability
for legislators to come to Legislative Council and ask if
they would defend them or not.
MS. NAUMAN responded yes.
VICE CHAIR MCCABE suggested a better analogy could be
comparing a legislator's Facebook page to a public bulletin
board they maintain. He said that, under Lindke, a legislator
has the right to remove inappropriate content posted by
others, just as they could remove unauthorized material from
their bulletin board. He continued that the policy
effectively advises legislators to "lock up" their bulletin
board by disabling comments.
MS. NAUMAN agreed that a bulletin board is a better analogy
for Facebook, while a newsletter reflects a no-comment social
media account. Her advice as a conservative approach is for
legislators to remove all third-party posts from their
bulletin boards to avoid creating a public forum. Courts allow
removal of obscene content, but the key legal issue is
viewpoint discriminationremoving only certain perspectives
could lead to legal challenges under Lindke.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether the policy allows an
existing account to switch from allowing comments to a no-
comment setting or if this restriction applies only from the
account's creation.
MS. NAUMAN stated that most social media platforms allow users
to toggle comment settings post by post, even after an account
is created. She noted that LAA staff could provide technical
details but emphasized that users can generally control
comments individually for different posts.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether a social media account
can switch to a legislative-only, no-comment setting after
previously allowing comments on non-legislative posts.
MS. NAUMAN confirmed her understanding that social media
settings can be changed but acknowledged she is not an expert
and suggested others may have more technical knowledge.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON reminded members to please speak clearly
into the microphone so there is an accurate recording.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON highlighted the key issue of whether to
keep the policy general or add the word "solely", creating a
strict threshold for legislative social media use. He
acknowledged both perspectives and sought further discussion
on whether the policy should remain flexible or impose a
specific standard that the Legislative Council would later
have to interpret.
VICE CHAIR MCCABE explained that his understanding of his
amendment is that adding "solely" would allow legislators to
create a dedicated legislative page following policy
guidelines, while preserving their First Amendment rights to
discuss legislative matters on personal pages. Without
"solely," he argued the policy could restrict legislators
from posting about their job on personal accounts. The intent
was to clarify that official legislative pages must follow
specific rules to qualify for Legislative Council
representation.
10:46:43 AM
Council took a brief at-ease.
10:51:16 AM
Council returned from a brief at-ease.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON, seeing no other discussion, removed her
objection and asked for a roll call vote.
10:51:27 AM
YEAS: Senators Claman, Gray-Jackson; Representatives,
Rauscher, Tilton, McCabe
NAYS: Senators Bishop, Hoffman, Kiehl, Stedman, Stevens;
Representatives Edgmon, Hannan, Saddler
The motion failed 5-8.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Representative Saddler voted "nay" but
was announced as a "yea" on the record, which reflected a 6
yea, 7 nay vote tally. This discrepancy doesn't change the
outcome of the vote.
10:52:50 AM
VICE CHAIR MCCABE moved to amend page one, paragraph 1(c) by
striking the first clause so it would read as amended: If
sharing official information, do not invoke the authority of
the legislature when sharing the information; and?". He said
that the clause is unnecessary and redundant as existing
policies already govern how official information should be
communicated. Additionally, the clause risks infringing upon
legislators' First Amendment rights by imposing vague
restrictions on communication with constituents; removing
this language ensures clarity while respecting constitutional
protections.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED to confirm which language the motion
intended to strike.
VICE CHAIR MCCABE confirmed that his motion was to strike "Do
not share official information and," so the clause would read
as amended: "If sharing official information, do not invoke
the authority of the legislature when sharing that
information; and?"
MS. NAUMAN commented that this amendment is another policy
decision. She noted that sharing official information is a
key factor in determining state action under Lindke. While
agreeing with Representative McCabe that an individual
legislator is unlikely to be deemed a "State actor," she
emphasized that the most cautious legal advice would be to
avoid sharing official information to minimize risk.
SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS asked whether the policy would
restrict press availabilities, as they involve sharing
official information about legislative activities, committee
actions, and bill progress. He asked if sharing official
information in that context would be considered invoking the
authority of the legislature.
MS. NAUMAN commented that she initially considered the policy
in relation to committee schedules and had not considered
press availabilities. She said such information is available
elsewhere (e.g., BASIS, KTOO's Gavel Alaska), however, if
that information was only available on a legislator's
Facebook page and nowhere else, she would advise that
legislators avoid deleting comments on that press
availability post or block an individual from being able to
view it.
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether "official information" has a
specific definition in this context and if there is a test to
determine what qualifies, citing committee schedules as an
example.
MS. NAUMAN responded that Lindke focused on a city manager's
unilateral actions, making it a less direct fit for
legislators. She grappled with defining "official
information" in a legislative context but suggested it could
include committee schedules, as they inform public
participation.
SENATOR KIEHL expressed support for the amendment,
questioning whether "official information" could include a
Senator's stance on a bill and emphasizing the importance of
clear guidelines for social media use.
SENATOR CLAMAN expressed support for the amendment, citing
constituent meetings as an example. He argued that
legislators commonly use social media to advertise such
meetings, which are official acts of individual legislators
but not the legislature as a whole. Removing "do not share
official information" prevents unnecessary restrictions,
while keeping "do not invoke the authority of the legislature"
ensures legislators do not falsely imply full legislative
endorsement.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON, seeing no other discussion, removed her
objection and asked for a roll call vote.
11:02:19 AM
YEAS: Senators Bishop, Claman, Hoffman, Kiehl, Stedman,
Stevens, Gray-Jackson; Representatives Edgmon, Hannan,
Rauscher, Saddler, McCabe
NAYS: none
The motion passed 12-0.
11:03:12 AM
VICE CHAIR MCCABE moved to amend page three, paragraph five
by either deleting or modifying it to align with the Lindke
decision. Specifically, the following paragraph should be
addressed where it says "Viewpoint discrimination by a State
actor is generally found by the courts to be an infringement
of the speaker's First Amendment rights. Viewpoint
discrimination occurs when a State actor treats a person's
speech differently based on their opinion or perspective on
a subject. For example, if a State actor deletes social media
comments that criticize a fisheries policy but allows other
speech about the fisheries policy, that would be viewpoint
discrimination. As noted above, one's view of what
constitutes an exception to free speech, such as obscenity or
libel, can differ substantially from another's. While in
deleting a comment you might not feel that you are practicing
viewpoint discrimination, a dispute on the issue could lead
to a court to view your justification for the deletion as a
pretext for practicing viewpoint discrimination."
Vice Chair McCabe said that the paragraph risks overstating
or mischaracterizing the application of the First Amendment
protections, particularly following Lindke. He clarified he
is specifically speaking here of everyone's First Amendment
protections, including a legislator's First Amendment
protections. He continued the Lindke decision clarified
distinctions between private and official actions. He said
legislators must have a clear and actionable policy that
avoids overreach and respects legislators' constitutional
rights. Removing or revising the paragraph ensures that the
policy is legally sound and does not create unintended
restrictions or usurp a legislators First Amendment rights
on his own personal social media pages.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
SENATOR BISHOP asked for a copy of the amendment.
MS. NAUMAN commented that it is another policy decision, and
the amendment is, essentially, a deletion of paragraph five,
all of paragraph five.
VICE CHAIR MCCABE clarified his motion stating a desire to
delete or to edit the paragraph. He restated his understanding
that the current paragraph restricts legislators' First
Amendment rights, which the court has ruled unconstitutional,
and suggested revising or replacing it.
MS. NAUMAN explained that the paragraph was added to provide
guidance, not restrict First Amendment rights. The policy
clarifies that the Legislative Council generally will not
defend legislators sued over social media actions but offers
best practices to minimize legal risk. Lindke serves as a
threshold test to determine if a legislator is acting as a
State official. If so, the paragraph advises caution in
actions like selectively deleting posts to avoid potential
First Amendment violations.
SENATOR BISHOP clarified his understanding that section five
is reaffirming sections one, two, three, and four.
MS. NAUMAN clarified and described the policy as a series of
cautionary steps for legislators using social media. It
advises against blocking comments or users but, if done,
suggests clarifying the account is personal. If blocking is
necessary, it should not apply to legislative posts. The final
guidance in section five warns against deleting comments or
blocking users based on viewpoint to avoid potential
litigation.
SENATOR BISHOP clarified his understanding using an analogy
of section five as the advice "don't touch the stove, its
hot.
MS. NAUMAN affirmed Senator Bishop is correct with his
analogy.
SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS had a comment on technical
proceedings and expressed concern that the amendment's
wording, "either delete or modify", lacks clarity and does
not provide a clear resolution. He suggested the amendment
should explicitly state whether to delete the paragraph or
specify a particular modification.
VICE CHAIR MCCABE reiterated his primary concern, that as he
reads it, the paragraph incorrectly defines legislators as
State actors without aligning with Lindke, which specifies
State actors must have the authority to speak for the State.
He expressed concern that this misalignment could expose
legislators to legal challenges for social media activity on
personal pages. Since there was no time to clarify the
language with Legislative Legal, he proposed removing the
paragraph to avoid potential misinterpretation by the courts.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON suggested that Vice Chair McCabe amend his
motion to just say "delete", instead of "amend or delete",
based on the procedural concerns raised by Senate President
Stevens.
VICE CHAIR MCCABE stated that he is happy to amend his motion
and that his intent with this was to clarify the distinction
between a "State actor" and a "State actor with the authority
to speak for the State, as defined in Lindke, and invited
corrections if mistaken.
MS. NAUMAN responded that she interpreted "State actor" in
the paragraph as referring to Lindke's test for determining
whether someone is acting as a State official or a private
citizen. She reaffirmed the advice, explained that if a
legislator is deemed a State official under Lindke, they
should avoid blocking, banning, or filtering content based on
viewpoint.
VICE CHAIR MCCABE restated his assertion that since
legislators lack the authority to speak for the State, the
paragraph is problematic because it implies otherwise.
MS. NAUMAN responded acknowledging that while it is unlikely
a court would find an individual legislator acting on behalf
of the legislature, no definitive Supreme Court ruling exists
to fully exclude that possibility. She emphasized that Lindke
is not a perfect fit for legislators, and her advice is a
cautious legal approach to mitigate potential risk.
11:14:38 AM
VICE CHAIR MCCABE moved to amend his motion to delete the
fifth paragraph in its entirety on page three.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for the purposes of discussion.
SENATOR CLAMAN stated his support for the first two points,
but not the third.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked a clarifying question on what
the exact amendment is.
MS. GEARY responded that it is her understanding that the
amendment would delete all of subsection five and asked
Representative McCabe to confirm.
VICE CHAIR MCCABE clarified that the amendment would remove
only the paragraph under subsection five while keeping the
bolded statement. He objects to the "State actor" language,
contesting that without specifying "with the ability to speak
for the State," it could wrongly imply that all legislators
meet that definition. He also noted that existing court cases,
including Lindke, do not clearly apply to legislators, in his
opinion rendering the recommendation unnecessary.
SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS interjected with a parliamentary
procedure question noting that there are two motions to
address: one to "either delete or modify" and an amendment
specifying "delete."
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON acknowledged that Senate President Stevens
is correct and there being no further discussion removed her
objection before asking for a roll call vote.
11:17:59 AM
Council took a brief at-ease.
11:18:46 AM
Council returned from a brief at-ease.
VICE CHAIR MCCABE clarified that he is offering a revised
amendment to remove all non-bolded text so that the paragraph
would read "If you choose to filter, delete, or hide comments,
or block or ban individuals, do not filter, delete, or hide
comments, or block or ban individuals based on viewpoint."
11:19:37 AM
Council took a brief at-ease.
11:19:53 AM
Council returned from a brief at-ease.
VICE CHAIR MCCABE withdrew his amendment to his first
amendment, then withdrew the first amendment.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON asked Vice Chair McCabe for an amendment.
11:20:08 AM
VICE CHAIR MCCABE moved to strike all non-bolded text under
paragraph five so that paragraph five would then read, "If
you choose to filter, delete, or hide comments, or block or
ban individuals, do not filter delete, or hide comments or
block or ban individuals based on viewpoint."
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS inquired on Ms. Nauman's comments on
the proposed amendment.
MS. NAUMAN stated that the discussion on the previous
amendment that was withdrawn is the same as this one.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON, seeing no other comments, asked for a
roll call vote.
11:21:05 AM
YEAS: Senators Stedman; Representatives Rauscher, McCabe,
Saddler
NAYS: Senators Bishop, Claman, Hoffman, Kiehl, Stevens, Gray-
Jackson; Representatives Edgmon, Hannan
The motion failed 4-8.
11:22:15 AM
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON noted the committee is now back to the
main motion to adopt the Social Media Policy as amended.
Seeing her previous objection for the purpose of discussion
has yet to be removed, she inquired if there was any further
discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked Vice Chair McCabe for his
perspective on the upcoming decision, given his involvement
in related matters and the outcome of the amendments.
VICE CHAIR MCCABE responded that he believes because Lindke
v. Freed does not directly apply to legislators, the policy
could be used against them if they delete comments from
personal social media pages. He highlighted the ambiguity of
viewpoint discrimination and expressed intent to vote
against the policy due to potential risks.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER thanked Legislative Legal and
everyone involved for their work on the issue, noting its
importance, but indicated he would likely vote against it.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON restated for clarity that the committee is
back to the main motion, as amended.
SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS expressed appreciation for the
committee leadership, emphasized the importance of adopting
a media policy, and noted that future Legislative Councils
can modify it if needed.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked whether Representative McCabe's use of
the word "incriminate" accurately reflects the policy's
implications.
MS. NAUMAN responded that she does not believe
characterization of the policy as "incriminating" is an
accurate reflection of the policy, clarifying that the policy
is intended as a set of best practices to help legislators
avoid litigation rather than an incriminating measure. She
explained that the only binding aspect is the Legislative
Council's decision not to cover legal costs for social media-
related actions. She also noted that as laws evolve, the
policy will be updated to reflect new legal developments.
SENATOR BISHOP asked whether this policy still does not
preclude any lawmaker from coming to Legislative Council to
ask for litigation expense support. He followed up his
question, stating that it's still early in this area of law
and this topic could be brought up a year from now with more
policy changes.
MS. NAUMAN confirmed that the policy does not prevent
lawmakers from requesting litigation support, but it allows
the Legislative Council chair to cite the policy in denying
coverage. The chair could still bring requests to the Council,
and legislators remain free to take individual actions, but
liability would be their responsibility unless an exception
is made. She agreed with Senator Bishop's statement that at
this point it is likely that this policy will be brought up
and updated with more changes.
VICE CHAIR MCCABE asked whether a court or lawyer could use
the policy against legislators, despite it being a set of
recommendations, to challenge their communication with
constituents on personal social media pages. He also
questioned if this could conflict with Lindke, which allows
officials to remove users or delete comments.
MS. NAUMAN responded that she does not see how the policy
could be used in court to prove that a legislator's actions
constitute State action under Lindke's legal test.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON agreed with Senate President Stevens and
Senator Bishop, acknowledged the effort put into the policy
and suggested it would be prudent to move forward as the
Legislative Council can amend it in the future. There was no
further discussion and she asked for a roll call vote.
11:28:50 AM
YEAS: Senators Bishop, Claman, Hoffman, Kiehl, Stedman,
Stevens, Gray-Jackson; Representatives Edgmon, Hannan,
Saddler
NAYS: Representatives Rauscher, McCabe
The motion passed 10-2.
VI. EXECUTIVE SESSION
a. Security Update
b. RFP 670 Alaska State Capitol Electronic Access
Controls
c. RFQ 667 Alaska State Capitol Security Screeners
d. Legal Update
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON said that Council would go into Executive
Session to receive a security update, discuss two RFPs, and
receive a legislative legal update.
11:29:50 AM
VICE CHAIR MCCABE moved and asked unanimous consent that the
Legislative Council go into Executive Session under Uniform
Rule 22(B)(4), discussion of a matter the public knowledge of
which would adversely affect the security of the state or
nation, or adversely affect the security of a governmental
unit or agency and 22(B)(3), discussion of a matter that may,
by law, be required to be confidential. The following
individuals may remain in the room or online during Executive
Session: Jessica Geary, Sant Lesh, Rayme Vinson, JC Kestel,
Ernest Daigle, Shay Wilson, Tim Powers, Emily Nauman, Megan
Wallace; Security Subcommittee members Matt Simpson and
Micaela Bradner; Tom Koloski and Tom Wilder of the
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency; any
legislators not on Legislative Council, and any staff of
Legislative Council or Security Subcommittee members.
11:30:46 AM
A roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Senators Bishop, Claman, Hoffman, Kiehl, Stedman,
Stevens, Gray-Jackson; Representatives Edgmon, Hannan,
Rauscher, Saddler, McCabe
NAYS: none
The motion passed 12-0.
11:31:52 AM
Council went into Executive Session.
2:25:30 PM
Council came out of Executive Session.
A roll call vote was taken to establish a quorum.
Present at the call were: Senators Claman, Kiehl, Stedman,
Stevens, Gray-Jackson; Representatives Edgmon, Hannan,
Rauscher, Saddler, Tilton.
Ten members present.
2:26:48 PM
SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS moved to table RFQ 667-Alaska State
Capitol Security Screeners, the Visitor Screening Policy, and
the ID Badge Policy.
After a brief at-ease and some confusion about the need for
a vote, a roll call vote was taken on the motion to table.
2:27:54 PM
YEAS: Senators Claman, Kiehl, Stedman, Stevens, Gray-Jackson;
Representatives Edgmon, Hannan, Rauscher, Saddler, Tilton
NAYS: none
The motion passed 10-0.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON stated that during Executive Session, the
Council discussed five topics that require action: two
procurements (RFP 670 and RFQ 667) and three Security Update-
related items under "New Committee Business" (two policies -
Capitol Visitor Screening Policy and ID Badge Policy - and
the Juneau mailroom relocation proposal).
NOTE: RFQ 667 and two policies (Capitol Visitor Screening and
ID Badge Policy) were tabled.
She asked Representative Edgmon for a motion on RFP 670.
b. RFP 670 Alaska State Capitol Electronic Access Controls
2:29:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved that Legislative Council approve
the award of RFP 670 to Southeast Electric LLC in an amount
not to exceed $458,850.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for purposes of discussion and
asked that JC Kestel and Tim Powers to speak to the item.
JC KESTEL, Procurement Officer, LAA, recapped what was in the
packet before the members and in their discussion. On
September 24, 2024, the Agency issued RFP 670 to solicit
proposals for the installation of electronic access controls
in the Capitol. RFP 670 closed on November 26, 2024, with one
proposal received from Southeast Electric LLC. The proposal
went through the Performance Evaluation Committee (PEC) to
ensure it met all the needs listed in the RFP. The PEC scored
the proposal and chose to proceed with a recommendation to
Legislative Council for the award to Southeast Electric LLC.
Southeast Electric's cost proposal was $437,000 and the
Agency is requesting a five percent contingency fund be added
to the bid amount to cover unforeseen challenges.
TIM POWERS, Chief Technology and Outreach Officer, LAA, said
the project proposes to improve physical security of the
interior doors of the Capitol and Thomas Stewart Building. As
background, the entire Capitol Complex exterior doors and all
of the Anchorage Legislative Office Building (exterior and
interior) already have electronic access controls. We're
looking to expand that system to 130 additional doors, those
are all interior doors in the Capitol and Thomas Stewart
Building. This will replace the need to issue metal keys for
the first door of entry into all offices from the main
hallways of the Capitol.
Mr. Powers noted some benefits of this project include
enhanced security; access control-key fobs allow granular
control over individual doors in addition to groups; remote
management-access can be granted, revoked, or modified
remotely; audit trails-logs will track when and by whom doors
are accessed; convenience and keyless entry-staff won't need
separate keys for office entry if they already have access to
the Capitol; and cost savings-key fobs are cheaper to replace
than metal keys and do not require replacing door hardware if
lost.
Mr. Powers continued that the installation scope of this
project is the Capitol and Thomas Stewart Building for 130
interior doors. Wiring and installation of access control
readers and door hardware will be completed in the interim.
Programming and system configuration, similar to the
Anchorage Legislative Office Building, will be completed in-
house by the DTI staff. The project timeline, if approved by
January 1, 2025, ensures that all materials will be available
by June 1, with a three-month construction period concluding
on September 1, 2025.
Mr. Powers said they worked with an engineer to design this
system, and the engineers estimate came in at $481,000-
$554,000 so our request to include a five percent contingency
is still below the engineers estimate.
There was no discussion. Chair Gray-Jackson removed her
objection and asked for a roll call vote.
2:33:26 PM
YEAS: Senators Claman, Kiehl, Stedman, Stevens, Gray-Jackson;
Representatives Edgmon, Hannan, Rauscher, Saddler, Tilton
NAYS: none
The motion passed 10-0.
VII. NEW COMMITTEE BUSINESS
a. Capitol Visitor Screening Policy (tabled)
b. Identification Badge Policy (tabled)
c. Capitol Mailroom Relocation
d. Legislative Council Transition Readiness and Office
Policy
c. Capitol Mailroom Relocation
2:34:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved that Legislative Council approve
the proposal to move the Capitol mailroom to an offsite
location equipped with necessary screening technology and
protocols.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for the purpose of discussion and
asked Jessica Geary and JC Kestel to speak to the item.
JESSICA GEARY, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs Agency
(LAA), said that a recent security assessment identified the
onsite Capitol mailroom as a potential vulnerability, leading
to a recommendation to relocate package screening offsite.
The proposal includes purchasing the necessary equipment, two
new full-time employees, and buildout work mostly done in-
house. The current estimated cost is $617,500, and approval
by this committee is requested to proceed with recruitment,
incorporating the expenses into the FY26 legislative budget
request, and issuing procurements for screening detection
equipment.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for a definition of "necessary
screening".
JC KESTEL, Procurement Officer, LAA, responded that since
this is a government facility, the Alaska State Capitol, all
mail is currently screened through X-ray machines. However,
this is currently done using a twelve-year-old X-ray machine,
which is outdated and unable to detect biological agents or
explosive materials. A security review identified
vulnerabilities that could allow harmful substances to pass
through undetected. The proposed upgrade includes three
advanced screening devices: one similar to TSA equipment,
capable of detecting explosive materials and biological
agents through swabbing and trace analysis. While the device
also tests for narcotics, the primary focus is on enhancing
explosive detection to improve Capitol security.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER attempted to ask a follow-up and was
interrupted by the Chair calling a brief at-ease.
2:38:23 PM
Council went into a brief at-ease.
2:39:11 PM
Council returned from brief at-ease.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked that if the final costs are
significantly higher, can the proposal be reconsidered and
potentially rejected in the future.
MR. KESTEL responded that if the RFP results exceed the
proposed costs, the committee can decline the contract at a
future meeting. He noted that significant cost changes are
possible but not anticipated.
SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS stated that it seems this proposal
modernizes the facility with advanced equipment and personnel
for $617,500, including $267,000 for staffing and upgraded X-
ray, biological, and explosive detection, significantly
improving current security measures.
MR. KESTEL agreed with Senate President Stevens assertion
and added that it would provide the ability for better, more
efficient testing.
There was no further discussion. Chair Gray-Jackson removed
her objection and asked for a roll call vote.
2:40:52 PM
YEAS: Senators Claman, Kiehl, Stedman, Stevens, Gray-Jackson;
Representatives Edgmon, Hannan, Rauscher, Saddler, Tilton
NAYS: none
The motion passed 10-0.
d. Legislative Council Transition Readiness and Office Policy
2:41:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved that Legislative Council adopt
the Legislative Council Transition Readiness and Office
Policy as presented, to be effective immediately; and
authorize the Legislative Affairs Agency the authority to
make technical and conforming changes.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for the purpose of discussion and
asked Ms. Geary to please speak to the item.
JESSICA GEARY, Executive Director, LAA, stated the proposed
Transition Readiness and Office Policy before the committee
is meant to address issues that comes up bi-annually as the
Agency works on the transition from outgoing leadership to
incoming leadership, such as office swaps, authorizing staff
hires, and many other transition tasks. So, the Agency
identified ways to simplify the process, including setting
timelines, prioritizing leadership offices, and providing
clearer guidelines. Ms. Geary paused to note that before
further discussing the policy details, she wanted to point
out an oversight in excluding Juneau-based legislators and
staff from the proposed policy, which are addressed with a
suite of five amendments that have been distributed to the
committee. She asked that the Chair present them as a single
motion for consideration.
2:43:58 PM
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON moved to amend the Transition Readiness
and Office Policy with the following suite of amendments.
Amendment 1, section 1.3 Packing and Move-Out Process: add a
subsection related to exemptions for year-round offices to
consider Juneau based staff and legislators to read,
Exemptions for year-round offices: legislators and staff
maintaining year-round operations in Juneau are exempt from
packing and decluttering requirements, except where essential
maintenance or IT updates necessitate temporary adjustments."
Amendment 2, section 1.3, subsection 5: add a second bullet
to read, "Year-round offices coordination: inspections,
maintenance, and IT updates will be scheduled in consultation
with year-round office occupants to ensure minimal
disruption."
Amendment 3, section 1.4 Final Inspections: to the final
bullet four, add "and year-round offices" so that the bullet
reads, "Returning legislator offices and year-round offices
will only be inspected for maintenance or IT needs."
Amendment 4, section 1.5 Artwork and Maintenance Access: to
the "personal artwork removal" bullet one, add "unless exempt
under the year-round offices' provisions" so that the bullet
reads "Unless exempt under the year-round offices'
provisions, legislators and staff must remove all personal
artwork and wall-mounted items before vacating their offices
(can be left in office until final packing deadline). Items
left behind after the final packing deadline will be removed
by LAA staff.
Amendment 5, section 1.5 Artwork and Maintenance Access: to
the "maintenance authority" bullet two, add "LAA will ensure
that year-round offices retain operational access during
maintenance or updates." So that the bullet reads, "LAA staff
are authorized to remove any wall-mounted items, including
personal artwork and decorations, to facilitate timely
patching, painting, and other maintenance tasks. LAA will
ensure that year-round offices retain operational access
during maintenance or updates.
MS. GEARY noted that Jeff Stepp, Legislative Council
committee aide, is passing out the policy that includes the
amendments and asked for a brief at-ease.
2:46:34 PM
Council went into a brief at-ease.
2:47:23 PM
Council returned from a brief at-ease.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON moved that Legislative Council adopt the
suite of previously read amendments as a single amendment.
SENATOR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.
SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS asked about the practicality of the
May 31 move-out deadline.
2:48:14 PM
Council went into a brief at-ease.
2:48:44 PM
Council returned from brief at-ease.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON, restating her motion, moved that
Legislative Council adopt the suite of previously read
amendments as one amendment to the policy.
There were no objections and Chair Gray-Jackson asked for a
roll call vote.
2:49:09 PM
YEAS: Senators Claman, Kiehl, Stedman, Stevens, Gray-Jackson;
Representatives Edgmon, Hannan, Rauscher, Saddler, Tilton
NAYS: none
The motion passed 10-0.
SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS again expressed concern that the May
31 office move-out deadline may be impractical, as special
sessions can occur as late as August or later. He noted it
would be a shame to clear offices if legislators still need
them for a special session.
MS. GEARY acknowledged the concern, clarifying that the May
31 deadline is meant for preparedness, not full office
clearance. The goal is to ensure offices, especially for
retiring legislators, are ready for an eventual move. While
the policy does not explicitly address special session
exemptions, they recognized the challenge of quickly
unpacking for unexpected sessions.
SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS responded that he understands what
Ms. Geary is explaining and pointed out that the policy
requires packing personal items and decluttering by May 31
but suggested a later deadline, such as December, might be
more practical.
MS. GEARY further clarified that the May 31 deadline is
primarily for decluttering, while final inspections are set
for December 15. The intent is to leave offices accessible
for maintenance, IT work, or potential relocation. Removing
personal artwork and wall decorations allows for necessary
repairs, but authorization exists for maintenance to proceed
even if items remain. She acknowledged the policy isn't
perfect due to the variability of the legislature's timeline.
SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS suggested removing the expectation
for legislators to pack up by May 31 and the related bullet
points, noting that some may need to remain in their offices
beyond that date.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON asked if Senate President Stevens would
like to offer an amendment.
2:53:28 PM
SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS made a motion to remove Legislators
are expected to: and the related bullet points following.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON asked that Senate President Stevens repeat
his motion.
SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS moved that under Section 1.3 Packing
and Move Out Process, remove Legislators are expected to:
Bullet 1 remove or pack personal items; Bullet 2 declutter
workspaces and clearly label any remaining items; and Bullet
3 remove personal artwork and wall-mounted decorations."
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for purposes of discussion.
2:54:09 PM
Council took a brief at-ease.
2:56:04 PM
Council returned from a brief at-ease.
SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS withdrew his amendment. He then
moved to add at the end of Section 1.3 Packing and Move-Out
Process the following language: The presiding officers may
extend the May 31 deadline due to possible special sessions."
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
SENATOR STEDMAN sought clarification on the issue of office
move-out deadlines, questioning why legislators elected for
two years wouldn't be able to leave their belongings and visit
their offices as needed.
MS. GEARY responded that this is at the end of a second
session only.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER restated what he understood the
proposed language to be and questioned whether extending the
May 31 move-out deadline shouldn't be based on an official
special session call, rather than a presiding officer's
speculation about a potential session.
SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS responded that it's often unclear
when a special session may be called and noted that
legislators have needed their offices as late as November.
The proposed motion allows presiding officers to act on the
possibility of a special session before requiring office
move-outs.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, in support of Senate President
Stevens, said that under Governor Walker, legislators were
in special session as late as two days before Thanksgiving,
and have also been called into multiple special sessions in
one year highlighting the need to consider this possibility
when setting office move-out deadlines.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN stated support of Senate President
Stevens' motion, appreciating the need for guidance on office
move-outs while emphasizing the importance of interim
maintenance. She highlighted the extensive work required to
repaint and repair offices before each new legislature and
noted that clearing personal items helps the maintenance crew
start sooner. She appreciates that the policy provides a
deadline while allowing flexibility for presiding officers to
grant extensions based on individual circumstances.
There was no further discussion. Chair Gray-Jackson removed
her objection and asked for a roll call vote.
3:00:48 PM
YEAS: Senators Claman, Kiehl, Stedman, Stevens, Gray-Jackson;
Representatives Edgmon, Hannan, Rauscher, Saddler, Tilton
NAYS: none
The motion passed 10-0.
CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON stated Council is now back to the main
motion to adopt the Transition Readiness and Office Policy as
amended.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification on the term
"presumptive presiding officers," questioning the basis for
that presumption and noting that leadership decisions can
change before the session begins.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED between Representatives Saddler, Tilton,
and Rauscher, Senate President Stevens, and Director Geary
regarding Section 2.6 Early Engagement with Presumptive
Leadership: concerns about how presumptive leadership is
determined, the need for a smooth and efficient transition
from one legislature to another, a preference for general
policy language that allows for response flexibility, and
confirming the Agency can quickly and easily pivot if
presumptive leadership changes during the transition.
Additional discussion covered the continued need for
transition memos between legislatures and setting in policy
the start date of session funding.
There was no further discussion. Chair Gray-Jackson removed
her objection and asked for a roll call vote.
3:11:23 PM
YEAS: Senators Claman, Kiehl, Stedman, Stevens, Gray-Jackson;
Representatives Edgmon, Hannan, Rauscher, Saddler, Tilton
NAYS: none
The motion passed 10-0.
3:12:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved and asked for a reconsideration
of the previous vote regarding Technology Services Contract.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED regarding Representative Rauscher's
request, including two at-eases. It was determined there
would not be a reconsideration vote and Representative
Rauscher withdrew his motion.
VIII. Adjournment
Chair Gray-Jackson stated that she had a few remarks for the
record, noting that it appeared to be her last meeting. She
reflected on her time as Chair of the committee and shared
that she was filled with immense gratitude and a deep sense
of accomplishment. She expressed that the role had been an
extraordinary journey and that she had the privilege of
collaborating with some of the most dedicated and talented
legislators she could have hoped foreven jokingly including
Senator Stedman, which drew laughter from those present.
She first extended a heartfelt thanks to the outstanding staff
across all divisions in LAA, offering a special
acknowledgment to JC Kestel, Procurement Officer; Shay
Wilson, Chief Information Officer; Tim Powers, Chief
Technology and Outreach Officer; Emily Nauman, Legal Services
Director; Megan Wallace, Chief Counsel; and Mike Warenda,
Anchorage LIO Operations Manager, along with his exceptional
team. She emphasized that their reports, insights, and
contributions had been invaluable to the committee's work
during her two years as Chair. She also recognized Jessica
Geary, Sant Lesh, Molly Kiesel, Madison Truitt, and the
entire team, acknowledging their consistent dedication to
supporting all 60 legislators, ensuring that they knew their
hard work didn't go unnoticed.
Additionally, she expressed her profound gratitude to her
Legislative Council staff, Jeff Stepp. She recalled how, when
he accepted her offer to work alongside her, she felt immense
gratitude, knowing that selecting him as her staff member
would be one of the best decisions of her public service
careerand affirmed that it was. She credited his experience,
expertise, and steadfast support for making her role as Chair
of the Legislative Council a truly stress-free experience.
However, she humorously admitted that she had spent the
previous night dreaming about the meeting.
Among the many projects the committee undertook, she
highlighted the completion of the assembly building
apartments as one that stood out. She described how bringing
the project to fruitionfrom establishing rental leases and
policies to furnishing the apartmentswas no small feat.
While it may have seemed straightforward, ensuring that these
spaces reflected privacy, comfort, and professionalism for
legislators and staff, while adhering to responsible use of
taxpayer dollars, required a careful balance. She recounted
how drafting policies, selecting a rental agency, choosing
furniture designs, and overseeing every detail to blend
function with tradition was both a unique and rewarding
experience. She expressed immense pride in what had been
accomplished, emphasizing that the project's success would
not have been possible without the dedication of the
exceptional staff, whose expertise, commitment, and attention
to detail transformed a vision into reality. She noted that
the apartments now stood as a testament to their hard work
and the committee's commitment to excellenceand happily
added that she would be living in one of them during the next
session.
Addressing her fellow committee members, she expressed deep
appreciation for their commitment to making the committee a
priority. She recognized their attendance, thoughtful input,
and dedication to the meetings, which had been instrumental
to their collective success. She also took a moment to
acknowledge Senator Hoffman, who was not present but had never
missed a meeting, thanking him for his insight,
collaboration, and unwavering dedication to their mission.
She reflected on how, together, the committee had tackled
complex issues, from ensuring the safety of staff and
constituents to upholding the clear division between the
legislative and executive branches of government. She
expressed gratitude for the opportunity to lead the committee
alongside her Vice Chair, Kevin McCabe, and his amazing staff,
particularly Angie Stephl, recognizing the privilege of
working with such a devoted team.
Looking to the future, she shared her excitement about seeing
how the committee would continue to evolve. She expressed her
honor in remaining part of the important decisions that would
come before the Legislative Council as a member of the
prestigious committee. She concluded by thanking everyone
once again for the opportunity to serve as Chair, for the
memories they had created, and for the collective efforts she
was confident would have a lasting impact.
SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS said that Senator Gray-Jackson has
done an excellent job as Chair. He continued that she has
been fair, judicious, wise, and kept all members in the loop
and concluded by thanking her for her Chairmanship.
3:21:43 PM
With no further comments the meeting adjourned at 3:21pm.