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