ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE  LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL    JANUARY 13, 2022  2:00 PM    MEMBERS PRESENT  Representative Sara Hannan, Chair  Senator Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair  Representative Matt Claman  Representative Bryce Edgmon  Representative Neal Foster  Representative Louise Stutes  Representative Cathy Tilton  Representative Chris Tuck  Senator Click Bishop  Senator Peter Micciche  Senator Mike Shower  Senator Bert Stedman  Senator Gary Stevens    MEMBERS ABSENT  Senator Lyman Hoffman  Senator Shelley Hughes (alternate)    OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT  Representative DeLena Johnson    AGENDA  APPROVAL OF AGENDA  COMMITTEE BUSINESS  COMMITTEE BUSINESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION    SPEAKER REGISTER  Jessica Geary, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs Agency  (LAA)  Dr. Tom Hennessy, Captain, US Public Health Service (retired)   2:05:25 PM    I. CALL TO ORDER    CHAIR HANNAN called the Legislative Council meeting to order  at 2:05pm in the House Finance Committee Room. Present at the  call were: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Foster, Hannan,  Stutes, Tuck; Senators Bishop, Micciche, Reinbold, Shower,  Stedman, Stevens.    Members absent were Senators Hoffman, Hughes.    Twelve members present.    Representative Tilton joined the meeting at 2:08pm.    REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved that Legislative Council rescind  their actions in failing to approve the transfer of funds to  2022 session per diem that took place at the December 16,  2021, Legislative Council Meeting.    CHAIR HANNAN asked if members wanted to speak to the motion.    SENATOR REINBOLD asked that the motion be restated.    CHAIR HANNAN said the motion is to rescind the Council's  action that took place December 16, 2021 - specifically 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, and  further move that Legislative Council support the restoration  of the governor's FY22 veto in a supplemental appropriation;  once approved the transfer will be reversed. She asked if  there was any discussion on the motion to rescind.    SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE asked the maker of the motion to  please explain the motion's impact.    REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN responded that the purpose of the  motion, considering the governor's veto of the legislature's  per diem for the 2022 session, would allow the legislature to  pay per diem to members now at the beginning of session and  would be reimbursed later in the year when the money is  appropriated.    CHAIR HANNAN noted that Representative Tilton joined the  meeting at 2:08pm. She asked if there was other discussion on  the motion to rescind action.    SENATOR SHOWER asked if this was specific to regular session  2022.    CHAIR HANNAN responded yes, the original motion that did not  pass was just regular session per diem.    SENATOR STEVENS said it makes sense to proceed this way. The  other option was to wait until a supplemental passed and the  Co-Chair of Senate Finance indicated that may not happen until  very late in the session. If so, then members would spend the  entire session without receiving per diem which he said was  unfair. He said this is an excellent motion and intended to  vote for it.    CHAIR HANNAN asked if members were ready for a vote on the  motion to rescind and clarified that a yes vote puts back  before the committee the main motion. She then requested a  roll call vote.    2:11:14 PM  A roll call vote was taken.    YEAS: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Foster, Hannan, Stutes,  Tuck; Senators Bishop, Micciche, Reinbold, Shower, Stedman,  Stevens.    NAYS: Representative Tilton.    The motion to rescind passed 12-1.    CHAIR HANNAN restated the original motion and 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. She  further moved that Legislative Council support the  restoration of the governor's FY22 veto in a supplemental  appropriation; once approved the transfer would be reversed.  She asked if there was discussion.    SENATOR SHOWER said he thinks per diem is a little high,  however the loss of income from his primary job during session  is concerning. This issue makes it difficult for many members  to serve and reinforces that per diem's purpose is to help  offset the cost. He said he supports this motion because he  supports a citizen legislature.    SENATOR STEDMAN said this year, the governor's veto was an  anomaly, there has always been an agreement over multiple  governors to let each branch run their own affairs. He said  we need to reconstitute the per diem and move forward with  the session. He also noted that it can be very hard  financially for some legislators, especially those with  families, to maintain a second household during session and  he was in favor of the motion.    REPRESENTATIVE TILTON said she agrees with the points made by  previous speakers about the financial impact to legislators  in Juneau for session but believes a better option is to  quickly pass the supplemental budget, which includes an  appropriation for session per diem. She said while she does  not necessarily agree with the fact that it was vetoed in the  first place she does not support this motion.    CHAIR HANNAN, in response to questions by Senator Reinbold  about the State Officers Compensation Committee report, said  the report had not yet been finalized and believed the  committee would meet again on Monday to vote on a final plan.  The Legislature has 60 days to act on the final report.    SENATOR REINBOLD said the executive and legislative branches  have become too entwined, that the Legislature is about two  percent of the overall budget, and while she agreed per diem  should be reduced, she supports this motion.    SENATOR STEVENS said just because they pass the motion, it  does not mean that everyone must apply for per diem. In the  past, there have been legislators who chose not to take per  diem because they were wealthy, did not need it, or maybe had  a moral objection to per diem. He said that everyone on  Legislative Council received per diem. It was something they  apply for and anyone who chose not to receive per diem will  not receive it.    CHAIR HANNAN clarified that not all members of Legislative  Council received per diem, herself being one of them. She  asked Jessica Geary if members had to apply for regular  session per diem.    EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GEARY said that during a regular session,  per diem was paid automatically, though members had the option  to reject per diem by issuing something in writing to the  accounting office.    REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that the salary commission's  action would not go into effect until after the next election,  so it would not have any effect this year. He said he  supported getting per diem started.    2:24:02 PM  A roll call vote was taken.    YEAS: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Foster, Stutes, Tuck;  Senators Bishop, Micciche, Shower, Stedman, Stevens,  Reinbold, Hannan.    Nays: Representative Tilton.    12 YEAS, 1 NAY.    The motion passed 12-1.    II. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA    2:25:57 PM  SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE moved and asked unanimous consent  that the agenda be approved.    The agenda was approved.    III. COMMITTEE BUSINESS    A. Review of Legislative Council COVID-19 Mitigation Policy  and Related Matters    CHAIR HANNAN said the first item on the agenda was a review  of the COVID mitigation policy and related matters, that  Executive Director Geary was on hand for discussion of the  COVID mitigation policy, and Dr. Hennessey was available for  questions.    SENATOR SHOWER said there was an epidemiologist and a health  expert from Anchorage who had called in. He requested that  they be allowed, if there were questions to be answered so  there would be a broader perspective.    CHAIR HANNAN said they have vetted one doctor who had advised  them for the last two years on the development of their COVID- 19 protocols and they have continued that relationship with  Dr. Hennessey through his generosity to donate his time. She  asked if there was a question about the current mitigation  policy. She asked Senator Shower if he had a proposal to amend  it.    SENATOR SHOWER said there were several that were going to  come up, but he wanted to have the debate first and the  question he had was whether the efficacy of masks was useful  and what type of masks should be worn, social distancing, the  various shots, etc. He said he hoped to have a differing  perspective from the epidemiologist.    CHAIR HANNAN said it was not a debate over COVID-19 or state  policies, only policies that would affect the Capitol Complex  and workers, and they were not there to engage in executive  branch powers or agencies. If Senator Shower had a specific  action, wished to amend the policy, or had a specific question  to address he could raise it.    SENATOR STEVENS asked what the City of Juneau's requirement  was. He said he wanted to make sure they were following  current CBJ guidance.    CHAIR HANNAN said CBJ's policy was that with indoor public  settings people were masked.    SENATOR STEVENS said as part of the community, and the  legislature certainly appreciates the generosity of the  community of Juneau, he thought they needed to comply with  the rules they have established.    SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE said he wanted to remind the body  that Legislative Council was representing the legislature in  a building that was not subject to CBJ laws.    CHAIR HANNAN said she wanted to constrain the discussion to  the COVID mitigation policy. She asked if members wanted to  make a motion or had a question about the current mitigation  policy.    SENATOR REINBOLD said she had thirteen questions that she  emailed to Chair Hannan's office. She had sent a letter to  Dr. Zink about a month ago with thirteen critical questions  and they were directly related to the policy, and she wanted  to ask some here.    CHAIR HANNAN said they did not have the questions, Dr. Zink  was not with them, and reminded members that the questions  needed to be about the COVID mitigation policy, or she would  rule them out of order. The issue was exclusively on the  mitigation policy that Legislative Council oversaw. She asked  Senator Reinbold to ask her first question.    SENATOR REINBOLD asked several detailed COVID-19 related  questions that CHAIR HANNAN ruled out of order because they  were not related to the policy.    SENATOR REINBOLD asked how her questions were ruled out of  order.    CHAIR HANNAN said Senator Reinbold was asking for clinical  evidence. She asked if the Senator would like to rephrase her  questions so that it addressed their policy.    SENATOR REINBOLD said that if someone chose to wear a mask,  they should wear one, by requiring it, they need the clinical  evidence that they work and she believed in medical choice,  most of them either had COVID-19 or were vaccinated. She said  her point was it has been a masquerade and people did not  wear them in their offices or meetings, they pulled them down,  touched them, they were full of bacteria, they were not being  used like they were in surgical settings, etc. She said it  was ridiculous to require testing for people in the building  every four days, and not the public. She said it was illegal  to mandate something that was under emergency use and the  science was all over the place on masks. It would possibly  have all sorts of negative side effects. She moved that masks  be optional in the Capitol, in addition to testing.    CHAIR HANNAN asked Senator Reinbold if she wanted to rephrase  her comment as a motion.    SENATOR REINBOLD moved masks and testing would be available,  but optional.    SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE moved to separate the question.    CHAIR HANNAN asked Senator Reinbold if she was ok with the  separation of the question so that masks and testing were two  separate motions.    SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE, responding to a request for  explanation by Senator Reinbold, said he thought there was  different logic in different areas, and he wanted to discuss  the testing option at length, he has some points about  required cycle testing and he thought they are separate from  the mask issue.    SENATOR REINBOLD said she would prefer they were together,  but she knows they must go with the will of the body.    CHAIR HANNAN called a brief at ease to confirm parliamentary  procedure that the motion to separate was not a debatable  motion.    2:38:56 PM  A roll call vote was taken on Senator Micciche's motion to  amend.    YEAS: Representatives Claman, Edgmon, Foster, Stutes,  Tilton, Tuck, Hannan; Senators Bishop, Micciche, Shower,  Stedman, Stevens.    NAYS: Senator Reinbold    12 YEAS, 1 NAY.    The motion to amend passed 12-1.    SENATOR REINBOLD, at Chair Hannan's request, repeated her  motion that masks be optional in the COVID-19 mitigation  policy.    SPEAKER STUTES asked if the policy change affected only  legislators and staff in the building, or the public visiting  the building as well. She said if masking was optional for  legislators, staff, and the public in the building, what would  the purpose of the masks be then? She understood that masks  were to protect others and somewhat yourself, but if that's  a hit or miss, she was a little confused as to the benefit.    SENATOR STEVENS said this is not his area of expertise, so he  relies on what he learns from others. He said that recently  Dr. Jones in Kodiak shared how he always wore a mask in public  not for himself, but for other people because he is exposed  to the disease in his line of work; Dr. Jones said that people  should just grow up and wear masks to protect other people.  Senator Stevens thought that was a strong statement so he  would be in favor of continuing the mask policy, but would  like to hear from the epidemiologist, Dr. Hennessey, on the  issue of masks before a vote.    DR. TOM HENNESSEY said he agreed with the physician from  Kodiak, that there was strong evidence that masks provided  benefit and there was a strong scientific consensus that masks  helped prevent the transmission of COVID. They really worked  in two ways many people with COVID were asymptomatically  infected and could still spread the virus so putting a mask  on that person was a matter of source control; in medical  facilities they have people wear a mask so they do not spread  the virus inadvertently and so there was a value in preventing  the spread of it that way, and then for the wearer of the  mask in encountering somebody who may be infected, there was  a reduction in the risk of acquiring COVID for the mask  wearer. So, the best situation was really to have everyone  masked since about fifty percent of transmission of COVID  occurs from people who did not know that they had the  infection. Since that is the situation with influenza, they  knew that mask use could prevent the spread in those settings,  so he said that by making masks optional, it exposes the  legislature to increased risk of COVID transmission and  threatened transmission in an outbreak in their setting. He  said the most conservative approach would be to maintain the  mask requirement that was endorsed by public health,  scientific, and medical experts.    REPRESENTATIVE TILTON said there was also a CNN article that  said masks were basically a face decoration and not effective  with the Omicron virus. She said she hoped there was somebody  online who could give them another viewpoint. She said that  even with masking in the City and Borough of Juneau, even  with masking and a high level of vaccination, Juneau had a  high rate of the virus. So, if masking and vaccination had  worked, there should not be a high rate and if compared to  other areas, such as the area she is from where they did not  have any kind of mandatory masking or vaccination, they did  not have a high rate in comparison. That is why she supported  optional masking. She thought it should be a personal  responsibility. She requested that they look at that being an  option.    CHAIR HANNAN said that Juneau only restored an indoor masking  mandate on Monday of this week, well into the Omicron surge  that they were experiencing.    SENATOR REINBOLD asked Dr. Hennessey for all the clinical  data, types of masks, how to wear them, and proof of  asymptomatic transmissions. She asked for backup with  clinical research and site references.    CHAIR HANNAN ruled Senator Reinbold's question dilatory and  out of order since it did not pertain to their policy.    SENATOR SHOWER asked to hear from another expert who may have  called into the meeting.    CHAIR HANNAN said she would not allow witnesses she had not  previously spoken with or vetted.    SENATOR SHOWER said this was a one sided-debate and a  travesty.    CHAIR HANNAN said that Dr. Hennessey responded to a question,  that Senators Shower and Reinbold did not have to take his  advice. She said they adequately expressed their concern and  asked if there were other members who wanted to ask a specific  question of Dr. Hennessey about their policy.    SENATOR SHOWER referenced a pandemic response task force  chart and asked Dr. Hennessey if he would discuss types of  masks and the protection each provided. The legislature's  policy was for a cloth mask, which on this chart gave an  exposure time of twenty-seven minutes. He asked Dr. Hennessey  to comment on the federally produced chart that talked about  the types of masks that would protect them.    DR. HENNESSEY said these masks, as far as protection, is not  an "all or nothing," there was a reason why they had social  distancing with masking, vaccinations, hand washing as layers  of protection, which was not one hundred percent protective  all the time. Seatbelts, airbags, and brakes are layers of  protection, which could provide a better chance of surviving  a car crash. When it came to masks there were different  recommendations for quality of masks, a double layer of fabric  barriers was better than single layer of fabric barriers, N95  or respirators were better than double layered masks, in terms  of filtration and prevention of virus leaving a person's face  area or someone inhaling it. However, some people were unable  to wear the N95 masks and sometimes they were not available.  Some people had respiratory problems and it would not be  appropriate to wear those masks. That is why there was a range  of options recommended by CDC about types of masks and he  believed the policies do reference those. An N95 mask would  provide better protection than a double layer mask or a single  cotton layer of mask.    SENATOR SHOWER said that the CDC stated cloth-based coverings  to cloth-based coverings only provided twenty-seven minutes  of protection and they could get more time from N95 to a more  fitted mask that filtrated the particles to the appropriate  micron level. The CDC itself said that six feet inside of  those numbers then they were not protected, it can be spread  through the release around the mask because they were not  fitted. He asked if the cloth mask was enough as the chart  suggested it was not.    DR HENNESSEY said he could not provide a specific response to  that question because he was not familiar with the document  that Senator Shower referred to. He pointed out that  protection was not a matter of absolutes, he was not familiar  with the twenty-seven-minute timeline in terms of masks. He  said it was generally better for both individuals who were  interacting to be masked. Higher quality masks, such as N95s  are certainly better than cloth masks but cloth masks have  been established to provide a barrier for droplet spread and  to protect the individual wearer. He said there were levels  of protection, the least level was that nobody used a mask,  it would be better if both people used an N95 mask and have  been appropriately trained and fit to wear one.    SPEAKER STUTES said she thought she heard Dr. Hennessey say  that a mask or a vaccination was not an absolute, it was one  of the many things that were protective, not just one thing  is the "cure all," that a mask was a barrier and one of many  protective measures.    DR. HENNESSEY responded to Speaker Stutes and said that had  been the approach to mitigation and spread of COVID, there  was not one single thing that would absolutely protect  everyone all the time. The control and mitigation strategies,  which included the legislative policy was based on layers of  protection. So, the more layers in place lowered the chance  of legislators and staff becoming ill and missing out on the  vital business that they were charged with.    REPRESENTATIVE TILTON asked Dr. Hennessey if there was  anything that said that a mask had stopped the virus.    DR. HENNESSEY said that the virus is spread through  respiratory droplets, small droplets of liquid that are  transmitted when people speak or breathe and are caught up in  the mask material, which is a physical mechanism of control  of the spread of the virus from a person who is infected and  transmitting it. The Omicron virus is more transmissible due  to the fact that people spread more of the virus per particle,  but the size of the particle has not changed and the physical  dynamics of stopping a particle going beyond the mask was the  same as was for previous versions of the virus. A study done  by the CDC last year shows that masks can block fifty to  eighty percent of those respiratory droplets at the source of  the person wearing them. So that was the physical mechanism  behind it, to contain the respiratory droplets from a person  who might be infected and not know it, and then the other  side is to prevent those droplets from reaching somebody as  they inhale the air around that person. He said he believed,  as did the CDC, that there was good evidence that masks helped  prevent the transmission of COVID-19.    REPRESENTATIVE TILTON said that Dr. Hennessey could not point  to any kind of study that showed that masks have made a  significant difference in containing the virus, there was  belief that they did, but no supporting data.    DR. HENNESSEY said there were many publications that have  provided the evidence, both in the laboratory and in the real- world setting, that showed that mask use has made a big  difference, particularly in a hospital setting where they  have lots of experience dealing with infectious patients  either with influenza or COVID-19 or tuberculosis all where  masks were important and used. Some of the earlier evidence  of COVID-19 came from hospitals that instituted mask policies  and maintained them uniformly throughout the nation so there  was really no question about the value of masks in preventing  transmission and there were many studies, in a laboratory,  real world, and real hospitals within the United States that  he would gladly provide with publications that showed the  evidence base surrounding masks.    REPRESENTATIVE TILTON said there were many studies that did  not support the outcome and that it was his opinion of whether  masks have significantly stopped the spread of the virus.    SENATE PRESIDENT MICCICHE said he would support voluntary  mask wearing but did not want to get into a battle of the  science. He explained that for him there is some hypocrisy  about where people who serve in the legislature wear masks.  He said he thinks everyone is doing their best to protect  others and themselves, but folks are attending outside events  unmasked, then coming in to wear a mask for a little while,  then going out together after work. He did not want to debate  the doctor because he thought there were some benefits to  wearing masks. He would vote for voluntary mask wearing  because of the way the legislature operates in Juneau. He  wanted to explain his vote and does not think that behavior  is going to change, therefore that reduces the effectiveness  of masks in the building.    CHAIR HANNAN called a brief at ease due to technical issues.    CHAIR HANNAN, noting that the technical issues meant there  was not a quorum to conduct business, said she would recess  to a call of the chair. In response to a question by Senator  Stevens, she confirmed that the current COVID policy remains  in effect. She said there was a time sensitive executive  session item for discussion and asked that staff of those  members who were unable to reconnect please advise their boss  of the plan to reconvene. With that, Chair Hannan recessed  the Council to a call of the chair.    3:21:16 PM