Legislature(2021 - 2022)
09/30/2022 01:00 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 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
September 30, 2022
1:00 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Sara Hannan, Chair
Representative Matt Claman
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Chris Tuck
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Shelley Hughes (alternate)
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Mike Shower
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Gary Stevens
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lora Reinbold, Co-Chair
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Cathy Tilton
Senator Lyman Hoffman
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative David Eastman
Representative Kevin McCabe
AGENDA
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
COMMITTEE BUSINESS EXECUTIVE SESSION
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
SPEAKER REGISTER
Jessica Geary, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs Agency
(LAA)
JC Kestel, Procurement Officer, LAA
Megan Wallace, Director, Legal Services
Emily Nauman, Deputy Director, Legal Services
I. CALL TO ORDER
1:04:56 PM
CHAIR HANNAN called the Legislative Council meeting to order. Present
at the call were Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Hannan, Stutes,
Tuck; Senators Bishop, Hughes, Micciche, Shower, Stevens.
Ten members present.
Senator Stedman joined the meeting at 2:29pm.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
1:06:39 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved and asked unanimous consent that Legislative
Council approve the agenda as presented.
The agenda was approved without objection.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1:06:55 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved and asked unanimous consent that Legislative
Council approve the minutes dated May 12, 2022, as presented.
The minutes were approved without objection.
IV. COMMITTEE BUSINESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION
1:07:21 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE moved that Legislative Council go into Executive
Session under Uniform Rule 22(B)(1), discussion of matters, the
immediate knowledge of which would adversely affect the finances of
a government unit, and 22(B)(3), discussion of a matter that may, by
law, be required to be confidential. The following individuals can
remain in the room or online: Jessica Geary, Sant? Lesh, Megan
Wallace, Emily Nauman, Molly Kiesel, JC Kestel, any House Finance
committee secretaries present in the room, any legislators not on
Council, and any staff of Council members.
1:08:33 PM
A roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck; Senators
Bishop, Hughes, Micciche, Shower, Stevens.
NAYS: None.
The motion passed 10-0.
1:09:54 PM
Council went into Executive Session.
2:29:57 PM
Council came out of Executive Session.
A roll call was taken to establish a quorum.
Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck; Senators
Bishop, Micciche, Hughes, Shower, Stedman, Stevens.
Eleven members present.
A. Request for Proposals (RFP) 653 - Remodel of the Assembly Building
SENATOR MICCICHE moved that Legislative Council approve award of the
pre-construction work and services contract for RFP 653 to Dawson
Construction Company for a total contract price of $75,000.
CHAIR HANNAN objected for purposes of discussion and asked JC Kestel
to speak to this item.
JC KESTEL, Procurement Officer with the Legislative Affairs Agency,
said RFP 653 closed on September 9, 2022. The proposal received was
evaluated by the Proposal Evaluation Committee (PEC). The PEC agreed
the proposal exceeded the minimum requirements of the RFP and
recommended the award of RFP 653 to Dawson Construction Company for
the pre-construction work and services portion of the project.
SENATOR STEVENS requested that, for the record and public
understanding, it be noted why Council was awarding this contract to
the only bidder and to include some of information that was discussed
in executive session.
JESSICA GEARY, Executive Director with the Legislative Affairs
Agency, said just one proposal was received and that was from Dawson
Construction Company. The PEC consisted of herself, Facilities
Manager Serge Lesh, and Senator Jesse Kiehl; and all members
independently reviewed the proposal and each agreed it exceeded the
requirements of the RFP. The PEC unanimously feels it was a good
offer and is comfortable moving forward with awarding Dawson
Construction this contract. Acceptance of the offer allows the
renovation plans to move from the current state of 65% completion to
100% completion. A complete set of plans allows the contractor to
determine an overall cost for the construction project, at which
point the project will be brought back before Council for
consideration.
2:38:51 PM
There was no further discussion and a roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck; Senators
Bishop, Hughes, Micciche, Stedman, Stevens.
NAYS: Senator Shower.
The motion passed 10-1.
B. Request to Intervene in Certain Litigation
SENATOR MICCICHE moved that under the power conferred under Alaska
Statute 24.20.060(4)(F), Legislative Council intervene on behalf of
the Legislature in the legal matter Kowalke v. Eastman, et al, and
that Legislative Council authorize the Chair to give direction to the
Legal Services Division and outside counsel regarding this
litigation.
He further moved that Legislative Council approve a contract for
legal services for outside counsel to represent Legislative Council
in Kowalke v. Eastman, et al.
CHAIR HANNAN objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN stated the request before Council today is in
regard to a lawsuit he received last month. He said in this lawsuit
he is not personally accused of engaging in unlawful activity. The
lawsuit states that having been elected and currently serving in the
Legislature is unlawful under the Alaska Constitution. This is
something he believes that the Legislature would have a general
concern over. Any member of the Legislature could receive the same
type of lawsuit at any time which may require someone to make the
argument on behalf of the Legislature.
In this lawsuit, he said he is the one by default who needs to make
that argument. If the Legislature is being accused of behaving
inappropriately by his membership, not only does that concern his
case, but any future cases. He continued that a decision to not
involve the Legislature may have unforeseen consequences.
SENATOR HUGHES said she supported the motion because it sets a
precedent that the Alaska Legislature has not yet faced regarding
freedom of association, which is fundamental to Americans. She said
discussions are being had regarding the constitutionality, under the
U.S. Constitution, of Alaska State Constitution Article XII, Section
4, commonly referred to as the Disloyalty Clause, which is what this
case is based on.
Senator Hughes expressed additional concerns, such as any legislator
could be at risk of similar litigation if they belong to any
organization that may include members who allegedly do something
unlawful; the prohibitive cost of legal defense that, if personally
borne, could discourage Alaskans from running for elected office and
limit the diversity of the Legislature; and claimed that if executive
branch employees are questioned on the legality of their employment,
the attorney general would provide legal defense to those employees
at the State's cost. She deemed it neglectful to not provide a defense
for a legislator experiencing litigation like this.
SPEAKER STUTES said she was opposed to the motion. She stated it is
a slippery slope. In recent cases when Council was asked to provide
legal services for members being sued, there were opportunities to
resolve the issues without litigating. If this motion passed, Council
would be relieving legislators of any responsibility and ownership
of what's transpired and opening up the Legislature to constant
litigation.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, addressing Senator Hughes' comments, stated
he does not know everything the Oath Keepers asks of its members, and
they may well advocate for supporting the Constitution; however, he
knows from various news articles that one of the leaders advocates
overthrowing the government.
He further noted that the motion before Council is not to pay for
Representative Eastman's legal fees. The motion is whether Council
should intervene in this lawsuit as the Legislature; not on behalf
of Representative Eastman, but separately as the Legislature in which
we would advocate whatever position we thought to be most effective
for the Legislature's interests, which may or may not align with
Representative Eastman's interests, and may or may not align with the
arguments Representative Eastman and his counsel are going to be
presenting to the court.
Representative Claman said for Council to make a decision of whether
to intervene in a lawsuit in which we don't even have a recommendation
of what strategy we would take seems an excessive expenditure of
funds for the Legislature. The claims brought against Representative
Eastman will be resolved by the courts. Given those reasons, he does
not see any basis for the Legislature to intervene in the lawsuit and
does not support the motion.
SENATOR SHOWER stated the Legislature spends tens of millions of
dollars every day. He said he would ask the rhetorical question, what
is the cost of doing nothing. He did not agree with some of
Representative Claman's comments and voiced support for Senator
Hughes' comments. He asked if the Legislature is supposed to judge
an entire organization based on what one member said or did.
He said that this means every legislator joining the Legislature
should probably not be a member of any organization just in case
somebody doesn't like the organization. He asked if his preacher at
church says something bad, does that mean he cannot be a member of
that church? He said what is the effect on people's freedom and right
to associate with people who share similar ideologies and opinions.
He does not think Council should pick and choose depending on a
member's popularity.
He said this is only beginning, if Council does not vote to intervene,
cases like these will persist. Freedom of speech and freedom of
association will be chilled.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he does not support the Legislature
intervening in this court case. The case involves the question whether
someone can serve when they belong to an organization that may have
some insurrection activities. He stated this is not about the duties
legislators have, this is about their lives outside of the
Legislature.
He said, regarding the claim that these lawsuits can happen to anyone,
only those who are part of organizations that may have participated
in insurrection activities may face similar litigation; this
particular case is specific to that activity only. He said the
chilling effect should really be that we don't have any activity like
this in the future in any branch of government and does not think
Council should be involved with this court case.
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE stated he did not support spending money
on this intervention at this time, and that Council's primary
objective is to spend money on state services. If a legislator was
being sued for a vote or an action in their normal course of business,
he may feel differently. If he sees a constitutional break, his
opinion may change. He said the right to associate comes with a
certain level of personal responsibility.
He said had he been a member of the Oath Keepers, and had the founder
started committing anti-constitutional insurrection actions, he would
no longer be a member of that organization. He said there may, at
some point, be a case for insurrection; in fact, that's how the United
States government was formed, but in this case over an election, he
struggles to make that connection.
Senator Micciche continued that he had been involved in a similar
case with the same law firm concerning blocking someone on Twitter
and he felt the buck ultimately stopped with him and that he had
personal responsibility to resolve the issue. He did not consider
coming to Legislative Council to cover his legal costs in that case.
He concluded by again stating that, at this time, he does not support
Council intervening in this case.
3:02:59 PM
There was no further discussion and a roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Senator Hughes.
NAYS: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck; Senators
Bishop, Micciche, Stedman, Stevens.
The motion failed 1-9.
V. Committee Business
A. Anchorage Legislative Office Building Snow Removal Contract
Renewal No. 1
SENATOR MICCICHE moved that Council approve Renewal No. 1 of the
contract for snow removal services with Kelly Inc., DBA A-1 Lawn and
Landscaping, in the amount not to exceed sixty-five thousand dollars.
CHAIR HANNAN objected for purposes of discussion and asked Mr. Kestel
to speak to this item.
MR. KESTEL, Procurement Officer with the Legislative Affairs Agency,
said LAA has been satisfied with the contractor's services and
requests proceeding with Renewal No. 1 for the period of October 5,
2022, through October 4, 2023. If approved, four renewal options will
remain under the contract.
3:05:50 PM
There was no discussion and a roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck; Senators
Bishop, Hughes, Micciche, Shower, Stevens.
NAYS: None.
The motion passed 10-0.
B. Clarifying Revision to Legislative Procurement Procedures
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE moved that Legislative Council adopt the
amendment to the Alaska Legislative Procurement Procedures.
CHAIR HANNAN objected for purposes of discussion.
EMILY NAUMAN, Deputy Director of Legal Services, said that on December
16, 2021, Council bifurcated the minimum amount of a contract to come
before committee for approval or to be subject to the procurement
procedures at $50,000 and $40,000. It was Legal Services'
understanding the intent of Council was to have contracts entered
into by Council and LAA be subject to the $50,000 threshold and the
remainder of the contracts be subject to the $40,000 threshold that
was proposed by conceptual amendment.
Legal Services' initial draft of the conceptual amendment used the
word "authorize" which later caused ambiguities to arise in what
contracts are authorized by Council for the purposes of that specific
section. Legal changed the language to clarify that the $50,000
exception applies to Council and LAA's contracts and the remainder
of the contracts are subject to the $40,000 exception limit.
3:09:22 PM
There was no discussion and a roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck; Senators
Bishop, Micciche, Hughes, Shower, Stevens.
NAYS: None.
The motion passed 10-0.
C. Revised Legislative Council Social Media Policy
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE moved that Legislative Council adopt the
Social Media Policy dated August 22, 2022, and rescind the current
Social Media Guidelines dated September 19, 2011.
CHAIR HANNAN objected for the purposes of discussion and reminded
members that they have had several weeks to review and several
meetings where this subject has been discussed.
MS. GEARY said the policy, which replaces the 2011 guidelines,
contains recommendations and not mandates. If a legislator follows
all recommendations in the proposed policy, the likelihood of a
lawsuit is very small and would likely not have merit. The policy
does not prohibit a legislator from allowing posts and self-monitoring
comments and content. This policy stipulates that if a legislator
chooses to block or censor any commentors, the legislator is
personally liable for any legal fees. No state funds, including office
allowance funds, may be used.
She said the policy does not render existing platform protections
useless; legislators can still flag and report inappropriate or
defamatory content for review and potential removal by platform
officials. Using social media as a bulletin board by disabling
interaction may not be how a legislator chooses to conduct business,
and that is a choice each legislator must make. She repeated that if
a legislator is sued for deleting comments or blocking someone, the
legislator will be personally liable for any legal defense. Finally,
this policy protects the State from unknown legal costs and the need
for Council to make case-by-case decisions based on each individual
social media decision.
SENATOR HUGHES said she understands the policy does not force a
legislator to do one thing or the other, however if they turn off the
ability to give input, it will turn a page into an informational
webpage. She said this defeats the purpose of what social media is
for and people would be upset if a legislator cut off their freedom
of speech. If this policy were adopted, the Legislature would be
liable for what could be tens of thousands of people banned from
commenting on their legislator's page.
Senator Hughes continued that the timing on this policy is a mistake.
Council's scheduling has been chaotic, despite the Chair's best
efforts, and the sporadic schedule conflicts with many of the members'
busy schedules which results in low meeting attendance. This Council
should not decide at the tail end of the 32nd Legislature, as many
of the current legislators are leaving after interim and felt this
topic should be dealt with in a bill and go through the committee
process. She then moved to table the motion.
3:18:30 PM
A roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Senators Hughes, Shower.
NAYS: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck; Senators
Bishop, Micciche, Stevens.
The motion to table failed 2-8.
CHAIR HANNAN said that the motion to approve the Social Media Policy
remains before members, which they've had in its final form since
August 22, 2022. She continued that all members on Council remain
elected legal representatives until the swearing in of the next
Legislature and have all the responsibilities of those duties,
including serving on Legislative Council.
SPEAKER STUTES said she believes this Council should be the one to
vote on this policy. Current Council members have had firsthand
experience with the ramifications of social media and how much of
Council's time it has taken to deal with several related issues for
members. She said the claim that this is cutting off constituent
access doesn't make sense to her. All legislators have the opportunity
for constituents to communicate with them by providing their contact
information on their Facebook pages. She said she supported the new
policy.
SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE said that he appreciated the discussion and
the work that went into the new policy; however, he does not support
this policy because he believes there should be case by case
discussions. The Legislature should support legislators who have
taken appropriate action if controversy arises. He said this is about
the personal responsibility of the individual operator of the page
and thinks there are better options for legislators to manage their
social media accounts. He said this will not solve the challenges
with social media.
SENATOR HUGHES said an executive branch employee would be protected
by the State for using social media as part of their job; that there
is an equal protection issue in that she can't meet face-to-face with
her constituents during session, so needs two-way communication
through social media; and said she agreed with Senator Micciche and
would be opposing this motion.
SENATOR SHOWER agreed with Senate President Micciche's position that
Council should address individual issues on a case-by-case basis. He
disagreed with a member's previous statement that an email and phone
number are enough, which does not recognize the current preferred
communication methods. He said anyone younger than forty mostly
communicates through social media and legislators need to be
respondent to that reality. He said he uses social media every day
and it is a significant tool for legislators to quickly send out
information for constituents on a large scale. He agreed with Senator
Micciche's position and opposes this policy.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he supported the policy because it does
not prohibit legislators from choosing to have exchanges on social
media. It simply takes a position that should a legislator choose to
engage and then run afoul of best practices for managing social media,
the Legislature will not be put in the position of having to determine
if the legislator acted correctly nor direct an individual legislator
in how to handle their individual social media accounts. The policy
establishes that the Legislature is not going to dictate how
legislators respond to controversy on their social media nor be
responsible for those individual decisions; he reiterated his support
for the new policy.
MEGAN WALLACE, Legal Services Director, in response to a question
from Senator Bishop, confirmed that the policy only makes
recommendations for how legislators should manage their social media.
It gives Council guidance on whether the Legislature is responsible
for providing legal representation in the event that a member is sued
for actions taken on social media.
SENATOR BISHOP said that, with respect for his colleagues, the policy
is not written in stone and can be reviewed by the 33rd Legislature.
3:30:50 PM
There was no further discussion and roll call vote was taken.
YEAS: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck; Senators
Bishop, Stedman, Stevens.
NAYS: Senators Hughes, Micciche, Shower.
The motion passed 8-3.
Brief discussion followed regarding scheduling the next Legislative
Council meeting and in-person attendance.
VI. ADJOURN
There being no further business before the committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 3:35 PM.
3:35:12 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| May 12, 2022 Leg Council Meeting Minutes.pdf |
JLEC 9/30/2022 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Kowalke v. Eastman, DOE, Fenumiai - 3AN-22-07404 CI.pdf |
JLEC 9/30/2022 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 220912--Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Kowalke v. Eastman et al.pdf |
JLEC 9/30/2022 1:00:00 PM |
|
| ALOB Snow Removal Contract Renewal No. 1 Request to LC.pdf |
JLEC 9/30/2022 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Draft Social Media Policy V3--08.22.2022.pdf |
JLEC 9/30/2022 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 2022.07.11--Leg Legal Memo--Blocking, Hiding, Deleting Users on Elected Officials Social Media Accounts.pdf |
JLEC 9/30/2022 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Alaska Legislature Current Social Media Guidelines 09.20.2011.pdf |
JLEC 9/30/2022 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Revised Agenda--Legislative Council 09.30.2022 Meeting.pdf |
JLEC 9/30/2022 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Memo--Legislative Procurement Procedures Amendment.pdf |
JLEC 9/30/2022 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Draft Amendment--Legislative Procurement Procedures Section 020.pdf |
JLEC 9/30/2022 1:00:00 PM |