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