LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL  OCTOBER 29, 2020  10:00 AM      MEMBERS PARTICIPATING BY TELECONFERENCE:  Senator Gary Stevens, Chair  Representative Louise Stutes, Vice-Chair  Senator John Coghill  Senator Cathy Giessel  Senator Lyman Hoffman  Senator Bert Stedman  Senator Natasha von Imhof  Representative Bryce Edgmon  Representative Neal Foster  Representative DeLena Johnson  Representative Jennifer Johnston  Representative Chuck Kopp  Representative Steve Thompson      MEMBERS ABSENT:  Senator Tom Begich      OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT:  Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson  Senator David Wilson  Senator Donald Olson  Senator Jesse Kiehl      SPEAKER REGISTER:  Jessica Geary, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA)  Mindy Kissner, Finance Manager, Accounting, LAA  Megan Wallace, Legal Services Director, LAA  JC Kestel, Procurement Officer, LAA  Tim Banaszak, IT Manager, LAA            10:00:14 AM    I. CALL TO ORDER     CHAIR STEVENS called the Legislative Council meeting to  order at 10:00am. Present at the call were: Senators Coghill,  Giessel, Hoffman, Stedman, Stevens, von Imhof; Representatives  Edgmon, Foster, Johnson, Johnston, Kopp, Thompson, Stutes.    Senator Begich was absent.    13 members present.    II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA    CHAIR STEVENS: Well, let's move on then to the next  item, which is the approval of the agenda.  Representative Stutes, for our motion, please?    10:03:17 AM  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Certainly, Senator. I move and ask  unanimous consent that the Legislative Council approve the  agenda as presented.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. I'll object for purposes of  discussion. We hadn't planned on it before, but I'd like to  add an IT update at the end of this meeting. Tim Banaszak  is -- will be with us to explain the process we're now using  and the IT process, as well as the LIOs and how we're able to  make use of this entire new process.  So if there's no objection to adding Tim Banaszak  at the end for IT update, are there any other changes to the  agenda?  Seeing and hearing none, then the agenda has been  approved.    III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES    CHAIR STEVENS: Moving on to the minutes.  Representative Stutes.  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Certainly, Mr. Chair. I move and  ask unanimous consent that the Legislative Council approve  the minutes dated June 18th, 2020 as presented.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. So any corrections or  additions to those minutes from the June 18th meeting? Any  corrections or additions?  Hearing none, then the minutes are approved as  presented.    IV. COMMITTEE BUSINESS    A. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL MOVING & TRAVEL POLICY CHANGE    CHAIR STEVENS: Let's move on to committee business  then. And I'll start by calling on Mindy Kissner, our  finance manager, to explain a memo that that has to do with  Risk Management.  And, Mindy, could you explain to us what's going  on there?  MS. KISSNER: Chair Stevens, for the record, this is  Mindy Kissner.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Mindy. Before you get into  that, I just want to make sure everyone understands that  we're not going to take action on this. I was a little  surprised to read it, and there are some concerns I have, and  I'm sure others will have concerns as well. I just wanted to  bring in for discussion and then begin to see if there are  other resolutions for this problem we're facing.  So, Mindy, if you'd go ahead and explain things.  MS. KISSNER: Yes, sir. So this was to bring to light  and start a discussion, as you mentioned, regarding the use  of the state car rental contract.  So we recognized that Risk Management will not  cover anyone that is a non-state employee and using the state  rental contract. And the importance is to make sure that our  legislators' needs are being met, at the same time they are  being fully protected, and the passengers in the car are  being fully projected while using that car. And so that's  the point of discussion today.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Well, thank you very much, Mindy.  When I read that, I was really concerned. You know, some  legislators, their spouses come with them. Actually, I gave  a call to Senator Olson, whose spouse and family comes to the  capital with them.  That would make it very difficult on his family if  his wife could not drive and if they had a rental car, and it  would require the Senator really to leave the building more  often to take the kids to school and back and all those sorts  of things. So I think -- I've heard that maybe rural  legislators might be more impacted than others. I think all  of us will be impacted.  So what I really ask Jessica to do is to look into  other options, other solutions. I mean, I'd actually  appreciate any discussion on this item to know what you are  thinking.  SENATOR OLSON: Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, is that Representative Edgmon, Mr.  Speaker?  SENATOR OLSON: Actually, no, it's Senator Olson.  CHAIR STEVENS: Oh, I'm sorry.  SENATOR OLSON: I'm online.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Olson, yes, please, go ahead.  SENATOR OLSON: Well, I just wanted to second what  you're saying. It makes it a less family-friendly atmosphere  to go and have something like this recommendation going  through. So I would say we should take it very seriously  because if you have a number of kids, and we do have a number  of kids, and they're all in school today, and would plan on  being in school if we do go down there, so that it wouldn't  necessitate for this kind of COVID pandemic situation that's  going on where you've got to go ahead and leave the building.  And right now the idea is we don't -- once we get  tested in the morning, they don't want us to be retested  again. In other words, we've got to stay out the building  once we leave, and so that's a consideration.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Olson. I understand  what you're saying. And, again, we're not going to take any  action on this today. It's an issue for discussion. We're  reacting to the Risk Management.  So I think we understand now from Mindy Kissner  that Risk Management has said they feel they should not be  covering spouses. And I guess we need to see if we have  other resolutions to that, otherways to find a resolution of  that issue.  Any other comments on this matter?  MS. KISSNER: Chair Stevens, this is Mindy Kissner  again. Can I clarify something, please?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Mindy, please, go ahead.  MS. KISSNER: Thank you. I wanted to make sure that I  said we added the rental car piece as a thought that it would  be the cheapest option, but in that process we realized it is  an unrealistic option for probably all legislators because  they come to live in Juneau, and they use the vehicle while  here to go about their daily lives.  So the rental car, under the state contract, does  not make the most sense because it doesn't cover anyone that  is not a state employee, and that is the piece we wanted to  address and say that it may not be the best option for our  legislators.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Mindy. So when you rent a  car through Budget, who we deal with, you can add a driver  and add insurance. Of course it would not be paid for by  Risk Management, but it could be paid for in other ways.  Have you looked into that? Can people do that? When they go  up to the desk to rent a car, can they add a spouse as a  driver and insurance as well?  MS. KISSNER: Chair Stevens, this is Mindy again. The  answer is, yes, they can rent a car through any car company  and add their own insurance and be covered.  And if they do that and they are driving on  state -- let's say the legislator is driving for work and  they are by themselves in that car and they get in an  accident? their insurance would kick in first, and anything  above that the state would kick in.  If they were driving that car with non-state  employees, I think at that point the state would bow out of  it. But they cannot use the state's rental contract and then  try to apply their own insurance, so it's one or the other.  And I think our recommendation is moving away from  the state contract because it doesn't accommodate and protect  our legislators.  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: I have a question.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Representative Stutes.  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Would there be a reimbursement  provision allowed the legislator on using their own --  CHAIR STEVENS: Their own insurance?  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: -- their own money and insurance to  initially rent the car?  MS. KISSNER: Through the Chair, Representative Stutes,  the way I interpret the policy, it is in the interest to look  for the least expensive option, and that varies by  legislator. So every scenario is going to be slightly  different, but the intent would be the least expensive  option. And I would say having a vehicle is a necessary cost  of doing business, so, yes, it would qualify as a  reimbursable expense.  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Thank you.  SENATOR COGHILL: Mr. Chairman, this is Coghill.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator Coghill, please.  SENATOR COGHILL: So it sounds to me like the real  question here is should we be looking for another rental  policy or a different contract outside of the state contract?  Mindy, is that something that you've looked at the  landscape on?  MS. KISSNER: Senator Coghill, through the Chair, no, we  have not explored that other than to have a conversation with  Risk Management.  And in their words, when you explore contracts  that are covering citizens other than employees, you are  venturing into something that somebody may not go into  contract with you over.  I think, from our standpoint, to simplify it, the  best course of action would be to rent a car, if that was the  option selected, and use your own insurance to do so.  SENATOR COGHILL: I see. Okay. All right. So then  next question, Mr. Chairman, would be could the Legislative  Council look into some way of giving a rental car stipend or  something for insurance? Maybe that would kick us out, but  it looks to me like we're going to have to venture into  buying our own insurance for those of us who will bring  family down. So that would be the next question is does the  Leg Council even want to venture into something like that?  CHAIR STEVENS: Very good question. Thank you, Senator.  Jessica, do you have any comments at this time?  MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens, for the record Jessica Geary,  executive director of Legislative Affairs. I think at this  point we're really exploring different options and working  with the Executive Branch in whatever capacity we're able to.  But what Mindy mentioned was the fact that we  provide for spouses and dependents to travel to Juneau for  the session, but the Executive Branch considers those people  to be private citizens, not state employees; therefore,  they're not covered, which is really the issue. I think  regardless of what pot of money this comes out of, it's  strictly a liability issue. So that's the standpoint they're  taking.  Most of the time you don't need to use insurance  however it's those times that you do, and the injuries are  catastrophic, that this could really be a huge liability for  the state. So it does make sense. We're exploring different  options, and our hope is to bring those options back to the  committee for discussion and action.  SENATOR HOFFMAN: Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator Hoffman.  SENATOR HOFFMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I think an  option that should be considered by Mindy is giving  authorization to those legislators that have spouses to lease  the car for whatever period when they're down in Juneau and  get reimbursed for those expenditures. By doing this, I  think the individual, as stated, can go ahead and rent the  vehicle, add the spouse and/or family members to the policy,  and then get reimbursed by the State of Alaska. I think that  this option, although has to go through another step, may be  something that could be considered.  In many cases, like if you have a Costco rental  car, a second individual is added for free. So there are  options out there -- it's just that the State of Alaska needs  to acknowledge that a state employee and/or their spouse  needs to be covered. I think this option would allow that,  but it would need to be sanctioned by our travel policy.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator. Yes, the issues  there, it looks like we can solve them. We're looking at  options. We certainly want to encourage legislators to bring  their families to Juneau. They have in the past and probably  more so now, but we don't want to discourage that. We want  to make sure that should there be, as Jessica said, a  catastrophic accident, that everyone is covered the way they  should be.  Any other discussion?  Yes, please, Representative Stutes.  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: I have a question, and I'm not sure  who this would go to. But has there been any comparison on  the expense of, say, renting a vehicle for a legislator for  the session as opposed to the cost of transporting their  personal vehicle down to Juneau? It seems to me that if they  had their own personal vehicle in Juneau, a lot of that  expense or a lot of these issues could be alleviated.  MS. KISSNER: Chair Stevens, this is Mindy Kissner  again. May I make a comment, please?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Mindy, I knew you'd have an answer  to that. Go ahead.  MS. KISSNER: The practice exists today that  we -- legislators, by all means, look to the least expensive  way to have a vehicle in Juneau. That currently happens.  Our recommendation today would be to not use the  state rental contract because it only allows coverage for  state employees. So if you are driving with a friend,  spouse, or family member, those people would not be covered  under it, and that does not seem realistic. So going with  the other option of renting a vehicle using your own  insurance covers everybody in that car.  SENATOR STEDMAN: Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator Stedman.  SENATOR STEDMAN: You know, I see and understand the  dilemma, particularly when we're dealing with our colleagues  that are out in the hinterland and there is no road access,  or, frankly, Kodiak could be very little ferry access, as an  example, or Nome. There's two good examples.  But, you know, we want to make sure that we keep a  level playing field also so the people that bring their car  to Juneau is a cost that they incur for the vehicle and  maintenance and their own insurance and on and on and on. So  we want to make sure we don't tip the field a little bit,  keep it as fair as we can amongst all of the legislators as  far as the compensation package goes.  My being extremely close would have to make a hard  argument why I can't move my car from Sitka to Juneau and  make that less expensive than moving one from Kodiak or  Dillingham to Juneau. Those are glaring examples. But I  have to eat all my costs and get reimbursed for none of them.  So we just want to keep that in mind when we put this policy  together. But I would agree that we have to have the ability  for the spouse to be able to drive whatever vehicle it is.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator. I appreciate it,  Senator Stedman. We need to make sure that it's fair and  equitable.  Mindy, did you have further comments there?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Chair Stevens, may I jump in?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes.  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: This is DeLena Johnson.  CHAIR STEVENS: Representative Johnson.  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: I wanted to make sure, first of  all, that you knew I was online.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. We got you.  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: And I've been here for a while.  I wanted to add my two cents. First of all, I think it's  important that we remember that legislators should be looked  at in many ways as a family unit unless we want to have  people that go home on the weekends, and that's just a  thought out there.  It sounds to me like there's a lot more  administrative work to do on this policy and to examine some  of the different options that are available, whether it's  just a flat-out stipend for each person for a car and they go  rent their own. There's lots of different ways to approach  this.  Obviously we could talk about it all day, but I  hope that when Legislative Affairs comes back with something,  that they'll come back with something more definitive that we  can work on, although I do appreciate them bringing it in  front of us so we can examine it. Anyway, that's all. I  just wanted to say I was here, and I'll let you guys carry  on. Thanks.  CHAIR STEVENS: Well, thank you, Representative Johnson,  appreciate your comments. And you're absolutely right, this  needs to be family-friendly, and that's what we've always  been. We want to make sure that continues.  One issue I'd ask the staff to look into is  insurance. I decide with my insurance company how I'm  covered and who's covered in my car and all that. As you  talk about a catastrophic accident, we each have different  coverages on our personal insurance so please consider  individual insurance as you proceed on this, Mindy. I think  you know where we're coming from and what we want to do. And  I appreciate your comments, Mindy, to indicate that this is  not working, it's not realistic, and we have to find a  solution to it.  Before we move on, any further comments on this  matter?  MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens, this is Jessica.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please, Jessica, go ahead.  MS. GEARY: I just wanted to make a quick comment in  response to Representative Stutes' question about legislators  being able to bring their own vehicles to Juneau.  Absolutely that is still able to happen.  Legislators will still get reimbursed. Legislative Affairs  will still arrange for transport of your vehicles. A recent  change to the policy that was made was if it's less expensive  to rent a car than to bring your personal vehicle, then you  should rent a car. So this change in Risk Management has  really caused us to evaluate our whole rental car contract  practice.  I appreciate all of the comments, and we're  certainly going to look into every possible option for how to  take care of this and take care of our legislators and their  families.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you very much. And, of course, as  people are traveling to D.C. or wherever they might go or  another community, the same incident might occur where a  spouse is driving. So we have to look at the bigger picture  here. Thanks very much for that comment.  Any other thoughts? Any other comments? I think  somebody else is trying to speak.  SENATOR COGHILL: Yes, this is Senator Coghill.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator Coghill.  SENATOR COGHILL: Just write this down; it needs to be  looked into. 24.60.030 is the ethics on private benefits.  It's something that needs to be considered because once you  start allowing a private benefit, being on the ethics  committee for a lot of years, that's going to be something  you're going to have to think about.  CHAIR STEVENS: Absolutely. I appreciate your pointing  that out to us. So, Jessica and Mindy, we will all pay  attention to that as we move forward. Thank you.  Any further comments? Well, let's move on then.  We'll try to find what the options are and try to find a way  to solve this issue.    B. ADOPTION OF COVID-19 SESSION SAFETY PROTOCOLS    CHAIR STEVENS: Let's move on to adoption of COVID-19  session safety protocols. I'd like to make it clear what  we're doing here.  First, I want to ask Jessica to go over her memo,  which you should have in front of you, and hear her  recommendations and allow her time to answer any questions,  are you to ask any questions.  After that, I'm going to ask Megan Wallace to talk  about the memo that she has presented to us. I don't want to  take any action on that memo at this time, but I think it all  plays together. You need to know the information in her memo  to really deal with the other issues that we've got in front  of us.  And I would like to move these other three things,  if we can: the Mask Policy, the Screening Process Policy, and  the Code of Conduct Policy, but, again, not move the action  in Megan's memo.  So then before we go into motions on those three  things, Jessica, would you explain your memo?  MS. GEARY: Yes. For the record, again, Jessica Geary,  executive director of Legislative Affairs.  I've been doing a lot of work over the  past -- well, since the start of this pandemic on listening  to what other states are doing to safely convene their  Legislature. This Legislative Council has the authority to  take appropriate action for pre-convening work of each  legislative session; which got us thinking that January is  right around the corner, and we really need to have some  consistent policies in place that can be applied evenly  across all of our legislative spaces and then carry us into  the 32nd Legislature.  So one of the big ways that we know helps prevent  the spread of this virus is to wear a face covering. And  having a mask -- or having a policy in place that requires  legislators and staff and visitors to those legislative  spaces, if they have a face covering on, that is a  recommendation. So there's a policy in there. I'm just  going to go through each of these bullets briefly, and then  we can talk about each policy separately.  The Screening Process Policy is a way to ensure  those that are entering the Capitol are free of COVID  symptoms, and those who participated in the session in May  recall that the screening process is pretty painless, but it  can help identify those who might have the virus or at least  symptoms that could be contagious.  The next item is a little different. But when we  look at bringing the legislators, the staff, the families  down to Juneau in January, we sort of look at trying to  create a bubble, in a sense, or a safe space where, to the  extent possible, we know who we're dealing with. We know  that there isn't somebody who has been out doing risky  behaviors and might be a greater risk for carrying and  spreading the disease.  The Pandemic Code of Contact Policy is just one  small piece of many different things that need to be looked  at and decided upon. It's just basically saying that "I  agree to follow best practices and not carry on any risky  behavior which could bring back this virus to my legislative  family."  So those are the three policies. Then up for  discussion is also the travel. We have a current practice of  legislators traveling back home to district routinely and  then coming back down. Each community might have a different  level of outbreak at the time, but if you're freely going  back and forth between communities, it increases the risk of  spreading the virus.  So the thought there was to place some  restrictions on travel, not to forbid travel, but just to  ensure that the travel is necessary and that it's been  sanctioned, if you will, by the presiding officer and  allowing for an excused absence.  I'll briefly mention, too, one of the things that  we've been looking at is hiring a contractor to assist with  the screening and the testing process. I can go into more  detail on that, but I just wanted to briefly mention that if  we look at this as a whole package, there's a lot of  different moving parts and pieces and the more you can put  into place, the more protected we would all be.  Perhaps I should stop and answer any questions, or  would you like me to start going into the specific policies?  I'm not sure which would be most helpful to do first.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thanks, Jessica. I appreciate all the  efforts, all the work you put into this. I know it's been  very time-consuming.  The goal, of course, is to make sure that all  legislators and staff feel safe. They feel that coming into  the Capitol is a safe place for them to be. And so I know  there's some people that say, "Leave it the way it is right  now. Don't make any changes at all." There are others that  want to make sure that they're entirely safe.  That's going to be the problem we face is where do  we draw that line and how far do we go? Also to realize that  this Leg Council only continues until the end of the year,  beginning of next year, but it does continue. If there's not  an organization next year, there's a delay in organizing  another body. So these are rules that would be in place when  we come down, but they can be changed quickly by the 32nd  Legislature, by the presiding officers, by leadership.  This gives everyone a heads-up as to what might  occur, what they could consider. If we waited until the last  minute, then let the next legislature decide all of these  things, I think they can be lost, depending on how  organizations go and who winds up in leadership positions.  I do believe there's a question out there?  SENATOR HOFFMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this is Senator  Hoffman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Hoffman.  SENATOR HOFFMAN: Going back to the second bullet point  regarding screening process policies, the daily screening of  legislators, what does that entail, and what type of test are  you talking about? There's so many different tests out  there, and some of the tests you don't get the results for  within seven days, others you don't get within three days,  and others are 24-hour results. I'm wondering what type of  test are we referring to in this second bullet point  regarding daily testing?  CHAIR STEVENS: Really good point, Senator Hoffman. If  we can hold off on that. We're going to go to Megan and have  her explain her memo, and then we'll go through each of these  items beginning with the Mask Policy and then the Screening  Process and then the Code so that we'll have a chance to get  through all of them. Can you hold off on the answer to that,  Senator?  SENATOR HOFFMAN: I can hold off as long as the answer  is correct.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Well, it will be, I'm sure.  Let's go to Megan. I know this is little out of  order, but Megan's -- our attorney's comments are very  important -- it's the Uniform Rule Changes Amid the COVID-19  Pandemic from Megan Wallace, dated October 27th. I hope you  have that. I don't want to adopt that now, but I do think  it's important that we discuss that a little bit before we go  into the specifics of each of these policies.  So, Megan, are you with us?  MS. WALLACE: Yes, Chair. For the record, Megan  Wallace, legal services director.  Members should have the memo that Senator Stevens  was referencing before you in your packet. What this memo  discusses is really a continuation of some of the discussions  that were happening last spring and in May, when the  Legislature briefly reconvened, in terms of what the options  are for the Legislature procedurally if changes to the manner  in which the Legislature conducts business needs to be  modified in order to take into account for undertaking  business during a pandemic.  The first bullet point in my memorandum discusses  options for both committee meetings or for session. It's  difficult for me to predict what the will of the Legislature  come next session will be, but it appears that it's likely  that there is going to be a desire to increase remote  participation during committee meetings.  As most of you are familiar with, Uniform Rule  24(a) requires that a report be signed by a majority of the  members of the committee. That rule has historically been  construed to require members to be physically present to vote  to move a bill from committee.  Other than that, our Legislature has been  conducting or allowing for remote participation of committee  members fully for quorum purposes, for debate purposes, for  adoption of amendments. All other matters besides voting a  bill out from committee is something that the Legislature  already does on a regular basis.  So if committees are going to be meeting with more  members being remote, particularly where you may not have  enough members physically present to reach a majority to pass  out a bill, one option would be to change Uniform Rule 24(a)  to allow for members to vote remotely to pass out a bill.  And then the other larger piece is if there's a  desire or it becomes impractical or impossible for the  Legislature to meet in Juneau to conduct its business on the  floor, it wouldn't be unheard of for the Legislature to  consider allowing for remote floor sessions.  In the memorandum you'll see there's a couple  different footnotes. If you want to explore some NCSL  information regarding what other states are doing, there's  been at least 25 states who have authorized remote  participation in some form, including committee meetings and  floor sessions. It's been working in some states, to the  extent that they need it to, and it's been considered a  matter of Legislature procedure.  While I could not guarantee that there's no risk  of challenge should the Alaska Legislature authorize remote  participation, I am fairly confident that an Alaska court  would not step in the way of the Alaska Legislature making  procedural rules so that it could continue to conduct its  business amid a pandemic.  The bullet point regarding potential remote  participation during floor sessions largely are derived from  SCR 16, which the Senate passed at the end of last session.  The House did not have the opportunity to (indiscernible),  but each of those bullet points in terms of the specific  rules for or guidelines for remote session are all policy  decisions that either Leg Council could make recommendations  to the next incoming Legislature, or the next Legislature  could make those decisions. I'm happy to answer questions  anyone has about those - I won't go through them  individually.  The second bullet point, which is on page 3 of my  memo, addresses things that were not outlined in the remote  piece of this discussion, which would be additional policy  decisions for the Legislature to consider if it became  necessary or there was a desire to really alter Legislature  procedure, as we know it and as has been historically done,  so that the amount of time that legislators spend on the  floor congregated or the length of what it takes to get the  Legislature's business done can be abbreviated.  The bullets that I outline were derived from me  going through the rules and looking at things to be truncated  or modified if those were goals that the Legislature decided  it wanted to explore.  These lists are not exclusive. One thing that was  not mentioned in the memo, that was brought to my attention  after the fact, was an additional recommendation in terms of  limiting floor activity or reducing length of session,  another smaller change such as revising the rules to remove  the need for title change resolutions during session, which  have been really a formality in most recent history.  Again, this is a non-exclusive list of items that  could each individually be considered, or also there's room  for modification of each of those bullet points. That's  generally what the memo goes through and I'm happy to answer  any questions.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Megan. I really appreciate  you giving this so much thought and giving us so many options  here of things we can talk about.  I want to make it clear again. There is no  intention to take any action on this memo from Megan at this  time and to realize that this is not a permanent change.  This is a temporary change in the face of the pandemic or any  other pandemic or any other issue that may come along in the  future, but this is a tool in the toolbox that can be used if  things get worse, and they very well might.  What Megan is doing and what Jessica is doing is  to plan for the worst, a plan for what could happen and  hopefully does not, so temporary. And interesting that 25  states have passed something like this.  Let's open this up for discussion just on this  memo at this time. Does anybody have any thoughts or  concerns? I know there are a lot of concerns about some of  the rules there. Would anybody like to speak to this at this  time?  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Chairman, this is Natasha.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator von Imhof, please go ahead.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Thank you.  Megan, I really appreciate you taking the time to  write this memo, and I think it's something that it's good to  have in our toolbox, just like Senator Stevens said.  I am hoping, though, that we don't utilize it  right away and that we have discussions just about the  possibility of instead all going to Juneau instead and  creating a bubble if that's the case. I think it's better  that we're all together. This is an interesting platform  today, but I would like to see everybody's smiling facing  underneath their mask or at least the twinkling of their  eyes, if you will, under their masks.  One of the ways this could be helpful is that if  we do have someone who is sick and quarantining for a couple  weeks in Juneau, maybe they could participate in a way that's  meaningful while they're self-isolating.  But other than that, I'm hoping that we don't go  home on a regular basis and just decide to stay home for two  or three days and participate remotely. I think we all need  to be down in Juneau. At least that's how I feel now, today,  October, 29th. Thanks.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator von Imhof. You're  right, and I think there's no way to avoid, no matter how bad  things get, our getting together in Juneau to at least make  these decisions on what we're going to do.  Should someone come down with COVID, one of the  legislators, they could certainly participate from their home  base in Juneau. I know that a lot of issues here we're  talking about, travel and that sort of thing, it's quite  concerning. But if people do travel and become positive in  their hometown and then cannot return to the  Legislature -- there's got to be a tipping point there. If  the Legislature is unable to act, that really is a concern of  mine.  Thank you very much, Senator von Imhof. I  appreciate those comments.  Any further thoughts?  SENATOR STEDMAN: I have a couple, Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Stedman.  SENATOR STEDMAN: A couple of concerns: One is that we  maintain our operations in Juneau, and we have, as mentioned,  some flexibility in case somebody is stuck in their apartment  for a couple weeks or what have you, and we have tight  controls on the building.  But I don't want us to head down the road where we  could have some of our elected officials just decide that  they don't want to sit in Juneau and want to sit home, or  they want to work and do this telephonically. We've had some  concerns about that the last couple years, and I think we  need to be very careful with that. Clearly Juneau is set up  to handle the legislative work far better than any other  location. And if we have problems, I personally feel Juneau  has the ability to isolate itself off much more than a lot of  other areas if need be.  I'd also like to, hopefully our colleagues will  work with us, be careful on the travel during session. But I  think it's pretty hard to be too restrictive because we also  run the risk that some of our colleagues just might do what  they want to do. We've seen that also last year on the floor  trying to deal with the mask issues.  There are just some concerns. But let's not set  up a process where some of our colleagues could be employed  somewhere and then call in whenever they are in the mood on a  particular issue.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Stedman, very good  point. I understand what you're saying. That's not the goal  here, and I'm not sure how we --  Jessica, do you have any response to that?  MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens, I'm sorry, I don't really  have a response because it will really come down to the  legislators and the leadership. I don't want to use the term  "policing," but it's not really anything that a policy can  control, because, as Senator Stedman said, even if there was  a policy in place, legislators do have their own funds and  could decide to travel regardless.  I think the best we can do--and maybe Megan has an  idea as far as what procedurally could be done--is just  letting people know what the expectation is and hope that  they can abide by it.  SENATOR STEDMAN: Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Jessica. I'm sorry to put  you on the spot like that. I appreciate you jumping in  there.  Senator Stedman.  SENATOR STEDMAN: I'd like to just remind everybody that  the current presiding officer had trouble with some of the  elected officials even having the courtesy of telling her or  the rules chairman that they weren't going to be in town.  CHAIR STEVENS: Exactly. We did experience that. And I  hate to call people out on the spot here, but presiding  officers, do you have any comments on this issue, the  president or the speaker?  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Senator Stevens, this is Senator  Giessel.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please, Senator Giessel.  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: I appreciate both Senator von Imhof  and Senator Stedman's comments. As members of leadership,  and senators, as well as yourself, Senator Stevens, recall  the Concurrent Resolution 16 that was passed.  To speak to one of Senator Stedman's concerns, we  had that concern that Juneau was not abandoned as the seat of  government. So on page 2 of that concurrent resolution,  lines 1 through 3 it actually states, "In accordance with the  Constitution, Juneau is the capital and the seat of  government, and the Legislature must continue to meet in the  seat of government to the fullest extent possible."  The resolution calls out, the content of it is  page 2 of Megan's memo, that first bullet point starts out,  "Upon agreement of the presiding officers of both houses, we  would authorize session by videoconference."  So it wouldn't be a whimsical decision on the part  of a single presiding officer. It would be, of course,  discussions with both leadership teams in the House and the  Senate; at least that's certainly how Bryce and I worked. It  was not just us making those decisions.  I will also share -- just reminding senators, who  I know know this, but possibly House members don't -- we did  deploy cameras into LIOs, and I would let Jessica update  which LIOs have it. But the requirement that those  legislators are not traveling to Italy, let's say, and tried  to call into a floor session, they would actually be required  to be in an LIO in Alaska.  If there was a reason that they would be  quarantining in their own home, either in their personal  residence, in their city of residence or in Juneau, that  would require special permission from the presiding officer.  So we tried to contain those concerns in that joint  resolution. And as Megan pointed out, the Senate did pass it  unanimously, and that's a footnote on page 2 of her memo.  Those are just a couple comments to things that  have already been stated. Thank you, Senator Stevens.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Giessel. I  appreciate those comments. We will later hear from Tim on  the updated cameras in the LIOs. I have asked him, in his  presentation later, to remind us, where we are right now and  the ability we have to communicate as we are in this meeting.  Mr. Speaker, do you have any thoughts, any  comments since this is an issue you have been dealing with  along with the president?  SPEAKER EDGMON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope you  can hear me okay.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, I can hear you clearly.  SPEAKER EDGMON: Okay. Great. I guess a couple of  points: to reiterate what Cathy was saying, we did spend a  lot of time on the subject matter that eventually became SCR  16 back in April, I think going into May.  As we all know, looking back on the past session  on March 29th, we went into an extensive recess. And that  might be an item that, number two, limited floor activity  might consider as a bullet point 2 if we do pass a vehicle  that separately alters uniform rules.  A second point is pretty amorphous, maybe  convoluted at best, but the work that lies ahead of us next  session is going to be very, very challenging. I would not  like to see anything that would come out of a policy that  could be leveraged against us, assuming that another  governing coalition stays the same and the mindset about  taking the approach of earning reserve and really making  difficult choices that would require us to spend some time in  Juneau to get through all this, that we don't have a  situation where I would (indiscernible).  Jessica, in your memo, I would take out the  verbiage "and adjourn after conducting work safely." Because  there could be the scenario where we do go down, we get our  work done early, March perhaps, but then we just sort of  (indiscernible) until the sessions conclude, given the fact  that we -- who knows -- may have to come back for some  unforeseen business. Other than that, I'm supportive of the  discussion and the direction that we're going in.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, you bring up  some very good points, the challenges we will face next year.  If it does get really bad and we have to meet at a distance,  as we are meeting right now, you can see the difficulty of  this. I'm trying to give everyone a chance to speak. It's  going to take even more time, 40 members of the House, if  you're all on a system like this, it will be extremely  difficult, but we still have to be prepared for the worst.  I'll give anyone else an opportunity to speak to  this. We're not going to take action on Megan's memo, but we  will eventually in time. I think we need to pass it later  with modifications that might be needed, but we're not going  to adopt that at this point. I just wanted to make sure you  were aware of that process and the impact it has on the  policies we'll be considering.  Any last comments on Megan's memo?  SENATOR COGHILL: Senator Coghill. One note to think  of.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Coghill, yes.  SENATOR COGHILL: Megan, as we go through this, on the  contingency that we have to have the LIOs for example, if we  do the SCR 16 again, I think it would be wise that we still  have the ability to compel attendance. I think that's going  to be something that is going to be very important to do. I  know that could slow the process down, but I think, as we go  forward, the fear that Senator Stedman shared can be waylaid  somewhat by the ability to compel attendance, just for what  it's worth.  CHAIR STEVENS: Good point. Thank you, Senator Coghill.  That certainly is a consideration. And I think the public  expects everyone to be in Juneau or to be other places, at  their desk and perform their duties. So it's good to know  that we can compel attendance.  MS. GEARY: We're going to have a brief at ease.  CHAIR STEVENS: With no further comments on Megan's  memo -- which we're not going to take action on -- let's move  on to the other things that I would like to have us at least  consider, and that is the Mask Policy, the Screening Process  Policy, and the Pandemic Code of Conduct Policy.  Representative Stutes, can we have a motion on the  Mask Policy?  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Certainly, Mr. Chair. I move that  Legislative Council approve the Legislative Council COVID-19  Mask Policy.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.  Jessica, would you explain that for us, please?  MS. GEARY: Sure. Chair Stevens, the Mask Policy is a  pretty standard policy that we've seen in municipal  governments. We used some of the language from our Juneau  mask mandate. In essence, it says that when you are unable  to maintain 6-foot distance and you are in a legislative  facility, that you must have a cloth face covering. And, of  course, you can take it off to eat or drink.  There are a few exceptions at the bottom, which I  think are just common-sense exceptions. If a person declines  to wear a mask because of a medical condition or disability,  this policy does not require them to produce medical  documentation.  The enforcement piece is, "Except as otherwise  provided in this section, a person who violates the face  covering requirement may be removed from legislative  property. Enforcement as applied to legislators will be left  to the members and legislative leadership."  So that's it. It's a very basic policy. I am  happy to answer any questions that any members might have.  CHAIR STEVENS: Well, thank you, Jessica. I will object  to the motion for purposes of discussion and I'll go into  that.  Anybody have any comments on the Mask Policy that  is before you?  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: I do.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Representative Stutes.  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm wondering  how pertinent this is going to be. I mean, it's a very  simple policy to avoid. "Oh, I can't wear a mask. I had  radiation and it affected my breathing, and I certainly can't  wear a mask." It's pretty evident to me that anybody that  chooses not to want to wear a mask, this policy is going to  be very ineffective.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, I see your point. Certainly people  can ignore it, but I think we have an obligation to be an  example. The governor was caught at a fundraiser not wearing  a mask, and it raised all sorts of concern and a lot of  people spoke about it. I think, as legislators, it's really  important that we be a role model for everyone in the state  and that we do things as properly as we possibly can. But,  yes, that's a good point; people can ignore it if they choose  to.  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Just one --  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, go ahead.  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: One more comment. It's already been  exhibited by legislators not being good examples because they  simply don't believe in wearing a mask, so that's all I'll  say.  CHAIR STEVENS: Very good point. I think all of  us -- or many of us are very concerned about the conditions  we might face and our people on the floor not wearing a mask,  the impact it could have on each and every one of us. There  are some controls over that, constitutionally, and maybe  we'll have Megan explain this. But constitutionally everyone  has a right -- every elected official has a right to be on  the floor, to be able to vote, to be able to speak.  There are other considerations that we have talked  about, the rules chair, assigned seating. So we are talking  about additional seating on the floor, maybe behind  plexiglass. So anybody who does not follow that Mask Policy  could be moved to another position on the floor where they  would not be a threat to the rest of the folks that are on  the floor. Just a thought.  Any comments on that or thoughts?  SENATOR HOFFMAN: Mr. Chairman, this is Senator Hoffman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Hoffman.  SENATOR HOFFMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During the  last legislative session, our Senate secretary did not wear a  mask. She wore a face covering, which was basically  plexiglass. I'm wondering does this use of that comply with  the regulations? And, more importantly, I guess, is that use  of a face mask that's covering your nose, mouth, and your  eyes proven to be effective stopping the spread of COVID?  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Hoffman. I'm not  sure how effective it is.  Staff have any comments on the effectiveness of  those shields? Jessica, do you have any thoughts on that?  MS. GEARY: Sure. So the shields are definitely very  effective. They have the droplet barrier at the bottom of  the shield, which prevents any droplets from coming out. So  I think they're even a better option than the mask, and they  would certainly meet the requirements of this policy. We do  have some of those available to members if they choose to  have them, I think it's just each member's comfort level.  Right now the medical advice that we have is that  cloth face coverings also are an adequate way to prevent the  spread, but only if both people are wearing them. So I think  either way you go -- I'm not going to give medical  advice -- but I think they're both adequate and would meet  the test of this policy.  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: There's always a problem of people  wearing masks. It's difficult to communicate, and, of  course, I know when the president was wearing a mask on the  floor, it's hard to really see what's going on, and maybe a  shield would be more effective.  Senator Giessel, you have some thoughts on that?  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: I do, Mr. Chairman. I follow this  rather closely. The shield actually is -- the shield is what  Senator Hoffman was describing. It's not a piece of  plexiglass, it's actually plastic; it's called a shield.  That's actually more effective than the face mask. Some  droplets do penetrate through the widely available what's  referred to as medical masks.  What is ineffective -- and I think that need to be  called out here -- is the scarfs that people put over their  nose and mouth. Sometimes it's like a neck gator or just a  simple scarf. The testing on that shows that droplets do get  through that pretty prolifically.  If we want this to be effective, I would suggest  that there be an exemption for allowing just the scarf over  the nose or mouth, that it actually be a mask or -- either a  medical-type mask or a cloth mask such as was provided by the  Juneau folks for us when we went back in May. Those are my  comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Giessel. So you  would be comfortable with a shield, as well as a mask then;  is that right?  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: The shield would actually be  optimally preventative of any droplets being distributed.  The problem is -- and I think our Senate secretary expressed  it -- Liz indicated it was actually uncomfortable to wear for  very long.  CHAIR STEVENS: I see. Okay. Good point. Well, thank you  all so much for those thoughts. And any further comments?  SENATOR HOFFMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this is Senator  Hoffman again.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Hoffman.  SENATOR HOFFMAN: The enforcement issue that  Representative Stutes brought up is a serious concern of what  type of enforcement measures do we have. And I know we have  constitutional rights to speak, but I think at the national  level there's also the right to travel.  But airlines have issued no-fly to individuals  that haven't been wearing masks, and I read the article, I  believe yesterday, that they're close to 1,000 people that  are on a no-fly list, they are losing their rights to travel.  And that is the hammer that the industry has or the airline  industry is utilizing. So it is a very serious issue.  We have laws that prohibit individuals from  smoking in public buildings because of health hazards, and I  believe that COVID is probably far more of a concern  regarding health hazards. The enforcement issue needs to be  looked at very, very seriously in light of the health issues  and trying to weigh the enforcement of, say, people that are  smoking, for health reasons and not allowed in certain areas  and those that are not willing to wear masks to spread COVID  as it relates to health matters. I think that they are not  comparable. I think COVID is a far more risky situation, and  we should be treating as such when we develop our enforcement  policies.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Hoffman. Clearly the  point you made on air travel is particularly valid. No  legislator can fly to Juneau without wearing a mask on an  airplane, so what would be the objection to wearing a mask on  the floor?  Megan, if you're still with us, could you touch on  the constitutional issues, and maybe if you have any thoughts  on enforcement, I'd appreciate that.  MS. WALLACE: Sure. Again, for the record, Megan  Wallace, legal services director.  Enforcement, as everyone has acknowledged, is the  most difficult piece of this and the other policies as it  applies to legislators because they are elected officials,  elected to a legislative body to pass laws on the floor  during session.  I hesitate a little bit because it feels like in  2020 we've used this word unprecedented so many times. "This  is unprecedented. This is unprecedented." But this is  another unprecedented circumstance. So we haven't seen  challenges to prohibiting a member from exercising his or her  right to vote on the floor because they didn't wear a face  covering.  Alaska is not the only state that is grappling  with how to enforce mask policies and other mitigation  efforts. We're seeing legislators across the country kind of  push the bounds of these kinds of policies. And, as Jessica  mentioned, we are all collectively watching what is happening  in other states because, while it doesn't always translate  exactly to Alaska, it does help us look at issues and analyze  them and see how courts in other states are addressing these  legal issues that come to be.  The best that I can tell you, my advice would be  that if a member were to be prevented from entering the floor  to vote because he or she didn't wear a face covering, the  ultimate risk of challenge or litigation over that decision  is relatively high, and how a court would come out on that is  a more difficult thing to predict.  It's that balancing of the health and welfare of  members around that other member -- is the court going to  give weight to that or more weight to the inability of that  elected official to exercise his or her vote?  It's my anecdotal understanding that in one state  a member has been expelled from the Legislature for refusing  to wear a mask. And under Article 2, Section 12, the members  are -- they judge the qualifications of each -- of the other  members. So there's a remedy in Article 2, Section 12 to  expel members. And it would be -- I suppose that, one  argument against restricting someone from the floor for  failure to wear a face mask would be if members don't want  that person to participate in the body anymore, that the  remedy is exclusively to expel that member, and anything  short of that is impermissible.  But I suspect that there are other lesser forms of  enforcement that the Legislature could explore in terms of  regulating the conduct of its own members. The committee on  committees could take action and remove folks from committee  memberships, or they could be seated in different places on  the floor. There's a litany of other options that might be  available to the extent that the body wants to enforce it.  That's kind of a long-winded answer, but  ultimately it's just a very high risk of litigation if  members were kept from floor sessions.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. No, not long-winded, really  appropriate, and thank you for the time. And so alternate  seating on the floor would comply with the constitutional  requirements -- what else do we have to do? If we have  alternate seating, they have to have a microphone and a  button for voting. Is there anything else we have to do?  MS. WALLACE: Through the Chair, Senator Stevens, as it  relates to the procedural rules for voting and seating  assignment, the largest -- or the most important rule, as it  relates to that issue, in my opinion, is Uniform Rule 34,  subsection -- or paragraph 5, which requires that a member  may only vote when at a member's desk, and so wherever that  desk is assigned is the place where the member is required to  vote.  So, for example, a member couldn't -- if a member  was assigned a desk in the chamber, they couldn't vote from  any other location. So they couldn't be directed to sit  somewhere else and cast their vote there if that's not their  desk, by rule. But that's a legislative procedural rule, and  that would be something that the Legislature, as it relates  to an earlier discussion about procedural changes, that it  might consider. If reassignment of someone's seat or  reassignment of where that person must cast their vote if  they don't comply with a mask or other mitigation policy,  that might be something that is considered if other uniform  rules of procedural changes are considered.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Megan, for that.  Any further comments on this Mask Policy before we  move ahead?  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Senator Stevens, this is Senator von  Imhof.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please, Senator von Imhof.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: So just real quick, I do appreciate  discussion regarding the floor. But if a particular  legislator refuses to wear a mask at any time, whether it be  in the hallway, in the stairwell, in the Leg lounge, if it's  open, in any of the committee meetings, anything -- we're  just sort of accommodating the floor issue. But if a  legislator refuses to wear a mask at all, that's sort of  another layer or another response, and we don't necessarily  have to have an answer to that right now. But, you know,  it's one thing not to have a mask in your office, but the  moment you leave even to go to the bathroom, I believe that  we should be wearing a mask at this time.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator von Imhof. I think  this policy would demand that everyone wear a mask in the  hallways and in committee meetings. The reason we're  spending time with the "on the floor issue" is because it's a  constitutional matter, that the Constitution does say, as  Megan pointed out, that everyone should have a right to vote.  So, yes, a very good point. Thank you very much, Senator von  Imhof.  Any other discussion?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: This is Representative Johnson.  I have a comment.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please, Representative Johnson.  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Okay. So I guess I'm going to  have to be a no vote on this because I think the  enforcement -- it's a great suggestion, but we don't have the  keys to do it. Someone can just go in and get their little  medical chip or whatever. Even if they just say they have a  medical reason, there's nothing to this. This is kind of the  worst of the worst. It's a great suggestion, but it's not  particularly meaningful.  Now, what we can do is we can talk about what  staff can do, and we can talk about who we let in the  building, and we can talk our bubble. But when it comes to  regulating legislators, we're going to have a heck of a time  doing that, and I don't know if now's the time to pick that  up and try to do it. That's just where I'm at on this.  It's not that I have a problem wearing a mask, and  I'll be wearing a mask in the building. But, I just want to  put that out there because that's my concern, that it's not  strong enough, and it's too weak as it is, and it's  just -- it's not going to get us where I think we need to go.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Thank you, Representative  Johnson.  Representative Stutes.  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I can  appreciate what Representative Johnson is saying, but -- and  I understand the constitutionality of not preventing a  legislator from voting, but they're not constitutionally  guaranteed, say, access to the lounge or anyplace else like  that, so we could restrict them from going into the lounge.  Am I correct on that? And restrict them from accessing  places in the building other than the floor, can we do that?  CHAIR STEVENS: Well, I think so. If you read this  policy, it means anybody in the Capitol Complex legislative  space has to wear a mask, face covering. And other things  like handwashing and sanitizing, and it's hard to follow that  up.  I appreciate what both Representative Johnson said  and Representative Stutes, but my responsibility, as chair of  Leg Council, is to make sure that every legislator feels safe  entering that building. And if that means that we become  heavy-handed and say everyone wear a mask, I think that's  what we have to do.  I mean, you cannot allow everyone just to go  back -- to act as if we were in January of 2020. We're not  there now. Hopefully this will not last long, but we have to  protect those members who -- some of our members have health  issues, and it's quite a concern there. Anyway, just my  thought as well.  Any further comments on this Mask Policy?  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Yes, Senator Stevens, this is  Senator Giessel.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Giessel.  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Mr. Chairman, to some degree I'm  responding to Representative Johnson's comment. I think that  the definition of face coverings -- I'm looking at the Mask  Policy and after, purpose -- number one, purpose -- there's  an asterisk, and it says, "Face coverings must be made of  cloth, blah, blah, blah."  I would recommend amending this to be much more  specific. "Face coverings mean a clean medical mask or  surgical mask or approved face shield. Also included is a  clean cloth mask made of cotton material, multiple layers of  tightly woven fabric, a minimum of two layers. Not  acceptable are bandanas or N-95 masks."  The N-95 -- just as a parenthetical comment -- the  individual wearing that is exhaling air that is not filtered.  So they are not effective. So I would amend this to be much  more specific about what we're expecting for face coverings.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Giessel. I take that  as then an amendment to the Mask Policy draft, and it would  be a clear definition of what those masks are. So are you  making that as an amendment, Senator Giessel?  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: I am. And I am, by the way, using  CDC language here. Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. So we have an amendment  before us.  A discussion on that amendment, Representative  Stutes?  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Yes, I think that aside from putting  "bandanas," we should include the word "gators" as well.  CHAIR STEVENS: Are you okay with that, Senator Giessel?  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Absolutely, yes.  CHAIR STEVENS: -- to gators? At this point do we also  need to add shields in?  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Senator Stevens, I did include  shields in the first sentence. "Face coverings mean a clean  medical or surgical mask or approved face shield."  Now, what Jessica described is not simply that  shield that covers over your mouth and the bottom is open.  What Jessica was describing is the face shield that has a  closed bottom so that air is not escaping from the inside of  that shield.  CHAIR STEVENS: Very good. So we'll have some  discussion on that amendment, and then I'd ask Senator  Giessel to restate it so we all know exactly what we're  voting on.  Any further discussions on the amendment to define  what these masks and shields are?  MS. GEARY: Senator Stevens, this is Jessica. And I  have a question for Senator Giessel. We've seen as a  replacement of N-95, there has been a lot of other mask types  named KN-95, which I believe is perhaps just a less expensive  version. And if we're saying no N-95, is there another way  to exclude any exhaust style -- I guess I'm just relying on  your medical expertise to define what you mean by "no N-95."  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Jessica, a way to encompass this  would be to say -- and under the "not acceptable" I'm going  to add in what Representative Stutes mentioned. "Not  acceptable are bandanas, gators, or masks which have valves,  such as the N-95." So that would cover the less expensive,  if that's what you're referring to, the less expensive type  of mask. Anything with a valve that is allowing the free  exhale of air would not be acceptable.  MS. GEARY: Thank you for that.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. That's great to have that  information.  Further discussion on the amendment before us?    10:32:29 AM  If we could then have a roll call vote on the  amendment, Jessica.  MS. GEARY: Senator Coghill?  SENATOR COGHILL: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senate President Giessel?  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator Hoffman?  SENATOR HOFFMAN: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator Stedman?  SENATOR STEDMAN: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator von Imhof?  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Speaker Edgmon?  Representative Foster?  Representative DeLena Johnson?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: No.  MS. GEARY: Representative Jennifer Johnston?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Representative Kopp?  Representative Thompson?  REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Vice-Chair Stutes?  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes.    MS. GEARY: 9 yeas, 1 nay.  CHAIR STEVENS: So the motion -- the amendment passes  with a vote of 9 to 1.    So let's go back to the original motion that  Representative Stutes made to -- well, let's see. Yes, so I  think we're at a point now of going back to the original  motion on the Mask Policy.  Any further discussions on that motion?  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Mr. Chairman, this is Senator  Giessel. I just wanted --  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Giessel.  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: -- to add parenthetically I just  e-mailed Jessica Geary the words that I used in my amendment  so she'll have them, but otherwise I have no other comments  about this other than I think it's a good policy. Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Giessel.  Any further comments on this motion, the main  motion before us?  Then could we have a roll call, Jessica?  MS. GEARY: Senator Coghill?  SENATOR COGHILL: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senate President Giessel?  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator Hoffman?  SENATOR HOFFMAN: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator Stedman?  SENATOR STEDMAN: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator von Imhof?  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Speaker Edgmon?  Representative Foster?  Representative DeLena Johnson?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: No.  MS. GEARY: Representative Jennifer Johnston?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Representative Kopp?  Representative Thompson?  REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Vice-Chair Stutes?  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes.    MS. GEARY: 9 nays, 1 -- 9 yeas, 1 nay.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. So the motion passes with 9  votes to 1.    Let's then move on to the next issue, which is the  Screening Policy. Representative Stutes, could I have a  motion?    10:36:31 AM  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Certainly, Mr. Chair. I move the  Leg Council approve the Capitol COVID-19 Screening Process  Policy.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. And then I will object at  this point for purposes of discussion and ask Jessica to  discuss this matter, the screening process with us. Jessica.  MS. GEARY: Thank you. Again, for the record, Jessica  Geary, executive director, Legislative Affairs Agency.  So this policy is expanding on the screening  process that we had at the end of May, earlier this year.  And so the screening is simply a series of questions and a  temperature check. And whether the temperature check will be  through a thermal infrared camera or a no-touch thermometer,  I don't think those details don't matter quite as much.  But I think the important thing to note is that  we're talking about closing down the entrances to the Capitol  with the exception of the ground floor lobby, which is the  proposed screening station location. And so it's a pretty  simple policy. I'm happy to answer any questions.  CHAIR STEVENS: So maybe, Jessica, you could talk a  little bit about -- we're going to be discussing the RFP,  potential of hiring a company to come in that does this  professionally. Could you go into a little more detail on  what they would be doing if the Leg Council approves that RFP  at another meeting?  MS. GEARY: Absolutely. And thank you for bringing that  up. I briefly mentioned it earlier, but one of the things  that we are looking into is hiring a third-party contractor  to perform the screening.  And then to Senator Hoffman's question from  earlier, the testing -- we're specifying a rapid  molecular-based test, so I think results within a half an  hour. I am not one-hundred percent on the specifics, but it  is the recommended molecular-based test.  The idea is that the contractor would be a medical  professional in full PPE and would -- after the screening  questions, if there were a member or staff or member of the  media who screened positive for symptoms, they would be  escorted to a private room to get a rapid test, and then, if  they tested positive, they would be asked to leave the  building, and there are some other discussion points on that.  That's sort of the gist of it at this point.  I think there's a statement down at the bottom  that's important. But the screening process may be updated  without the need for additional Legislative Council action in  accordance with guidance from our health officials. We have  the CDC, State of Alaska, and then our local City and Borough  of Juneau. So we at Legislative Affairs are keeping up on  those changes and the most recent guidance available to us.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Jessica. Just a couple of  comments. What we found is that, when we were doing this  before when we were in session, it took a lot of staff time  from legislative staff and not able to do the jobs they do  have to do, their full-time jobs, and probably best not to  have them giving orders to legislators that they have to do  this, they have to do that. So it seems like it would make  sense to have an outside contractor do that.  As I understand it, if someone tests positive when  they come in, they'd be whisked away into another place,  tested again. And then if they are still positive -- and  maybe I have this wrong -- but they would be escorted back to  their apartment or to a hotel. These people that we hire,  the contractor, then would make sure they are fed, they have  meals delivered to them and will take care of them and  including testing as well. So I think it's a better  situation than the one we experienced earlier in this year.  Any comments anyone has on the screening process  at this time then?  SENATOR HOFFMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a question  for consideration.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Hoffman.  SENATOR HOFFMAN: I understand the policy if someone has  a fever, to go to a private area for a rapid test. I'm  wondering for those that have family down there, if they  subject themselves, such as immediate family members to a  rapid test, could they be allowed into the building and not  just to do the screening but actually get the rapid test  within 20 minutes for spouses and maybe immediate family  members? I think that that is something that should be  considered.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator. I don't know the  answer to that.  Jessica, do you have any thoughts?  MS. GEARY: Through the Chair, Senator Hoffman, I think  that that is a policy decision whether or not we would expand  that to spouses and family members if the Legislature is  paying for the actual test. I believe since we pay for  spouses and dependents to travel to Juneau to be a family  unit, I would think we would expand that or extend the offer  for a test to them. The frequency of which we would offer  testing to those who are non-legislators or legislative  employees, that's the piece that I wouldn't be able to answer  right now.  SENATOR HOFFMAN: Under the current policy, if you have  a fever and you get a rapid test, then you leave the  building, would that rapid test continue to allow you access  to the building under this current policy?  MS. GEARY: Through the Chair, Senator Hoffman, I'm not  sure I fully understand your question. Would you mind  repeating it?  SENATOR HOFFMAN: So under the second paragraph, where  individuals have a fever, they go to a private area and have  a rapid test. Then they're allowed into the building. Then  they leave to do some errands outside the building and they  come back into the building. Does that first rapid test  allow them access to the building again, or are they required  to have another rapid test?  MS. GEARY: Through the Chair, Senator Hoffman, that  negative test would allow them access to the building. The  idea for the screening is upon first entry each day of the  Capitol, and it isn't envisioned that legislators would have  to go through the screening multiple times throughout the  day.  SENATOR HOFFMAN: So I guess my question is to the  members of the council, is it asking too much to have your  spouses or family members come into the building as long as  they inconvenience themselves to admit to have a rapid test?  CHAIR STEVENS: Representative Stutes.  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: So, Senator Hoffman, is it whether  or not the legislator tests positive? Even if they test  negative, then you want the family tested as well?  SENATOR HOFFMAN: No, they would have to be testing  negative with the rapid test in order to access the building.  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Could I comment, Senator Stevens?  This is Senator Giessel.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, is that Senator Giessel?  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Yes, this is Senator Giessel. These  rapids tests -- first of all, as Jessica pointed out, this is  going to be the issue of the council determining how  much -- I'll be blunt -- how much they want to invest in it.  These rapid tests are not free. They detect active  infections.  And so the question of family members submitting  to this and then being allowed free access to the building,  that active infection could develop over several days and  crop up at any time. I guess the fundamental question we  have to ask is, how much free entrance and egress do family  members need to have in the building -- so that's a  fundamental philosophical question -- and how much we're  going to invest in testing lots of family members. You know,  kids come into the building selling Girl Scout cookies and  all the rest of that. So just a comment. Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: So just a little story here. We had a  principal of our high school who was exposed to it, a father  and a child -- a child, I think, who were positive. He was  tested immediately and was negative, tested again and was  negative, tested again and was positive. So these tests can  change pretty quickly.  And, Senator Giessel, that's your field. Do you  have any comments on that? It seems like it's a little  difficult when you depend so much on one test which could be  inaccurate and could change in time.  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: You're absolutely correct, Senator  Stevens. It's not that those first two tests were erroneous;  it's that the level of the viral infection had not reached  the point that the rapid test will detect it and that it has  become an active infection.  The common thought now, of course, is that the  person, even with that negative test, is actually shedding  some virus, but we can't assume that. But you're right; it  has to be an active infection, and it could take several days  to develop.  So if the legislator tests positive, that spouse  is probably going to test positive in a few days. Vice  versa. If the spouse tests positive, that legislator should  be tested every day thereafter. Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Well, thank you.  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Chair Stevens, this is  Representative Johnson. I have a couple questions, if I  might?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please go ahead, Representative  Johnson.  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: So I just wanted to make note,  first of all, that the governor has staff in the building as  well, that we shouldn't forget about that piece. And it  would be something I would be interested in hearing more  about, what the governor's -- the Executive Branch's plan is  for their policy as far as being in the building. That would  be helpful, I think, somewhat.  And then the other question I have is, if you have  a legislator that does test positive -- and we just talked  about the desk that legislator has to vote from, could we  have a different place either in the building or --if someone  tests positive, could we have someplace that has full A/V  communications so they could speak on the floor, they could  vote from, but they could still -- even if they're positive,  be there and participate?  I mean, the idea of excluding someone from the  floor, I still have concerns with that. I recognize that  we're getting into -- this could be -- any reasonable person  wouldn't go to the floor if they are known to have an actual  infection. But how do we actually enforce that? Obviously  once they're organized with the rules chair and so on, but  this is my question for Legislative Affairs and for the  council in general: Is there a way to have an assigned place  that could be an alternative for someone that tested  positive, that they would not get excluded from voting, that  they could go to?  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Representative Johnson. Let  me tackle the first part of that question. The governor's  administration, I've been in contact -- close contact with  the governor's chief of staff, Ben Stevens, and he  understands that the rules apply to all -- the entire  building, apply to the governor's floor as well.  We did allow the governor's administration to  enter up the stairs and in the back door. We did that in  February and March, and that seemed to be a reasonable thing  to do at the time.  Now, I think the things we're considering here  would require them to come through the front door with  everyone else so there would be no access to that building at  all without complying with our rules, with the rules that we  decide. So there's been no objection to that on the part of  the chief of staff. He understands that we have to make a  policy here, and their policy would dovetail with ours.  As for the second question on someone testing  positive, I believe -- and help me out here, Jessica -- but I  believe they would not be allowed in the building if they  tested positive; is that right?  MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens, this kind of gets into the  constitutional area we were speaking about earlier. And this  is really a policy decision whether or not we can set up an  area that is designated as the legislator's desk that they  can vote from while positive and participate in floor  sessions. The simple answer -- well, it's not a simple  answer. The answer is, yes, technically we can make that  happen, but it would be a policy call whether or not that  would be allowed to happen.  CHAIR STEVENS: And if we did decide to allow folks to  participate online from home, if we should pass that, then  they would be allowed to vote. And if we passed that, they  would be allowed to vote from their homes or from their  apartments or from their hotel.  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Senator Stevens, this is Senator  Giessel. Could I comment on that?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator Giessel.  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: What that's reflecting back on is  the Senate Concurrent Resolution 16 that provided for exactly  what you just described, a positive-tested person who is now  being either housed in their own apartment in Juneau, or if  we have this second contractor, that contractor would provide  separate housing for the individual.  So this reflects back on Megan's memorandum that  we've talked about earlier. It would be highly foolish to  allow a person who has tested positive to have access to the  building. That just flies in the face of reason. Those are  just my comments. Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator. And as we saw just  recently, the athlete whose team won, and he went back on the  field testing positive, and there's been no end of comments  in the press about that. So I would hope that anybody that  does test positive would stay out of the building.  Representative Stutes.  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: I was just going to make a comment.  You know, I would agree with Senator Giessel, because even if  there were a spot set up in the Capitol, you could not  restrict these people, say, from using the restroom, you  know, they would be in the hallways. There would be a degree  of exposure no matter how cautious we were.  CHAIR STEVENS: Right.  SENATOR HOFFMAN: Mr. Chairman, I have a question  regarding Joint Resolution 16.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator Hoffman.  SENATOR HOFFMAN: The question is, did we adopt that for  the 31st Alaska Legislature -- or does that apply to all the  31st, as well as all future Legislatures?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, of course, it did not pass the  House. It passed the Senate; it did not pass the House. We  are the 31st Legislature. We can have rules for ourselves,  but we can't force a 32nd Legislature, once they are  organized, to follow those rules. I think -- any reasonable  person I think would.  But, Jessica, am I right there, or maybe, Megan?  MS. GEARY: I would say you are correct. If Megan wants  to comment, she can.  MS. WALLACE: Yes, again, for the record, Megan Wallace,  legal services director.  That's correct, reference to SCR 16 at this point  is more, even just for discussion purposes, to highlight a  resolution that was drafted and considered by at least one  body. And it highlights that new details can be considered  via resolution and are policy decisions for the incoming  Legislature.  At this point it would only be Leg Council's  recommendation to the incoming Legislature as to what  procedures -- procedural changes to make, but that certainly  is a decision that when this committee is ready could make  those recommendations for the incoming Legislature.  REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: Mr. Chairman, this is  Representative Thompson. I'm going to have to go offline.  This was a scheduled appointment. I'm sorry.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Thanks so much for being with us.  I appreciate your time.  All right. So I'm ready to move on. We have the  motion on the screening policy ahead of us, in front of us.  Any further discussion?  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Senator Stevens, this is Senator  Giessel.  SENATOR HOFFMAN: This is Senator Hoffman again.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Hoffman.  SENATOR HOFFMAN: I think that the Leg Council should  deal with the preview that we have. Whatever the Legislature  decides on voting procedures, whether someone has COVID or  not -- that had been raised by Representative  Johnson -- should be decided by the Legislature. And  whatever recommendations we have I think are inconsequential  because the Legislature for the 32nd Legislature is going to  be completely different than the one that we're currently  presiding over.  So my recommendation is leave all recommendations  to the 32nd Legislature at their discretion, and we decide  what we want to make for the remainder of this year and stick  to that for our safety purposes.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Well, thank you, Senator Hoffman.  Yes, I understand what you're saying. So we'll stick with  these decisions we make, but I think it's good to let the  32nd know what we have done and have a good, solid policy,  well thought out. If they choose not to follow any of those  issues, they certainly have that right. It's a long process  here, but at least the 32nd Legislature will know what  we -- what this Leg Council and this Legislature feels should  be done.  Further discussion on the matter of screening  process?  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Senator Stevens, this is Senator  Giessel.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Giessel.  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: I'm looking at the screening  process. There's a middle section of bullets, and they're  hollow bullets, they're just circles. It's pertaining to  "Notification will occur as follows: legislator, appropriate  presiding officer, partisan staff." It says, "Legislator and  appropriate presiding officer."  I would recommend adding the rules chair to that  list for partisan staff as well. Since it is under the  purview of the rules chair for hiring authority for partisan  staff during session, I think they should be included. Thank  you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Giessel. That's a  reasonable thing to add.  Is there any objection to changing "partisan  staff" by adding "the rules chair" along with -- it says  "legislator and appropriate presiding officer and the rules  chair." Any objection to that? Okay. Very well. Thank you  for that.  Any further comments on screening process?  All right. Then I call for a vote -- first, I'll  remove my objection and ask Jessica to take a roll call,  please, on the screening process.  MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens, do we need to have a motion  to approve the amendment or --  CHAIR STEVENS: We can if we want just to make sure  everything is done properly.  Then, Senator Giessel, that is your amendment  then; is that true?  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I make that  motion.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Thank you. Then let's go  ahead -- any discussion on that?  Let's move ahead then to a vote on that amendment,  which is to add the rules chair.  And roll call vote, please, Jessica.  MS. GEARY: Senator Coghill?  SENATOR COGHILL: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senate President Giessel?  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator Hoffman?  SENATOR HOFFMAN: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator Stedman?  SENATOR STEDMAN: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator von Imhof?  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Speaker Edgmon?  SPEAKER EDGMON: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Representative Foster?  REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Representative DeLena Johnson?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: No.  MS. GEARY: Representative Jennifer Johnston?  Representative Kopp?  Vice-Chair Stutes?  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes.    MS. GEARY: 9 yeas, 1 nay.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. For a vote of 9 to 1, then  the amendment passes.    11:46:48 AM  We have the amended motion in front of us then for  the discussion on that amended motion. And let's go to roll  call vote on the screening process, Capitol COVID Screening  Process.  A roll call vote, please, Jessica.  MS. GEARY: Senator Coghill?  SENATOR COGHILL: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senate President Giessel?  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator Hoffman?  SENATOR HOFFMAN: No.  MS. GEARY: Senator Stedman?  SENATOR STEDMAN: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator von Imhof?  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Speaker Edgmon?  SPEAKER EDGMON: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Representative Foster?  REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Representative DeLena Johnson?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: No.  MS. GEARY: Representative Johnston?  Representative Kopp?  Vice-Chair Stutes?  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes.    MS. GEARY: 8 yeas, 2 nays.  CHAIR STEVENS: And by a vote of 8 to 2, the motion  passes.    And I will move on to the next item, which is the  Legislative Council Pandemic Code of Conduct Policy.    11:46:48 AM  Representative Stutes, a motion, please.  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Certainly, Mr. Chair. I move the  Legislative Council approve the Legislative Council Pandemic  Code of Conduct Policy.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. And I'll object for purposes  of discussion.  And, Jessica, would you talk about this issue with  us, please.  MS. GEARY: Again, for the record, Jessica Geary. This  Pandemic Code of Conduct Policy is for those who interact  with the legislative bubble within the Capitol, basically  you're just stating you will follow best practices, you will  complete the daily health screening, you'll take  responsibility for your own health, the health of your staff,  and the health of others, you will isolate in the event of a  COVID-19 positive test, be tested frequently as offered.  And then the one other thing is make every effort  to quarantine in place for 14 days before your intended  arrival in Juneau -- that's been recommended by local health  officials, as quarantine is still our best defense against  this virus -- and then arrive in Juneau with a negative test  or test upon arrival and isolate pending results.  I think the rest of it's pretty self-explanatory.  It's socialize in small groups, comply with enhanced social  event management policies, and avoid all nonessential trips  out of the capital city. With that I will open it up to  questions.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Thank you very much.  Jessica, any questions or comments at this point?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: This is Representative Johnson.  Mr. Chair, I've got a question.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator von Imhof.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Thank you. I appreciate having this  ready to go at this point, but I don't feel comfortable  voting on this today, kind of what Senator Hoffman said. I  get that I'm sort of sending a mixed message, but this is a  lot more extensive about going in and out of the capital. It  was one thing to talk about masks and screening, but it's  another thing to start talking about travel, what you can and  cannot do and whatnot. This is pretty extensive at this  point, and I'm not really ready to vote on this. I think  there's a lot more conversation -- it's okay to have a  conversation about it today and listen to everybody's  thoughts.  Is that what your intention is, Senator Stevens,  is talk about it or are we voting on something?  CHAIR STEVENS: Unless there's a general disagreement,  my intention is to put it to a vote.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Okay. Senator Stevens, with all due  respect, I think this is pretty extensive, and I'm not happy  about voting on this today.  CHAIR STEVENS: Well, thank you. I understand that. It  is a big issue we've been dealing with for some time. This  has not been a secret at all. But I understand your  discomfort, and I'd appreciate knowing what others feel about  it.  If anybody has a comment?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, I have a question.  This is Representative Johnson.  CHAIR STEVENS: Representative Johnson, go ahead,  please.  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: So I was just looking at this,  and it talks a lot about people traveling into Juneau, but it  also occurs to me that if we're going to talk about the  Capitol bubble, that we need to have all the staff, whether  they resided in Juneau or legislators that are in Juneau,  need to be tested too. There's no guarantee that just  because we're incoming, that we're the only ones that might  test positive.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Thank you for that.  MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens, can I respond to that?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please.  MS. GEARY: Through the Chair, Representative Johnson,  this policy states as a condition of working and being  present in the Capitol Complex and all other legislative  spaces, legislators and legislative staff shall -- so the  intent is that people that live in Juneau as well. Anyone  that has business to conduct in the Capitol Complex would be  subject to the same rules as those traveling from outside.  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: So they would be tested? So  the Juneau legislators and the Juneau legislative staff and  so on would also be tested?  MS. GEARY: Through the Chair, Representative Johnson,  that is the intent, yes.  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. So anybody coming into the  building would be tested. And in our discussions, you know,  depending on how bad things get, it could be closed. The  building could be closed, and only the legislative staff and  media would be allowed in the building, I think general  discussion about whether lobbyists and the public would be  allowed, but that all depends on how bad things get.  Any further discussions on this code of conduct?  SENATOR HOFFMAN: Mr. Chairman, this is Senator Hoffman.  I would also request that we take time to review this and not  vote on it today.  SENATOR STEDMAN: Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator Stedman.  SENATOR STEDMAN: Yes, I think we need to talk about the  time frame -- we've got three months until we start up. I'd  like to hear a little bit about the pros and cons of taking  action today versus working with this policy with several  people concerned about implementation today. What's the time  sensitivity of this issue?  CHAIR STEVENS: Well, I'm not sure that there is a great  need to decide this now. We can decide it later. We can  look at it and bring it back and massage it a little bit and  have everyone have more input into it.  Jessica, do you see this as a big concern in  timing?  MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens, I think we definitely have  some time, this needs to be taken care of prior to the  convening of the 32nd Legislature. I would say as long as we  have some policy decisions in place by December, I think that  should be just fine.  What we might run into an issue with is some of  these items in this Code of Conduct Policy dovetail with the  RFP and the contractor. So that's the only thing I  might mention. If there was an aversion to the testing or  the screening, those are the types of things that I think are  important to note.  SPEAKER EDGMON: Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes. Is that the speaker, Mr. Speaker?  SPEAKER EDGMON: Yes, it is. Thank you. I'm looking at  this page of this conduct policy, and maybe it's because I  live in a community that's been pretty strict with its  restrictions -- in fact, I was just talking to city council  folks this morning on doing something similar to this. I  think we're one of the first communities, if not the first  community to have restrictions in the entire state.  I'm pretty comfortable with what I read here, and  I don't see anything that would change if we were to vote on  this later, although I'm certainly not averse to giving  people more time to digest things here in front of us.  I do know that we're in the process of considering  a third-party contractor, which I think is really important.  I'll raise my hand and say put me down as a yes vote on this  today and not waiting until later.  I think it's also important that we make a  statement that we're taking things very seriously, and the  fact is that we're going into the session that's going to be,  by all accounts, abbreviated because of COVID. And, again,  I'm willing to wait to vote on this -- my preference would be  to vote on it now. Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Representative Edgmon. I  appreciate your comments.  So I have heard from four folks who are  uncomfortable with moving this forward. Is there anyone else  who is uncomfortable with taking action on this now at this  time?  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Giessel, please.  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: First of all, I would support what  the speaker, just said. I also suggest that it's possible  something could arise prior to the convening of the 32nd  Legislature. Of course, I'm referring to the headline, the  front page story in the ADN today about the governor and the  extension of this emergency declaration.  The speaker and I have talked with Megan about  this. We have a legal opinion on it. That disaster  declaration can only be extended by the Legislature. I think  that having something like a Code of Conduct Policy -- it's  before us -- suggested is prudent to do sooner than later. I  agree with the speaker. There's nothing in here that's new.  I do have a couple comments on a couple pieces,  just some nuances, but we're not talking about that right  now. I do want to get those in before we finish talking  about this, though. But I don't think we should kick the can  down the road very far. If we are going to delay it -- today  is Thursday -- I would suggest we meet again no later than  Monday to put this in place because I think it might be  needed prior to the mid-January date. Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Giessel. My job is  to count noses, and at this point, this motion would not  pass, I don't believe. I think there is great sense as to  what everyone has said: take a little more time to look at  it carefully to study the issue and we can easily handle this  at our very next meeting. So unless there's a serious  objection, my intention is to remove this from the agenda at  this time.  Any objection to that?  SENATOR COGHILL: No objection, Mr. Chairman, but I do  have a question that may clarify something for me.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please, Senator Coghill.  SENATOR COGHILL: Arriving in Juneau, can you get a test  at the airport like we do here in Fairbanks when you come  into town?  MS. GEARY: Through the Chair --  CHAIR STEVENS: I believe you can.  Do we have an answer from Jessica on that?  MS. GEARY: Through the Chair, Senator Coghill, yes, you  can get tested upon arrival at the airport.  SENATOR COGHILL: Yes, I still think it requires some  quarantining until you get the results, but I just want to  make sure that that was clear. I think this will help us  when we get back to the issue. Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Coghill.  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes.  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: I think Senator Coghill's question  needs fleshing out a bit more. So the idea of the test is  it's not a guarantee that you don't have the virus. A  negative test says that your viral load is negative for a  threshold of diagnosis. It doesn't mean that tomorrow or  next day you would not reach that threshold of viral  infection and now have an active case.  That's the purpose of No. 2 policy, second bullet,  "Make every effort to quarantine in place before your  intended arrival in Juneau." That way, if you have  isolated -- and I argue with the 14 days, it should actually  be 10, but we'll talk about that later. Regardless, you've  isolated, you get to Juneau. Sure, you have a test at the  airport then and it's negative, it's probably substantial,  it's probably a valid response. But to not have done some  kind of isolation, take a test in Juneau and say, "Okay. I'm  good" is false.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Giessel.  I, too, was questioning that 14 days, and so we  need to review that issue and then figure out where we're  going there. I realize I've asked a lot of you to go through  all of these. But it's an enormous amount of things for us  to cover.  Jessica, just a question, maybe a little off the  subject. Have we had any legislators or staff test positive?  That you know of?  MS. GEARY: Yes, we have. I am not aware of any  legislators. We have had staff that have tested positive.  CHAIR STEVENS: All right. So it is among us, and the  imperative is that we deal with this fairly shortly. My  intention then is to remove this from our agenda and to deal  with it very quickly in the future.  Everyone spend as much time as they can reviewing  this, figuring out what you require, what you demand, what  your needs are before we consider it at our next meeting.    C. LEGISLATURE LITIGATION UPDATE    CHAIR STEVENS: So we'll move on then -- I've asked  Megan to give us an update on litigation.  Megan, are you prepared for that?  MS. WALLACE: Yes. Again, for the record, Megan  Wallace, legal services director.  My update will be fairly brief. As everyone  should recall, the only active piece of litigation that is  still ongoing right now concerning the Legislature is a  forward-funding lawsuit that the Legislature brought against  the governor regarding the failure to appropriate the  forward-funded education appropriations made in 2018.  You'll also recall that the Legislature was  successful at the superior court level and received an order  of summary judgment in favor of the Legislature. That order  was appealed by the governor, and the case is now sitting in  the Alaska Supreme Court.  Our briefing schedule did get a little delayed as  a result of the pandemic. Initially, our briefs were due in  early 2020, but, as a result of many mitigation orders issued  by the Alaska Supreme Court as it relates to court  operations, our deadlines got extended. But throughout the  summer and early fall briefing in the case is now complete,  and there is a request for oral argument that is before the  court, but we have not yet received a date for oral argument  scheduling.  And generally, I think -- sometimes I've heard  predictions of decisions six months to a year after a case is  briefed. It's difficult to predict, though, in light of the  pandemic and the changes to court procedures and election  cases and other urgent matters that might come before the  Supreme Court whether or not our case will get bumped.  So as it stands right now, we don't have dates,  and it's difficult to predict a decision. I would be hopeful  that we would get something in early 2021. That's certainly  not a guarantee. I'm happy to take questions if anyone has  any.  CHAIR STEVENS: Well, thank you, Megan. It's good to  know that that's the only piece of litigation we are dealing  with at this point.  Any questions of Megan on the forward-funding of  education funds?  Okay. Well, thank you so much, Megan. I  appreciate your time, and I appreciate everyone spending this  time. It's gotten to be pretty long here. I realize that.  We have three contracts to approve, and then I've asked Tim  Banaszak to give us an IT update, and then we can conclude  this meeting.    V. CONTRACT APPROVALS    A. RFP 639 ALASKA STATE CAPITOL CHILDCARE PROVIDER    CHAIR STEVENS: So let's move ahead to the approval  of these contracts. Representative Stutes.    11:46:48 AM  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that  Legislative Council authorize the award of RFP 639 for a  child care provider in the Capitol Complex to Discovery  Preschool for a three-year contract and three optional  two-year renewals.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. And I will object for  purposes of discussion.  JC Kestel, do you have some comments on this  contract? JC, are you with us?  MR. KESTEL: Thank you, Chair Stevens. Yes, I'm here.  For the record, my name is JC Kestel, procurement officer for  the Legislative Affairs Agency.  In August the Legislative Affairs Agency issued  RFP 639 to solicit child care providers to operate a child  care center in the Thomas Stewart Building here at the  Capitol Complex. RFP 639 closed on September 18, 2020, and  Discovery Preschool's proposal was the only one that was  received for review by the PEC.  The PEC is a Proposal Evaluation Committee that  was comprised of Senator Jesse Kiehl; Katrina Matheny, chief  of staff for Senator Stevens; Tyra Smith-MacKinnon, staff for  Speaker Edgmon; Greg Smith, staff for Representative Story;  Jessica Geary, executive director of the Legislative Affairs  Agency; and Sant Lesh, administrative operations manager for  Legislative Affairs Agency.  The PEC individually reviewed Discovery's proposal  and met as a group to discuss the results. The PEC is making  a recommendation of an award of RFP 639 to Discovery  Preschool to provide a child care program at the Capitol  Complex.  I'd be happy to answer any questions about the RFP  process, and Jessica Gary is available to answer questions  regarding the child care program.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you very much, JC. I appreciate  all of your efforts and with that RFP process.  Any questions of JC or of Jessica? Hearing and  seeing none, I'd remove my objection and ask Jessica to take  a roll call.  MS. GEARY: Senator Coghill?  SENATOR COGHILL: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senate President Giessel?  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator Hoffman?  SENATOR HOFFMAN: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator Stedman?  SENATOR STEDMAN: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator von Imhof?  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Yeah.  MS. GEARY: Speaker Edgmon?  SPEAKER EDGMON: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Representative Foster?  REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Representative DeLena Johnson?  Representative Johnston?  Representative Kopp?  Vice-Chair Stutes?  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes.    MS. GEARY: 9 yeas, 0 nays.  CHAIR STEVENS: So by vote 9 to 0, that motion passes,  and that contract has been approved.    B. LEASE EXTENSION FOR HOMER OFFICE SPACE    CHAIR STEVENS: We'll move on to the second contract,  which is for the Homer office space.  Representative Stutes.  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move  that the Legislative Council approve the lease extension  for Homer office space in the amount of $54,961.92.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you for that motion. And I'll  object for purposes of discussion.  And, JC, again, you're up for this one. Can you  tell us what's going on in Homer?  MR. KESTEL: Thank you, Chair Stevens. For the  record, again, my name is JC Kestel, procurement officer  for the Legislative Affairs Agency.  The current lease agreement between the  Legislative Affairs Agency and Mr. and Mrs. Ellington for  office space currently occupied by the Legislature in  Homer, Alaska is due to expire October 31, 2020, with no  renewal options available.  Under Alaska Statute 36.30.083, there is a  provision where we may extend a real property lease for up  to ten years if a minimum cost savings of at least  10 percent below the market rental value can be obtained  for the extension. The market rental value must be  established by a real estate broker's opinion of the rental  value or by an appraisal of the rental value.  The agency contracted with a real estate broker  to determine the market value of the property located in  Homer. We received their fair market rental analysis, and  it is their opinion that the market rental value for the  property, with full service lease, is $1.75 per square foot  as of October 1, 2020.  Per Alaska Statute 36.30.083, the agency offered  Mr. and Mrs. Ellington a rate of $1.56 per square foot for  a new five-year lease extension with 5 one-year renewal  options that are at our option to exercise to Mr. and Mrs.  Ellington, and they have accepted our offer.  Based on the above, I recommend approving the  lease extension for the Homer office space located at 270  Pioneer Avenue in Homer, Alaska for a price of $1.56 per  square foot. The lease extension exceeds 35,000 in one  fiscal year, therefore, Legislative Council's approval is  required.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. I appreciate all of your  efforts, JC, in getting that. It looks like a pretty good  deal for us.  Any discussion on this motion to approve the  Homer office?  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: I have a question.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Representative Stutes.  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  What was the previous square footage rate that  we were paying for that same space?  MR. KESTEL: Through the Chair, Representative  Stutes, the previous price per square foot was rounded to  $1.72 per square foot.  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Okay. Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Representative Stutes.  Again, well done, JC. Appreciate your efforts  there.  Any further discussion?  I will then remove my objection and ask for a  roll call, Jessica.  MS. GEARY: Senator Coghill?  SENATOR COGHILL: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senate President Giessel?  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator Hoffman?  SENATOR HOFFMAN: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator Stedman?  SENATOR STEDMAN: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator von Imhof?  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Speaker Edgmon?  SPEAKER EDGMON: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Representative Foster?  REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Vice-Chair Stutes?  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes.    MS. GEARY: 9 yeas, 0 nays.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. By a vote of 9 to 0 then,  we have approved the lease of the Homer office space.    C. RENEWAL NO. 2 OF THE SUBLEASE FOR UTQIAGVIK OFFICE  SPACE    CHAIR STEVENS: Moving on to the sublease, renewal  No. 2 of the sublease for Utqiagvik office space.  Representative Stutes, a motion, please.  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Certainly, Mr. Chair. I move  that Legislative Council approve renewal No. 2 of the  sublease for Utqiagvik office space in the amount of  $35,599.80.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. And I'll object for  purposes of the discussion, and, again, ask JC to give  us a brief explanation and answer any questions that may  come up.  MR. KESTEL: Thank you, Chair Stevens. The current  sublease renewal agreement between the Legislative  Affairs Agency and Arctic Slope Telephone Association  Cooperative for office space in Utqiagvik terminates  December 31, 2020.  There are two sublease renewal options  available under the sublease agreement, each for a  one-year period. We have exercised one of those renewal  options. Legislative Affairs Agency would like approval  to proceed with renewal No. 2 for the period of  January 1st, 2021, through December 31, 2021.  If Legislative Council approves renewal No.  2, this will be one more renewal of the sublease option  available for the agency. The renewal period exceeds  35,000 in one fiscal year, therefore, Legislative  Council's approval is required.  I'll be happy to answer any questions you may  have.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, JC.  Any questions on this sublease?  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Senator Stevens, this is  Senator von Imhof.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator von Imhof.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: So is this for a legislator to  use, like legislative offices, or is this for an LIO for  citizens to come and testify and so forth?  MR. KESTEL: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof,  the space in question is a Legislative Information  Office. There are no legislators located there.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Okay. Thank you. So, Senator  Stevens, follow-up, I'm assuming then there's not  necessarily offices, per se, it's just a space for  citizens to come and speak and testify for committee  hearings; is that correct?  CHAIR STEVENS: Let's ask Jessica to comment on  that.  Do you have any thoughts, Jessica, on that  issue of who's in that space and what it's used for?  MS. GEARY: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof,  we have a an Utqiagvik LIO officer that works out of  that office, and then the public can come and testify  for legislative hearings, and it's a way for them to  interact with their Legislature.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.  Any follow-up, Senator von Imhof?  SENATOR VON IMHOF: No. Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Thank you very much. Any  further discussion on the issue of this office space?  I'll remove my objection and ask for a roll  call vote, please.  MS. GEARY: Senator Coghill?  SENATOR COGHILL: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senate President Giessel?  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator Hoffman?  SENATOR HOFFMAN: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator Stedman?  SENATOR STEDMAN: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator von Imhof?  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Yeah. Yes.  MS. GEARY: Speaker Edgmon?  SPEAKER EDGMON: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Representative Foster?  REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Vice-Chair Stutes?  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes.    MS. GEARY: 9 yeas, 0 nays.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Jessica.  By a vote of 9 to 0, that office space has  been approved.  MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens --  CHAIR STEVENS: So I was asked to add a last-minute  update on --  MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens --  CHAIR STEVENS: -- what's happening here in our  various LIOs and how we're going to be dealing with  working together in this way.  Tim, are you with us, Tim Banaszak?  MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens, Tim is here, but I  skipped Representative DeLena Johnson on that roll call.  I would like her vote on those issues, if that's okay.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes.  Representative Johnson, are you with us?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Yes, sorry. It took me a  minute to get to my mute button. I would be a yes vote  on the last two votes, or it sounds like they passed, so  I wanted to let you know that I'm here for the next one.  CHAIR STEVENS: Sorry we missed you on that. We'll  add your name in the positive side on those last two  votes then. Thank you.  And that's what you needed to add, Jessica?  MS. GEARY: Yes. I apologize for that. Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.    IT UPDATE - TIM BANASZAK    CHAIR STEVENS: And, Tim, if you could give us an  update, Tim Banaszak.  MR. BANASZAK: Certainly. Mr. Chairman and  committee members, Tim Banaszak, for the record, IT  manager for the Legislative Affairs Agency for the  Legislature.  So I think we were talking a little bit about  maybe some of the videoconferencing here. I have a  couple of points and want to be respectful of everyone's  time with a lot of folks around the table today.  So just a quick recap on the  videoconferencing. We're obviously using it today.  There's a lot of folks that have been involved in  testing this. There's a state contract that allows us  to take advantage of this videoconferencing. We also  have kind of the older, traditional videoconferencing  that has been used. That contract and technology is  really being phased out, and so this is really timely.  I think that the COVID social distancing and  folks having to work more remotely has really  accelerated the pace of adoption of this technology, and  so far we're fairly pleased with what we're seeing.  We have spent quite a bit of time this summer  with our counterparts across the 50 states, through the  NCSL organization, what's working, what isn't working,  where are there the gotchas, where are the problematic  issues, the technology issues, the logistical issues.  There's no perfect solution, but we're pretty  adept and nimble, I think, in Alaska because of the  nature of our remote environment that we have to operate  in. So we're already ahead, I think, quite a bit with a  lot of the technologies that the Legislative Information  Office, under Tim Powers' leadership, has provided  throughout the LIOs throughout the state.  Really we're looking at trying to supplement  some of those technologies. It has taken a fair amount  of resources and equipment and investigation, but I  think that we do have some options available to us.  The Senate president mentioned earlier -- I  think there was a brief discussion on these technologies  that we're using here. Early on, at the behest of some  of the leadership, we wanted to explore these  technologies. So we've had the opportunity to test, and  going into session will be really important that we can  support different scenarios that may face us. How many  can be together? Do we have to have people remotely?  There's logistical issues, the policy issues, the  constitutional issues with that. But we want to make  sure that we've got some offerings and some technologies  that are available, and I think you're seeing a little  bit of that today.  There's certainly a cost associated with  that. There's resource overhead in order to maintain  that. We have quite a few people on the line today just  to make sure that this technology works. We had one  hiccup in the middle of this and had to bring on our  Chair back into the meeting through Kodiak. So those  are just things to be aware of. They're not  show-stoppers, but it's just the nature of what we're  doing.  Most of us -- I think probably all of us have  been involved with videoconferencing throughout the  summer and the different platforms. This is the  platform that's been adopted for governments to use. So  it meets our security criteria, our requirements, and  our due diligence. While there's other technologies out  there, certainly it's not something that we would want  to use and assure both the public and our organization  that would suffice for our environments.  There's a couple of other technologies and  projects that have been underway. You may recall the  Capitol Camera Project that we had to really enhance.  It's a blending of efforts between for Gavel to Gavel  and AK Leg TV. That project is moving along quite  nicely, on time and on budget. That's going to give us  some improved camera capabilities for both on-the-floor  sessions, during the floor sessions, as well as out in  the committee rooms as well. So that effort is going  forward on time and on budget, and we fully anticipate  that to be available in time for session.  And it will also help -- given that we can  remote control some of that equipment, it will also  further support social distancing, where if we get into  a situation where we need to limit the number of people  on the floor in a committee room, it still will support  and ensure that we've got the public well-connected  through the tools and technologies for audio and video,  which will be really important, and, as the speaker  brought up, really important issues coming up this year.  We're trying to do everything we can,  exploring the different technologies, but I think we're  going to be pretty well positioned to address what we  need to and just stay close with the council here. And  if you have a quick panic request or something coming  through, we're trying to be nimble. We want to be ready  and be prepared. But just know that the 50 states are  working together and no one has this figured out one- hundred percent, but I believe we can be proud of where  we are in the Legislature here and what we're doing  across Alaska.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you very much, Tim. Could  you discuss the security issues? I'm hearing things  about Zoom, that anybody can get on and interrupt  meetings. Do we have that security in this platform  that keeps that from happening?  MR. BANASZAK: Mr. Chairman, so security is really  a risk management approach. That's how you have to  treat security. There's no one-hundred percent. Any  system could be hacked and attacked and breached; with  enough time and enough money and enough persistence, you  can do that.  At the outset of the comments here, what I  will say for this videoconferencing technology is that  it has been certified for government use at the federal  level, the individual state level. And what that means  to us is we can have the assurances and the confidence  that the reasonable level of investment to protect the  platform has been done, and we've done our due diligence  and our research on it, and it avoids things like people  just coming into meetings or people getting access to  your accounts or things like that.  And the technology that we use, no technology  can come into our environment unless it's been approved  for government. And when I speak of "government," I  mean government at the federal and the state level. And  we benefit from that as well. So we're trying to keep  that safe border around there so that we can address the  obvious things.  As an IT professional, I would never sit here  and say we're one-hundred percent, but I think that the  council can be assured that we have made the investments  and that this is a good platform.  When you hear these other platforms that come  along, sure, they're usable. Sometimes easier to use in  some cases, but we really want to make sure we use a  platform that we can have the confidence is appropriate  for legislative business.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Tim. Any questions?  Any further questions?  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Yes, I have a question --  CHAIR STEVENS: So, Tim, it does seem like a little  training would be effective. I mean, I've used Zoom  this summer a lot, and it is pretty easy to raise your  hand and make sure everyone is taken care of. If things  get worse and there's a larger outbreak by the time we  come together, if we pass the ability to meet at a  distance, we have the capabilities, and do we need  further training individually to know how to use this  platform?  MR. BANASZAK: The two short answers are yes and  yes. Training is always helpful, and then more  capabilities and capacity also would be really  important.  You know, there was the recent additional  bandwidth being allocated out to set up across Alaska.  So things like just the resources, capability. This  call has been fairly stable. The video streams have  been good. But, yes, training, resources -- this is a  few of us that are on a call today. Imagine this scaled  out through multiple committee meetings going on at  once, floor sessions going on at once. You don't want  to be moving this technology all around. It needs to be  in place. We need to have the resources and the  staffing to be able to have multiple technologies  effective so that when you gavel into a committee  meeting, you know that folks can conduct business and  then have a good meeting and close out.  And, Mr. Chairman, I think there may have  been another question in there.  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Senator Stevens.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator Giessel.  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Thank you. That is one of the  challenges is we can't raise our hand. I'm on a phone,  right?  My question is for Tim regarding the  cameras -- did you say what LIOs you have them deployed  in and are they functional?  MR. BANASZAK: Through the Chair, Madam President,  I didn't list those here today, but we did get a half a  dozen of those. So today we have Mat-Su, Kodiak,  Fairbanks on line, Anchorage is on line, we have Kenai  Peninsula, and we have one more I think. And then we --  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Is it Ketchikan?  MR. BANASZAK: Yes. Thank you very much,  Ketchikan. So to the first part of your question where  we have those installed, we have them at those  locations; and then, secondly, we've tested those there.  We have -- with the success of this, we have  purchased -- anticipating that we may need some of these  units around in different perhaps rooms in the Capitol,  perhaps ad hoc in different locations, if we have to go  off-site for some reason, we've purchased a handful of  these so that potentially, if this platform seems to be  successful, we could perhaps include the rest of the  LIOs as well, depending if that's a decision we want to  make going forward.  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you Senator Giessel. Thank  you, Tim. Any further questions? So thank you very  much, Tim. I appreciate that update.    VI. ADJOURN     CHAIR STEVENS: I appreciate everyone's steadfastness here  in sitting through this very, very long meeting. We've  accomplished our agenda. If there's nothing further for this  meeting, then we are adjourned at 12:37pm.