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