ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE  LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL   AUGUST 18, 2022  1:00PM    MEMBERS PRESENT  Representative Sara Hannan, Chair  Senator Lora Reinbold, Vice Chair  Representative Matt Claman  Representative Louise Stutes  Representative Chris Tuck  Senator Click Bishop  Senator Bert Stedman  Senator Gary Stevens    MEMBERS ABSENT  Representative Bryce Edgmon  Representative Neal Foster  Representative Cathy Tilton  Senator Lyman Hoffman  Senator Shelley Hughes (alternate)  Senator Peter Micciche  Senator Mike Shower    OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT  Senator Jesse Kiehl    AGENDA  APPROVAL OF AGENDA  APPROVAL OF MINUTES  COMMITTEE BUSINESS    SPEAKER REGISTER  Jessica Geary, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs Agency  (LAA)  JC Kestel, Procurement Officer, LAA  Megan Wallace, Director, Legal Services, LAA  Emily Nauman, Deputy Director, Legal Services, LAA                    1:09:39 PM I. CALL TO ORDER CHAIR HANNAN called the Legislative Council meeting to order.  Present at the call were Representatives Claman, Hannan, Stutes,  Tuck; Senators Bishop, Reinbold, Stedman, Stevens.    Eight members present.    II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA    1:11:11 PM VICE CHAIR REINBOLD moved and asked unanimous consent that  Legislative Council approve the agenda as presented.    The motion passed without objection.    III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES    1:11:29 PM  VICE CHAIR REINBOLD moved and asked unanimous consent that the  Legislative Council approve the minutes dated February 23, 2022,  and March 23, 2022, as presented.    The motion passed without objection.    IV. COMMITTEE BUSINESS    a. Janitorial Contract renewal    1:12:01 PM  VICE-CHAIR REINBOLD moved that Legislative Council approve renewal  No. 1 of the contract for [the Anchorage Legislative Office  Building] janitorial services with Q1 Services LLC in the amount  not to exceed $56,000.    CHAIR HANNAN objected for the purposes of discussion and asked JC  Kestel to speak to this item.    JC KESTEL, Procurement Officer with the Legislative Affairs Agency,  stated that in each members packet was a memo regarding renewal  No. 1 of the contract with Q1 Services LLC for janitorial services  at the Anchorage Legislative Office Building. The one-year renewal  period is September 1, 2022, through August 31, 2023, with no  funding/price changes.    1:13:20 PM  There were no questions, and a roll call vote was taken.    YEAS: Representatives Claman, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck; Senators  Bishop, Reinbold, Stedman, Stevens.    NAYS: None.    The motion passed 8-0.    b. Discovery Preschool Contract Assignment    1:14:11 PM  VICE CHAIR REINBOLD moved that Legislative Council approve the  assignment of a contract for the operation of the childcare center  in the Capitol complex from Rosemary Williams to Kristen Dutson for  the duration of the contract and any optional renewal periods.    CHAIR HANNAN objected for the purposes of discussion and asked Mr.  Kestel to speak to this item. She further noted that Ms. Williams  and Ms. Dutson were on teleconference for questions if necessary.    MR. KESTEL stated that the Discovery Preschool contract  (established by RFP 639) is before Council because the business has  been sold; and, for the contract to continue with the new owner,  Legislative Council must approve a contract assignment to that new  owner. He noted that a detailed memo regarding this item was  included in each members packet.    1:15:47 PM  There were no questions, and a roll call vote was taken.    YEAS: Representatives Claman, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck; Senators  Bishop, Reinbold, Stedman, Stevens.    NAYS: None.    The motion passed 8-0.    c. Amendment to the Alaska Legislative Procurement Procedures  1:16:35 PM  VICE CHAIR REINBOLD moved that Legislative Council adopt the  amendment to the Alaska Legislative Procurement Procedures and  allow Legislative Legal to make technical and conforming changes to  the draft amendment.    CHAIR HANNAN objected for the purposes of discussion and asked Mr.  Kestel, Executive Director Jessica Geary, and Legal Services  Director Megan Wallace to address this item.    MR. KESTEL stated that if approved, this amendment would allow the  Agency, or any other subdivision of the Legislature, to solicit and  contract for general contractor and construction management type  contracts. This would bring Legislative Procurement Procedures in  line with most common practices of government procurement and  solicitation.    REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked if this amendment would allow the  Legislature to engage in design-build contracts where the design  and build is done by the same organization.    MR. KESTEL responded yes.    REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that the problem he has with design- build is that once the general contractor is selected, not all the  subcontractors have been pre-determined. The general contractor  will then shop for subcontractor bids without Agency oversight.  Under the current system, the subcontractor bids are normally  included in the overall bid package or are submitted within five  days of bid opening. He said its his belief that the design-build  process advantages certain contractors and doesnt allow for  competition from new or smaller contractors who may not have a  design team on staff. He acknowledged that the design-build model  was more efficient, especially for department or Agency staff, but  also meant those same staff werent as involved in the overall  process. He closed by saying he feels the design-build process was  cumbersome and wasnt fair to subcontractors.    SENATOR STEVENS asked if Agency staff could respond to  Representative Tucks comment.    MS. GEARY stated that the Legislature does not undertake many  construction projects. She believes this is the most efficient and  economical process for getting the Legislatures projects designed  and put together for a total bid package.    MR. KESTEL stated regarding the subcontractor portion, there are  two types of contracts. During the preconstruction services and  work contract for the design portion, subcontractors are disclosed  within five days of requesting the subcontractor list. During the  construction services portion of the negotiations on a project  under design-build, it does allow for the contractor to use  different subcontractors. Once the contract has been successfully  negotiated, the Agency will have the ability to review those  subcontractors before a contract is entered into.    REPRESENTATIVE TUCK shared an example of when a design-build  process used by Department of Transportation and Public Facilities  caused harm to an Anchorage neighborhood for which the State took  no responsibility to illustrate his frustration and lack of support  for this type of procurement; however, he noted that he was not  opposed to the Agency using a design-build process.    MS. GEARY clarified that this amendment allows the ability to enter  into this type of contract, but it isnt a requirement. Any big  contract would still need to come before Legislative Council and  the use of a Proposal Evaluation Committee for award.    CHAIR HANNAN noted that Senator Kiehl has been present since the  beginning of the meeting.    1:29:07 PM  There were no further comments or questions, and a roll call vote  was taken.    YEAS: Representatives Claman, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck; Senators  Bishop, Reinbold, Stedman, Stevens.    NAYS: None.    The motion passed 8-0.    d. Office of Victims Rights Attorney Compensation    1:29:50 PM  VICE CHAIR REINBOLD moved that (1) Legislative Council approve a  transfer of $75,000 from Legislative Council Funds to the Office of  Victims' Rights for the purpose of placing four attorneys on the  new attorney salary schedule in AS 39.27.011(l); (2) that  Legislative Council direct the Legislative Affairs Agency to  request an FY23 supplemental to cover the transferred funds and an  FY24 increment, and (3) that Legislative Council authorize  legislation for consideration of the 33rd Legislature to amend AS  24.65.060 and AS 24.65.070 accordingly.    CHAIR HANNAN objected for the purposes of discussion and asked Ms.  Geary speak to this item.    MS. GEARY said HB 226 was intended to give State of Alaska  attorneys a 15% raise effective October 31, 2022, as a recruitment  and retention tool; however, the four attorneys in the Office of  Victims Rights (OVR) were inadvertently excluded in the bill. The  motion before Legislative Council would ensure OVR attorneys  receive the salary increase through a FY2023 supplemental request,  as well as a FY2024 increment request as a placeholder for a  statutory amendment, if necessary, to make the increase permanent.  Without this action, OVR is at a disadvantage in competing to fill  attorney positions and being left out of the original bill was  unfortunate and demoralizing for existing staff. She noted that  Katherine Hansen, the Acting Victims Rights Advocate, is on the  phone for questions as well.    REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated that not including the Office of  Victims Rights attorneys was a mistake and asked if there was any  precedent that allowed Legislative Council to correct a legislative  mistake like this and pay someone more than was authorized by  legislative action.    MS. GEARY stated the Legislature can operate within existing  authority and Legislative Council can approve a transfer of funds;  however, a permanent fix will require action in the next  legislature. This motion would be a band-aid to get through the  rest of this fiscal year.    REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN clarified that his question was whether  Legislative Council has the authority to authorize a pay raise  which, through a mistake, the Legislature did not authorize.    MS. GEARY responded that she worked with Legal Services Director  Megan Wallace and Human Resources Manager Skiff Lobaugh on crafting  this solution, and asked Ms. Wallace to speak to his question.    MS. WALLACE, Legal Services Director, stated she concurred with Ms.  Geary that the proposal before Legislative Council is a temporary  fix and not a long-term solution. Specific to his question,  Legislative Council does not have the authority to override  statutes, or to amend or change the law as was passed by the  Legislature, but there is some flexibility with respect to the  compensation of the attorneys at the Office of Victims Rights. She  said AS 24.65.070 relates to the compensation of OVR staff and the  statutory authority governing pay is very broad and gives a lot of  discretion to the Victims Advocate and the Legislature to  determine pay. The permanent solution that the motion contemplates  would be to amend that statute to expressly state that OVR  attorneys will be compensated at the attorney rate that was passed  in HB 226. Ms. Wallace said it is her opinion that the Legislature  does have some flexibility to determine compensation in this  temporary manner.    REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked Ms. Wallace if section 24.65.070(a)  gives enough flexibility that Legislative Council can overlook the  Legislatures mistake for the current fiscal year.    MS. WALLACE said that 24.65.070(a) combined with (c), which  specifically says that the staff are in the exempt service and are  not subject to the employment policy under AS 24.10 or 24.20 allows  this action.    REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked if the Legislature does not pass a  statute next session, would it result in a pay cut in FY24 for the  attorneys at the Office of Victims' Rights.    MS. WALLACE said that was correct. She said that since there was no  permanent statutory solution available during the interim, this  temporary solution before Council would allow OVR attorneys to  receive the same pay raise until a statutory fix is possible in the  next legislative session. Without a statutory change, it was her  opinion that there was a risk to continuing this temporary solution  beyond the current fiscal year.    SENATOR REINBOLD agreed with Representative Claman.    1:42:35 PM  There were no further questions or comments, and a roll call vote  was taken.    CHAIR HANNAN called a brief at ease during the roll call when it  appeared that Senator Stedmans call had been dropped. Senator  Stedman was reconnected, and the roll call resumed.    YEAS: Representatives Claman, Hannan, Stutes, Tuck; Senators  Bishop, Reinbold, Stedman, Stevens.    NAYS: None.    The motion passed 8-0.    e. Update to Legislative Council Social Media Policy    CHAIR HANNAN said that members were considering draft #2 of the  Social Media Policy, asked Ms. Geary to summarize this draft, and  noted that Legal Services Director Megan Wallace, Deputy Director  Emily Nauman and Attorney Noah Klein were available for questions.    MS. GEARY stated the new draft social media policy would replace  the 2011 policy. She said these are recommendations, not mandates.  If members were to follow all the recommendations, the likelihood  of a lawsuit would be very small and unlikely to have merit. This  policy does not prohibit a legislator from allowing posts and self- monitoring the comments and content. It simply says that if members  choose to do so and block or censor any commenters, they will be  personally liable for any legal fees and no State funds will be  used. This policy does not render existing platform protections  useless as one can still flag inappropriate or defamatory content  for review and potential removal by platform officials. She  continued that using social media as a bulletin board by disabling  interaction might not be how members choose to conduct business and  that is a choice each legislator must make. If a legislator is sued  for deleting comments or blocking someone, they will be personally  liable for their own legal defense. This policy protects the  Legislature from unknown legal costs and the need for Legislative  Council to make case by case decisions based on each individual  social media decision.    SENATOR REINBOLD cited sections of the Alaska and U.S. Constitution  and stated that she believed the draft policy violated those  sections and restricted legislators unconstitutionally. She said a  First Amendment lawyer should be at this meeting.    SENATOR STEVENS asked if an attorney could speak on the subject.    MS. WALLACE stated that, in her opinion, the draft policy does not  present any First Amendment concerns by means of restricting the  freedom of speech of legislators because the information set out in  the policy are a best practices guide. This gives legislators some  guidelines to follow for the least amount of risk of the individual  legislator being challenged for infringing on the free speech of  someone who is interacting on the legislators social media page.  These guidelines as drafted do not mandate any action, do not  mandate that legislators have a social media account, and do not  mandate what type of account a legislator decides to maintain. It  sets expectations that if a legislator creates a public forum and  allows interaction (comments and posts) to be made by the public,  then subsequently blocks, deletes, or takes some other action that  potentially gives rise to a claim of infringement of free speech or  some other claim, that legislator will bear all the risk of that  action.    SENATOR STEVENS agreed that the policy does not restrict the rights  of legislators, but rather protects the State by noting that the  legislator bears all the risk by blocking a commenter. He said he  was comfortable with the draft as written.    SENATOR REINBOLD disagreed with Ms. Wallace and, pointing to  portions of the draft policy, asked what defines a personal and  official social media account.    MS. GEARY responded that an official legislative account would not  be managed by the State. Those designations are simply suggesting  that a legislators personal account, which is for family and  friends, should be kept separate from an account that would be  considered official which would be used to post about constituent  gatherings, legislation, etc. those things pertaining to ones  duties as a legislator. She said she recognizes sometimes these  areas blend and restated that these are just recommendations for  the lowest risk of litigation possible and based on past court  cases where courts have determined what constitutes an official  account versus a personal account.    SENATOR REINBOLD asked what an official legislative account is.    MS. GEARY stated that what this policy is contemplating is that an  official account would be one where members post about legislative  business. The format would depend on the social media platform  structure; and this policy recommends that you designate or create  an account or page that specifies that you are a public official,  and that account or page should be kept separate from an account or  page for personal matters on the same platform.    SENATOR REINBOLD stated that the wording for an official account is  wrong and that there is no such thing as an official legislative  account.    MS. GEARY asked Senator Reinbold for a recommendation for an  amendment to clarify the policy language.    SENATOR REINBOLD stated that she fundamentally disagrees with the  policy.    CHAIR HANNAN reminded members that she, as Chair, directed staff to  provide a draft policy based on emerging knowledge, discussion at  several meetings, and members concerns and input as to what they  would like to see in such a policy. This area continues to be  concerning and the current social media guidelines are not  adequate, and the goal of Legislative Council policies is to  provide members of the Legislature guidance and direction as  needed. This document remains a draft that Legislative Council  continues to craft and there is no anticipated motion to adopt it  at this meeting.    REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked, other than Colorado, what other state  policies have been reviewed and how does this draft compare to  Colorados policy.    EMILY NAUMAN, Deputy Director of Legal Services, stated that this  draft was very similar to the Colorado policy.    MS. GEARY stated that Colorado took a more restrictive approach  because they had to pay for several lawsuits. How states choose to  handle social media is very different, but broadly it seemed that  if a legislator has a social media account to interact with  constituents, which creates a public forum, then they cannot block  people from doing so. Other state policies and approaches were  considered when crafting the draft before members.    REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN followed up to ask whether this draft policy,  which is similar to Colorado's, was recommended in order to protect  the Alaska Legislature from being financially responsible for the  actions of individual legislators.    MS. GEARY confirmed that was correct.    SENATOR STEVENS agreed with the policy but acknowledged that there  were not enough votes present for it to pass. With agreement of the  Chair, he moved to table the discussion until the next meeting.    2:10:08 PM  The discussion was tabled without objection.    CHAIR HANNAN requested that any specific comments members would  like integrated into the Social Media Policy prior to the next  meeting be sent in writing to her staff Tim Clark or Executive  Director Jessica Geary. She noted that in the absence of hearing  any feedback, there was an assumption that the draft was  acceptable.    V. ADJOURN    2:12:01 PM  There being no further business before the committee, the meeting  was adjourned at 2:12 PM.