LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL    DECEMBER 28, 2020  2:00 PM      MEMBERS PRESENT  Senator Gary Stevens, Chair  Representative Louise Stutes, Vice Chair  Senator Tom Begich  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      OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT  Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson  Senator Jesse Kiehl  Senator Peter Micciche  Representative Kelly Merrick  Representative Matt Claman      AGENDA  APPROVAL OF AGENDA  COMMITTEE BUSINESS  1. Q&A Session with Dr. Anne Zink and Beacon Health & Safety  Services  2. COVID Enforcement Policy  3. Safe Floor Session Policy    SPEAKER REGISTER  Jessica Geary, Executive Director, LAA  Megan Wallace, Legal Services Director  Dr. Anne Zink, Chief Medical Officer, HSS  Amanda Johnson, CEO, Beacon   I N D E X   PAGE    I. Call to Order - Roll Call 5  II. Approval of Agenda 8  III. Committee Business   A. Q&A Session with Dr. Anne Zink and 8   Beacon Health & Safety Services   B. COVID Enforcement Policy 56   C. Safe Floor Session Policy 74  IV. Adjourn 85      2:00:11 PM  I. CALL TO ORDER  CHAIR STEVENS: Good afternoon, everyone. This is Gary.  I'm here in Kodiak. I hope everyone is going to make it to this  meeting. I see several of you are online already. Thank you  for being with us. I hope you had a great Christmas.  So without further ado, I will call this meeting to  order. It is December 28, 2020.  Jessica Geary, if you are there, can you call the  roll, please?  MS. GEARY: Good morning, Chair Stevens. I'm not sure if  we have a quorum yet. Do you want to wait just another minute,  or do you want me to go ahead and call roll?  CHAIR STEVENS: No, you're right. Let's wait and make  sure we have a quorum. So we need eight people; right?  MS. GEARY: Correct.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. We'll wait till we get eight.  MS. GEARY: Okay. Thank you.  (Pause.)  MS. GEARY: All right, Chair Stevens. I think I can call  the roll if you're ready.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. I just see neither of the presiding  officers are on yet, are they?  MS. GEARY: Senator Giessel is on.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes. Okay.  MS. GEARY: Let's see. I don't see --  CHAIR STEVENS: Let's wait just for a minute for --  MS. GEARY: Okay.  CHAIR STEVENS: -- the Speaker. It's important that he be  here as well.  MS. GEARY: Okay.  (Pause.)  SENATOR BEGICH: Gary, can you hear me?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, I can. Who is that?  SENATOR BEGICH: Senator Begich. I just wanted to make  sure I wasn't on mute anymore.  CHAIR STEVENS: Nope, we got you. We got you, Senator.  Thank you.  REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: Yeah. This is Representative  Thompson. I didn't hear you call roll or anything.  CHAIR STEVENS: No, we haven't done that yet. We're  waiting for a few more people to show up, and we'll call roll in  just a minute.  (Pause.)  CHAIR STEVENS: We're just waiting for the Speaker to come  on. He's on hold right now and waiting to be put through.  (Pause.)  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. I think we'd better go ahead. I've  called the meeting to order, and we still have a few more people  that are on their way to showing up.  But, Jessica Geary, if you would call the roll, then,  please.  2:04:56 PM  MS. GEARY: Okay. Good morning. Senator Begich?  SENATOR BEGICH: Here.  MS. GEARY: Senator Coghill?  SENATOR COGHILL: Here.  MS. GEARY: Senate President Giessel?  SENATOR GIESSEL: Here.  MS. GEARY: Senator Hoffman?  SENATOR HOFFMAN: Here.  MS. GEARY: Senator Stedman?  SENATOR STEDMAN: Here.  MS. GEARY: Senator von Imhof? Senator von Imhof?  Speaker Edgmon?  Representative Foster?  REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER: Here.  MS. GEARY: Representative DeLena Johnson?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Here.  MS. GEARY: Representative Johnston?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON: Here.  MS. GEARY: Representative Kopp?  Representative Thompson?  REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: Here.  MS. GEARY: Let's go back up. Speaker Edgmon, are you on?  Senator von Imhof, are you here on?  SENATOR VON IMHOF: I'm here.  MS. GEARY: Okay.  Vice-Chair Stutes?  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Here.  MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens?  CHAIR STEVENS: Here.  MS. GEARY: And just a brief moment. There's an issue  with the Speaker trying to be taken off mute, so --  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Sure.  (Pause.)  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. I think we'd better proceed. We  have a lot to do today, and hopefully the others will come  online. And as soon as they do, we'll know that they're here.  So, Jessica, you have called the roll, and I believe  there were 11 people present; is that right?  MS. GEARY: There are 12 members present.  CHAIR STEVENS: 12 members. Okay. And who was the 12th  one?  MS. GEARY: Senator -- you were the 12th one, and Senator  von Imhof joined.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Great.  SENATOR GIESSEL: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please. Go ahead.  SENATOR GIESSEL: This is Cathy Giessel. I just got a  text from Suzanne Cunningham that Dr. Zink is on hold, and it  appears that she also has been muted.  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Same thing with the Speaker.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. And part of that is what happened  with the Speaker as well.  Jessica, can you look into that?  MS. GEARY: Absolutely.  SPEAKER EDGMON: Mr. Chairman, this is Representative  Edgmon. I'm online after all. Thanks.  CHAIR STEVENS: Oh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad  you're with us.  So Jessica will show that the Speaker, Representative  Edgmon, is with us.  MS. GEARY: Yes, that is correct. So we have 13 members  present, and I believe Dr. Zink should be back online and able  to participate.  *Representative Kopp was present, but muted.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay.  DR. ZINK: Yes, I am back. Thank you. Sorry about that.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you for being with us, Dr. Zink. I  appreciate -- I know you have a very busy schedule, but I  appreciate you could find some time for us.    II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA    CHAIR STEVENS: Let's move on to the approval of the  agenda. Representative Stutes, can we have a motion, please?  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Certainly, Mr. Chair.  2:09:53 PM  I move and ask unanimous consent that Legislative  Council approve the agenda as presented.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Are there any objections or  changes that anyone cares to make at this time? If not, the  agenda is approved as read.    III. COMMITTEE BUSINESS   A. Q&A SESSION WITH DR. ANNE ZINK AND BEACON OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &  SAFETY SERVICES    CHAIR STEVENS: We'll move right on to committee business.  And, again, I really appreciate Dr. Anne Zink being with us. We  also have Beacon Occupational Health & Safety Services with us.  Just to let you know what happened, I thought that we  had had our last Legislative Council meeting for a while, but  there's some unfinished business that we really need to deal  with brought up by Senator Giessel and Representative Edgmon.  They requested a meeting as a follow-up to our last  meeting, and their concern, quite legitimately, is the  enforcement policy. And we had a very vague enforcement policy,  leaving it up to individual legislators; but, of course, in the  meantime I've had a lot of comments from various staff members,  both personal staff as well as legislative staff, as well as  members of the Legislature, members of the House and Senate, who  have some serious concerns about being in the Senate chamber and  the House chamber in a very tight space with people that may not  be masked. That's the primary concern.  And so I think it's legitimate that we revisit that  enforcement policy, and that's why we've asked Dr. Zink and  Beacon to be here to answer any questions.  Who do we have from Beacon with us, Jessica?  MS. GEARY: We have Amanda Johnson. She's the chief  operating officer.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thanks so much. Glad you're with us as  well, Amanda.  So let's go right into some questions. I know the  staff has some questions. And, I guess, to me, Dr. Zink, if I  could deliver this question to you, does masking help, or, as we  keep hearing from some people, it's a waste of time and doesn't  work. So that's a very basic, fundamental question. I'd  appreciate your giving us some advice on that.  DR. ZINK: Yes. No, I appreciate that question, sir.  Yes, masking helps to reduce both the transmission of  COVID-19 as well as there's some evidence that a mask may help  minimize how ill you get, that you may be more likely to be  asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic by you wearing a mask. So it  both protects other people in the room and it also helps to  protect you.  Early on in this disease we were really trying to  understand how it was transmitted and what different mitigation  tools that we have, but the large body of evidence for masking  has become pretty profound. There's a lot of information on the  CDC, and that masks are an important tool to minimize the spread  of COVID-19, particularly when people are indoors, and  particularly when there's more people, and especially when  people have a harder time distancing amongst each other.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Dr. Zink. So you know our  building well. I know you've been in it, and you have seen how  crowded it is, how -- the tight spaces, particularly in the  House and Senate chamber, where we meet. And this may beyond  your purview. If it is, let me know, but would it be your  recommendation that we require everyone to wear masks when in  the Capitol Building?  DR. ZINK: So that is beyond my purview. I can speak to  the science about the different aspects of mitigation, that the  safest thing that people can do is work remotely, being able to  do teleconference, Zoom, things like that, so that people don't  have to actually be in the same space.  But there are some times when we need to be in the  same space with others and, as a result, there's a series of  steps that you can to, including minimizing the number of people  in the building, minimizing ins and outs, exits and entrances,  increasing mask-wearing, washing hands, increasing ventilation.  There's a lot of really great guidance on the CDC and others on  office space and building spaces, and masking is a tool in a  series of other tools that can help to reduce the viral  transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Dr. Zink. And I appreciate the  position you're in. We want to avoid any questions that you do  not feel comfortable answering, but I do appreciate your  comments, specifically on masking. And I also want to thank you  for your work with our staff, with Jessica Geary and others as  we've worked through this process.  So let me ask you -- and maybe there are other  questions. Does anybody have a question they'd like to pose to  Dr. Zink at this time?  SENATOR GIESSEL: Mr. Chairman, this is Senator Giessel.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator Giessel. Please go ahead.  SENATOR GIESSEL: Dr. Zink, some people have asserted that  they have already had an infection with COVID-19 and therefore  are immune and don't need to take any precautionary measures.  Could you speak to immunity that is conferred by infection? And  you could even segue into that immunity we believe conferred by  vaccine.  DR. ZINK: Yes. Thank you for the question, Senator.  That is an area of a lot of consideration, a lot of  discussion. In fact, the CDC call this morning was talking just  about immunity as well as reinfection.  We believe that people get a degree of immunity both  from natural infection as well as the vaccine. We have a much  better understanding of it associated with the vaccine than we  do with natural infection simply because people have different  responses to natural infection.  We do think that people within that first 90 days of  infection have a lower risk of getting COVID-19 again, getting  the virus, SARS-CoV-2, that causes COVID-19. As a result, we do  not require, you know, testing prior to travel if someone is  within that 90 days. If someone has been exposed to someone  else that has COVID-19, they do not have to quarantine as long  as they're asymptomatic.  There have been cases within that 90 days, but they  have been very rare, and that's the reason for that 90-day  recommendation. Right now, at 90 days, everyone kind of starts  back to square one because the rates of reinfection start to  increase at that time. We don't know if the CDC will extend  that out or not, but at this time it is that 90-day window. And  after that, it's kind of back to square one and we start with  reinfections.  We have had reinfections in the state of Alaska and  continue to follow those. And it is our recommendation that  people continue to wear masks, continue to distance, continue to  do hand hygiene regardless if they have had infection or not,  partially after that reinfection component, but then also we  don't fully understand the ability for someone to potentially  get a small amount of the disease and spread to it others even  in that window.  And that's what really then gets into vaccines.  Vaccines were studied to look at severe infection of COVID-19.  They were not currently -- they were not studied in the previous  trials. They are currently undergoing studies to look at the  ability to transmit disease.  So at this time we're not changing any of our  recommendations based on vaccines as far as mask-wearing,  distance, healthcare providers working in the healthcare  scenario -- again, it looks to help prevent you from getting  seriously ill, but there is still a chance that you may get the  virus, be able to have it replicate in your upper airway, and  spread it to others even if you've been vaccinated.  We're hoping that the data will show that you have a  less likelihood to transmit it, but we don't have that data as  of yet and, as a result, are not making any recommendations to  change these additional precautions even post-vaccine at this  time.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Dr. Zink. And just as a  correlation with that, what about people who say they have  antibodies and they're beyond infecting others. How does that  work into this?  DR. ZINK: Yeah. Thank you for that question.  Antibodies are a part of the immune response. They  are not the full picture of the immune response. There are very  different tests for antibodies, and the antibody tests are the  tests that we are more concerned about having false positives,  testing positive for a different coronavirus and not for  SARS-CoV-2, the one that causes COVID-19.  And so depending on what we call the pretest  probability, how much COVID is circulating, as well as the test  specifically itself, those antibody tests can be varied, and  antibodies wait over time. So someone may test positive for  antibodies, you know, let's say, six weeks after an infection,  and then those antibodies -- which are more like your short-term  memory. They're your short-term immune response -- can wane  over time, and other parts of your immune system, called your  innate immune response, including your T cells, are more  important for long-term immunity.  So at this time we are not recommending antibody  testing prior to vaccines. We are not recommending antibody  testing as a part of travel or no travel or testing or no  testing. There's so much variability on what type of antibody  people test for, what type of test that was done, the timing of  the test, and that very what we call polymorphic response of the  immune system, the very different types of cell lines that are  used in the response that an antibody test doesn't really  capture, that we do not see that as a useful tool to  understanding the protection that someone may have from either  natural infection and/or vaccination.  CHAIR STEVENS: Well, thank you very much for that answer.  Senator Giessel, did you have a follow-up or further  questions?  SENATOR GIESSEL: Not at the moment. Thank you so much,  Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Madam President.  Anybody else have any questions or comments or  thoughts at this time?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: This is Representative Johnson.  I have a question.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Representative Johnson, please go  ahead.  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Would you comment on if someone  has tested positive within -- I don't know how long it is, but  how long do they continue to have a positive test result? Can  it be for months? I mean, are we going to test people that have  already had the virus but may not be contagious and they turn  out to be positive?  DR. ZINK: Yeah. No, I really appreciate that question.  And, yes, some people can test positive even when  they're no longer thought to be replicating the live virus.  It's for this reason that we don't recommend a test for  clearance from infection, that we really only recommend using  the CDC guidance for clearance based on symptom screening.  And so there are kind of two different criteria that  we use for clearance once someone has been infected with  COVID-19. One is for most healthy individuals, and that  includes three things. That's 10 days from onset of symptoms  and symptoms rapidly improving and being fever-free with no  fever-reducing medication for 24 hours.  So if someone meets all three of those  criteria -- and that's most healthy individuals -- then 10 days  after the onset of their infection, they're thought to no longer  be actively infectious with COVID-19. And at that point, we  don't recommend repeat testing, including pre-procedural or  travel testing, because we don't want to take up cases that kind  of have these remnant RNA but don't represent actual infectious  people. And the reason for that is they were unable to grow out  live virus past nine days in healthy individuals.  The exception to that is people who are  immunocompromised or immunosuppressed, including those who  receive Epidron for being severely ill, and then it goes out to  20 days.  So you can see some countries have just opted to go  for the 20-day clearance rather than kind of the nuance between  those. But, again, it's for that reason that we use the  clinical-based criteria rather than the test-based criteria to  make sure that we're using these tests to really identify  actively infectious people and don't recommend regular screening  for 90 days after infection.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Thank you.  Representative Johnson, any follow-up?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Well, I'm still trying to wrap my  head around the -- if you show up and you test positive, but you  have a positive test result in the past; right? So you've  already had tested positive. And then it's like -- I'm trying  to get my mind figured out where -- and the Legislature here is  trying to -- unless you have a doctor's note as well; is that  correct? Is that what the policy is right now?  DR. ZINK: To say that you don't have -- that you've  tested positive?  SENATOR GIESSEL: I guess what I'm trying to clarify is  that if someone has a positive test result in the  past -- because there's a number of people in the legislature  who have positive test results, have had it. If we can show up  with a positive test result but yet we test negative, are we  still going to -- I mean, a negative -- well, we should test  negative because it's been a while ago since the original  positive test, but the test -- if we continue to do these repeat  tests and have the potential for showing a false positive, how  are we going to deal with that?  DR. ZINK: And that's a --  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: I know, Dr. Zink, that you can't  really answer that; it's just something that we're going to have  to determine, I think.  DR. ZINK: What we do at the airport testing is we  essentially say, "You need to show your proof of a positive test  and your letter of clearance from public health or whoever else  that you're no longer infectious." And as long as that's within  the 90 days, that is counted for like your travel testing, your  pre-procedural testing. So it's that letter of clearance plus  that PCR test that you were identified as having COVID-19, and  you're within that 90 days.  So I'm not sure how you guys want to work it from a  legislative perspective, but that is what we have done from a  travel and a procedural standpoint to make sure that we're not  doing screening testing on people who are very likely to not be  infectious.  The caveat to that is if someone is symptomatic. If  someone is symptomatic at any point they should get repeat  testing.  MS. AMANDA JOHNSON: And, Dr. Zink, this is Amanda with  Beacon.  To add on to that question, that is correct. The  plan is to not test anyone if they are within that 90 days from  their time of positive test. They would be required to show  proof of that medical release or release from public health, as  well as that positive test and the date of that positive test.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Amanda. I was just about to  call on you because you are the one who will be figuring out how  all this works. So I appreciate you're being with us. So you  think -- you have a clear grasp of how this is going to work in  the Legislature, in the Capitol Building?  MS. AMANDA JOHNSON: Yes. We're very familiar with the  state requirements around travelers, and that, in fact, is what  is carrying over to this session. And we will -- we also have a  plan in place for, given the length of the session, realizing  that some people will move beyond that 90-day post-infection  during the session, and therefore we will begin a testing  protocol, or they will fold into the testing protocol as usual.  And then there's some additional follow-up testing if they were  to test positive on a PCR test to do some additional antigen  testing to determine if that is a live virus, as Dr. Zink is  reviewing. And we are reviewing with epidemiology on that  protocol.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Amanda.  Okay. Any further questions anybody has, thoughts,  either questions to Dr. Zink or Amanda from Beacon?  SENATOR GIESSEL: Mr. Chairman, this is Senator Giessel  again.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes?  SENATOR GIESSEL: I wanted to just close the loop. So the  question was asked: What about people that have tested  positive? Dr. Zink has clearly articulated that 90-day window  and a letter of clearance. Could we clarify with Dr. Zink that  despite the fact that they are in a 90-day period of time after  a positive test, they still need to maintain the masking, social  distancing, and hand sanitizing protocols.  Dr. Zink, could you clarify that?  DR. ZINK: Yeah. I appreciate it, Senator.  Yes, that is still our recommendation even within  that 90-day period, that people continue to mask, distance, and  hand-wash, continue to do those mitigation steps as they are  additional important tools moving forward.  SENATOR GIESSEL: Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: So thank you. Thank you, Senator Giessel.  So I take from that that there should be nobody in  that building who is not wearing a mask. Is that your  understanding, Senator Giessel?  SENATOR GIESSEL: That's how I understand it. I wanted  Dr. Zink to clarify that.  CHAIR STEVENS: Good. Okay. Thank you.  Did someone else have a question or comment? I may  have missed them. It's an opportunity to speak -- I was going  to say to hear from the horse's mouth, but that's not a very  appropriate thing to say. But it's an opportunity to hear from  the experts on what's going to happen and how it's going to  work.  So I guess maybe I would ask Amanda, considering  this, if you've tested positive, you're supposed to wear a mask.  Are you confident that we can create a safe environment for our  staff and our employees and ourselves in that building?  MS. AMANDA JOHNSON: Absolutely. I think that you guys  have some strategies in place already with sneeze guards, the  mask-wearing, the hand sanitation protocols that we'll have, you  know, throughout the facility.  As Dr. Zink mentioned, you know, the best practice  right now is certainly, you know, social distancing, which  includes remote work as much as possible. Yes, there is  business to conduct, and certainly we're working very closely,  as Dr. Zink is, with critical infrastructure and having created  save environments across the state, working within those  critical infrastructures.  So we're certainly confident, with the testing as  well as the practices that Dr. Zink mentioned that are part of  the program, that we can certainly create a safe environment.  SENATOR BEGICH: Mr. Chairman?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator. Go ahead.  SENATOR BEGICH: This is Senator Begich.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Begich.  SENATOR BEGICH: Just to follow up on the comment that was  just made, so how safe is the environment if people that are in  the building refuse to wear a mask? Did you hear my question?  MS. AMANDA JOHNSON: Yes. This is Amanda. I heard your  question as related to how safe it could be if folks refused to  wear masks, and I believe that maybe later in this session you  are going to review a code of conduct protocol which really  encourages and, in some regards, is requiring mask-wearing. But  I'll refer to Jessica to confirm that.  SENATOR BEGICH: Yeah. Amanda, before you go there -- if  I may, Mr. Chairman, follow up?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes. Please go ahead, Senator Begich.  SENATOR BEGICH: What I'm getting at here is that whether  we have a protocol in place or not, some people may refuse  to -- you know, elected officials may refuse to acknowledge the  protocol. What does that -- what is the impact that that may  have on the safety of the environment? That's what I'm getting  at. I want to just put the elephant on the -- if you will, the  elephant in the room, I want to acknowledge it.  DR. ZINK: This is Dr. Zink, and I can take a stab at it.  I have -- for me, safe versus nonsafe is always a  continuum, and it's not a dichotomous one versus the other.  Again, the safer you are, the more people are distanced, the  more they are in separate places, the more they're meeting  telephonically or via Zoom and not in person. Once people are  starting to be in the same building and the same air space  together, particularly for prolonged periods of time, there's a  series of things that will make an area more likely to have  COVID transmission or less likely.  So if someone is symptomatic, if they're not feeling  well, they are more likely to be coughing, sneezing, and that  helps to spread the particles more readily. If they are not  wearing a mask, again that spreads the virus more quickly,  particularly in a confined space. The longer they are there,  the more people that are there, all of those things kind of add  to that, as well as the ventilation.  So it's hard to say if someone is not wearing a mask  what percent or what sort of risk that confers. It clearly is  more risk, being clearly on the CDC website and others. You  know, masks help prevent you from getting and spreading the  virus. Masks are an important tool. They are not the only  tool. And so it depends on how they are being used in  combination with other tools, as well as if that person has been  tested recently, if they're symptomatic or if they're not  symptomatic, how many other people are in the room, the length  of time as well as proximity that you spend with that person.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Dr. Zink.  Senator Begich, any follow-up there?  SENATOR BEGICH: Yeah, just a -- first, that does  predominantly answer my question. And I just want to reiterate  a question that was brought up earlier and just to get a  definitive answer again.  There are increasingly -- I'm reading on the web, and  I get these notes from people telling me that masking doesn't  work, that there's data that proves that it doesn't work. Could  you please address that once and for all?  DR. ZINK: Yes. I appreciate the question.  I also get many of the same e-mails, and there is a  preponderance of evidence that masking helps to reduce the  transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, as well  as some evidence that it helps to minimize your chance of  getting sick with COVID. That is by far the summary of the  evidence to date on this subject. Really, the subject matter  experts in this field all really stand behind that.  People pick and choose different parts of the data  set -- a Dutch study, when people were already on lockdown. And  even there masks showed a little bit of benefit, but it wasn't  huge because everyone was in their own houses separately and not  getting together because the entire country was on lockdown. So  I think it's important to take the studies in consideration of  where they're used and how they were used and look at the full  study.  There is a ton of information on the CDC as well as  other websites, and it is by far the clinical consensus at this  time that a mask helps prevent you from getting or spreading the  virus that causes COVID-19.  SENATOR BEGICH: Thank you. Dr. Zink, as our chief  medical officer, I take that as the definitive answer, and I  appreciate that. Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Begich. It could not  be more clear that masking is -- the preponderance of evidence  is that masking works, it seems, and everything I have read  seems to prove that, though you read things occasionally that  object to it. But I appreciate your comments on that, Dr. Zink.  Any further questions of Dr. Zink? And, let's see,  before we go -- I know there may be some questions  that -- Jessica, you had some questions that we had talked about  earlier. Do you want to go ahead with what you were concerned  about?  MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens, thank you.  My questions are for Dr. Zink. One is: Alaska seems  to be on the downward trend as far as case counts go. Do you  anticipate the large influx predicted around the nation during  the time we convene in mid-January?  DR. ZINK: Thank you for that question.  We did spend some time, actually, with the epi team  talking about that just this morning. We do see about  33 percent of the jurisdictions are on an upward swing right  now. We, fortunately, are on a downward swing right now, which  is fantastic to see.  I think a lot is going to depend on what Alaskans do  after the holiday, after travel, and as people are getting  together. I would suspect that, like other travel and other  gatherings, we would also get a bump with additional cases after  the holiday, after people have traveled and moved, but we did  not have a huge influx after Thanksgiving. We continued to see  a downward trend after that, and so we'll have to see what this  holiday season looks like and what happens.  But in general, our team is, I guess, bracing for,  kind of end of January, beginning of February, a potential surge  in cases, particularly holidays with people being tired, not  enough vaccines out yet to really make a big difference in the  overall disease process. And we really want to do what we can  to keep those cases down and encourage Alaskans to mitigate the  disease until we have widespread vaccine available.  MS. GEARY: Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Jessica.  Was there a question?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Chair Stevens?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes. Yes, please, go ahead.  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: This is Representative Johnson.  Thank you. Representative Johnson here.  I have a question just on the vaccine plan, if there  is one for legislators at all, which would potentially protect  some of the people in the Legislature. But how long does it  take for those to go into effect, and if there is a plan in  place. And then I have another question as well.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Actually, I might direct that  to the President. I know she has sent a letter to officials  requesting that. It's always a problem. I know, even at our  federal level, Congressmen who have sort of jumped the line and  have been criticized heavily about it.  But, Madam President, do you have any thoughts on  that before we go maybe to Dr. Zink?  SENATOR GIESSEL: Well, the reason that the Speaker and I  sent that letter is because of the critical need for the  Legislature to be functional, to pass a budget. That's our one  constitutional responsibility. Consequently, we -- the Speaker  and I joined together, sent a joint letter to the committee that  determines the distribution of the vaccine here in Alaska.  Dr. Zink is aware of that letter, and I'll let her  carry this baton forward and answer the rest of the question.  Dr. Zink?  DR. ZINK: Yeah. I appreciate that, Madam President.  And, yes, we did receive your letter and appreciate  the feedback. It is a challenging space right now not to have  enough vaccine available to everyone who wants it, and I  desperately wish that we did. The ACIP, the Advisory Council on  Immunization Practices that advises the CDC, did put -- they  didn't specifically call out legislators, but they did call out  public health workers and other critical infrastructure workers  kind of in the 1c category, which would not be in January or  February. It would be a little bit later than that. Exactly  when really depends on production and updates. That  conversation is still being had with advisory committees.  I would just note that on a federal level, the  federal government was able to allocate vaccines for subgroups  outside of state allocations. They did this with the federal  prisons. They did this with IHS, DOD, VA, as well as a subset  of federal legislators and others.  The state allocation is kind of within the state  allocation committee, and given the very critical nature of the  work you guys do, we're asking the committee on where they're  going to weigh in on that. They have not yet weighed in on  that. Legislators were not part of 1a, but we're working  through the 1b and potentially 1c category.  I would also just state that it probably takes  between five to six weeks to really build up the robust immunity  that these vaccines provide, which is much longer than things  like influenza. So it's important to also take into account  that length time in combination with the vaccine itself when  thinking about timing for different groups and that immunity  that's needed.  CHAIR STEVENS: So, Dr. Zink, if the vaccine were to  become available for critical workers, as you say, possibly  legislators, would that be provided to Beacon to do that, those  injections?  DR. ZINK: Yeah. Thank you for that question, sir.  So there is a series of different ways that it gets  out. We have what we call closed pods, pods that are the point  of dispensing, and we have open pods. And there would be a  series of different ways that people could access the vaccine.  Sometimes we do -- like in the hospitals, they were  closed pods where the hospitals were doing them. For our Tier 3  healthcare workers, which are kind of the next group that's up,  some of those are being administered at clinics. Some are  registering online for an appointment time and getting  vaccinated at like a local pharmacy, to be able to do that. And  so I would imagine a similar sort of process, but we can -- we  can work with all sorts of people, including people like Beacon,  to go ahead and administer that if that comes out. It just will  really depend on timing and what works best to action that.  CHAIR STEVENS: And should that happen, Amanda, then, is  Beacon ready and authorized to do that?  MS. AMANDA JOHNSON: Yes, we are an authorized provider to  receive the vaccine as well as administer it. So if, in fact,  that becomes available and we're the mechanism for delivery,  we'll partner with the state accordingly.  CHAIR STEVENS: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Amanda.  Further questions anybody has of --  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Chair Stevens?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes. Go ahead.  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: I had one more question. I had  one more question, Chair Stevens.  CHAIR STEVENS: Representative Johnson, please go ahead.  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Yeah. So this is for Dr. Zink.  And I know that legislators are encouraged to quarantine for two  weeks before we go to Juneau, or after we get to Juneau. How  important is it for legislators or others that are in the  Legislature to minimize travel home on the weekends? Should we  encourage -- be encouraging that?  DR. ZINK: Yeah. So this is Dr. Zink. I appreciate that  question.  We do see that travel is one of the major  accelerators of the spread of COVID-19, and so every time  someone gets on a plane or interacts with other people, it is a  chance for spread.  It's a little bit hard to know what percent of people  on a plane and in travel will be positive and what that exposure  will look like. I will tell you that our airport testing had  been about 1 percent of the people coming into the airport were  testing positive, and then it shot up to almost 6 percent. And  it's come down a little bit now, meaning that, you know,  somewhere between, you know, one in 10, one in 16, one in 20,  depending on the timing of people on the plane were likely  positive with COVID-19 at that time.  We're also seeing similar travel recommendations from  the CDC -- actually going into effect today -- which include  requirements to get tested prior to travel from the U.K., given  this new variant. And the CDC has pretty good recommendations  based on a lot of modeling that recommends a test as close as  possible to travel, but ideally no more than three days, as well  as staying home for seven days after travel and getting a second  test somewhere between -- before that seven days, so somewhere  between like around day five. Their wording is a little bit  different on their website.  So I would encourage legislators to take a look at  those, both the international and national travel guidance, and  we continue to see travel as an accelerating course within the  state. And part of the reason there have been the requirements  for testing as well as staying home and not interacting with  others, that strict social distancing after travel, is to  minimize the spread of COVID-19.  CHAIR STEVENS: All right. Thank you.  I think most legislators -- there might be a few  exceptions -- will travel by air to get to Juneau. There's  hardly any other way, but some may be able to take a ferry or  fly in their own planes.  Do you fly yourself, Dr. Zink?  DR. ZINK: Once upon a time I did fly. I'm not against  flying, but I have flown once since this pandemic started, and  that was for my family. And this was in the summer, and I have  not flown since, nor do I have any plans to fly anytime soon. I  do think that minimizing that risk of flying -- I think people  do fly for different reasons. And if you do fly, then having  those restrictions before and afterwards can help minimize the  chance that you spread it to others during that time, and if you  happen to accidentally pick it up before you spread it to  others.  So, again, I would just really encourage people to  follow the CDC guidance regarding testing, as well as  quarantining before and after, to minimize their risk of flying  and its transmission.  CHAIR STEVENS: Sure. Thank you, Dr. Zink.  Jessica, did you have some more questions there?  MS. GEARY: Thank you, Chair Stevens. I just have just a  couple more questions, and these are mostly questions that I've  received and didn't quite know how to answer.  I've seen some fluctuation and maybe some confusion  with the 14-day quarantine versus the 10-day quarantine and when  those are applicable. Can you explain that, please, Dr. Zink?  DR. ZINK: Yes. Thank you. It is a challenging -- it's  been unclear to be able to articulate well, so I appreciate you  asking about it.  A couple different things. Quarantine versus  isolation are separate. Isolation is for illness, and so that  is when someone is sick, how long they need to be away from  others. And it may be "sick" in terms of they're physically  sick, or it may be that they're just infectious with the virus  but are asymptomatic. And that is that 10 days plus their  symptoms resolving, no fever, that I had talked about earlier.  The reason that that is shorter than a quarantine  period is a quarantine is more like a question. Am I going to  get COVID-19? And it takes a while for the virus to replicate  to see if someone actually has it. So the traditional  quarantine has been a 14-day period because the incubation  period, the time it takes from someone's exposure to the time  that they could show disease, is anywhere from two to 14 days.  So people won't -- if, you know, I saw -- you know,  if I saw Amanda today, and she was COVID positive, I wouldn't  get tested tomorrow because the incubation period is two to 14  days. I need to give it some time for that virus to replicate  to see if I truly was positive. Again, it can be anywhere from  two to 14 days, but most people start to pick up in their viral  shedding around day five to 10, in that time period. And then  most people start to become symptomatic, if they're going to  become symptomatic, somewhere around day 10. So the traditional  quarantine period is 14 days.  The CDC did put out guidance on ways that you could  potentially consider shortening that quarantine period with a  test and with closely watching symptoms. The safest thing to do  is to still do that full 14 days of quarantine because the  incubation period has not changed. That incubation period is  still 14 days. They still recommend symptom checking, as well  as minimizing your interactions for those full 14 days. But, as  mentioned, most people become symptomatic by day 10, and if you  do 10 and a test, then you really reduce that chance of having  COVID-19 and potentially spreading it to others quite  significantly, pretty similar to a full 14-day quarantine  without a test.  There is another strategy, which is seven days plus a  test, but then it increases your chance of missing cases of  COVID-19 anywhere from about one to 10 percent, depending on the  modeling of the studies that you look at. On our testing  guidance on the DHSS website, it lists out like a chart,  including kind of the risk of testing for quarantine at any of  those realms.  And these are all different than strict social  distancing, which is what we ask people to do after they travel.  And, again, that's because they're not a known, confirmed close  contact to an exposed COVID-positive patient, but they did  something that was higher risk. They traveled during that time  and, as a result, asking people to take some extra precautions,  including that staying home for seven days and getting tested  somewhere between days five and seven. It's all a series of  balancing risk with all of these things that really impact  people's lives and trying to use testing to help minimize the  length of quarantine.  For most organizations and for communities, they will  oftentimes say 10 and a test is probably a very reasonable  alternative to the 14-day quarantine. That 10 and a test gets  you pretty similar data to a full 14-day quarantine, instead of  doing the full 14 days.  MS. GEARY: Thank you for that.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.  SENATOR BEGICH: Mr. Chair?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yeah, Jessica. I think you had another  question there?  MS. GEARY: I think Senator Begich might have been trying  to ask a question.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. I'm sorry. Senator Begich, go  ahead.  SENATOR BEGICH: I just wonder if I could just get kind of  a preliminary game plan from Dr. Zink.  So, Dr. Zink, if I were planning to fly, say, on the  6th of January down to Juneau, when would I do my prelim test,  and would you then want me to test two days after I arrived in  Juneau, or when would you want me to do that test while  remaining in isolation until, you know, the start of the  session?  DR. ZINK: Yeah. So thank you for that question.  We would recommend that you get tested one to three  days prior to traveling and as close to travel as possible. So,  for example, if you were traveling on the 6th, if you could get  tested on the 5th, that would be ideal, if you could get that  turnaround time. It depends on your location and if that  turnaround can be within that time. So one to three days prior  to the 6th.  And then following the CDC guidance, it asks people  to stay at home for seven days after travel and getting tested  somewhere between days like five to seven. So if you -- I can  pull up a calendar here. If you traveled on the 6th, not  interacting with other people until the 13th, and getting tested  somewhere around the 12th or 13th to make sure that's negative.  And then on the 14th on just doing the distancing, masking,  hand-washing per normal.  SENATOR BEGICH: I appreciate that. Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Begich.  Yes. Who was that?  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Senator Stevens, this is Natasha. Can  I ask a question?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please, Senator von Imhof. Go ahead.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Thank you.  So, Dr. Zink, did you clarify whether the travel is  in state versus out of state?  DR. ZINK: Yeah. So I appreciate that question, Senator.  The travel requirements as part of the EUA -- or,  excuse me, the health order is people traveling from out of  state into state, as well as traveling off the road system.  However, we do encourage people who are traveling in general in  Alaska to follow the same guidance. The health order does not  apply to on-road-to-on-road, but in general we are encouraging  people to follow the same guidance if they're flying in-state.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: So, Senator Stevens, can I do a  follow-up?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please. Go ahead, Senator.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Okay. So, Dr. Zink, if a legislator  comes down to Juneau, and they leave for the weekend for less  than -- I mean, technically for less than 72 hours, let's just  say, just to follow -- you know, to really split hairs there.  But if a Senator goes home to Anchorage or somewhere, to  Fairbanks or on the road system, goes home for the weekend and  comes back, are you suggesting that the Senator do not go into  the Capitol Building for the full seven days? Is that what  you're saying?  DR. ZINK: So it's all kind of a matter of risk/benefit,  and so that's where, really, you all have to -- and this is what  we had to do with emergency orders as well, to say: How much  additional risk is there? There's less risk for 24 hours than  there are 72. There's less risk with 72 hours compared to a  week. If you go to a bar and party, there's going to be a lot  more risk than if you are at home by yourself. And so finding  that risk/benefit for the Legislature is something that you guys  are unfortunately challenged with having to figure out.  But the CDC recommendations don't -- they just say  travel in general. If someone is traveling by flight, they  recommend, again, the testing beforehand, staying home for seven  days afterwards, and testing at the end. I'm happy to send  those to you if you guys would like to see those travel  recommendations.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: No, thank you. I appreciate that.  I think that the Legislature will have to make a  decision collectively about travel, I would imagine, Senator  Stevens, and knowing that people do need to see their  constituents, that there are people that have families outside  of Juneau that can't bring their families down, and that we need  to have -- we need to do what Dr. Zink stated, which is balance  the risk versus the reward.  And I think that if we have with Beacon a robust  testing system, as what they're doing in colleges and other  locations where you're tested on a frequent basis, on a  scheduled basis, I think that ought to pick up, you know, any  type of potential exposure, just as long as people are diligent  at all times, both on the airplanes, in their home districts,  et cetera. But to have people, I think, to stay -- to come to  Juneau and stay in Juneau for three months is unrealistic and  personally not mentally healthy.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your  comments. You know, I think you make a good point, that people  who stay in Juneau and go to the bars at night are probably  taking a greater risk than someone maybe going home and being  isolated while they're at home. So certainly that's an issue.  Travel is an issue we need to talk about.  I think, more importantly, the main issue -- it seems  to me to be masking, but travel is certainly an issue for us to  consider. Thank you, Senator.  Any further -- Jessica, I don't think we quite  finished the questions you had from your staff and from folks in  the building.  MS. GEARY: Yeah. Thank you, Chair Stevens. Just a  couple quick questions.  So we had the question about the exposure risk for  passing notes, for example, during the floor session.  Legislators communicate by having pages pass notes back and  forth, and I guess that kind of ties into the exposure risk from  touching inanimate objects. So do you have any advice as  to -- or data, perhaps, as to how the virus is transmitted on  objects such as paper and door handles and other things like  that?  DR. ZINK: Yes. I appreciate that question.  So, in general, it lived on surfaces longer if it's  hard surfaces -- metal, plastic, things like that. In general,  in cool temperatures and things that are not cleaned regularly  it also lasts longer on, including multiple days.  It is destroyed very easily by soap and water, as  well as with most cleaning detergents, agents, and supplies, and  there's a large list of those on both the EPA as well as the CDC  website on things that destroy the virus. So with its structure  of the outside, it's pretty easily destroyed by those cleaning  things.  Initially we were very concerned with what we call  fomite transmission, moving the virus from person to person from  things like paper. It appears to be that that is less of a  concern, definitely not a bureau concern, and that is part of  the reason why we still highly recommend things like  hand-washing and not touching your face. So people that are  passing material back and forth, having stations where people  can regularly wash their hands, having hand sanitizer right  there so people can wash their hands after touching paper are  all tools that can be used to minimize the risk of transmission  via fomite, from touching one object to another.  But, in general, it's less of a concern than our  initial thoughts when we were very first learning about this  virus.  MS. GEARY: Thank you for that.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Thank you.  Anything else anyone has? Jessica, any questions,  anymore questions you have from your staff?  MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens, I think most of them have been  answered, and some of them are kind of -- I don't think I'll ask  some of these.  I just wanted to make a general comment that we have  added self-sanitizing surfaces. We've increased the filters in  all of our HVAC systems, and we've added HEPA air purifiers to  our committee rooms and chambers. And I know those are all  recommended by -- and researching a bit on the CDC website. Is  there anything else you would recommend?  One other thing I might note is within the chambers  we've added plexiglass in between all of the desks. Members  will be asked to wear masks, but we do recognize that  congregating in a room such as that for a long period of time  does carry a bit of risk.  So I guess I was just looking for, you know,  suggestions or a rubber stamp or something along those lines,  Dr. Zink.  DR. ZINK: Yeah. I appreciate the question.  Unfortunately, no rubber stamp because we aren't  approving or disapproving of any plans. But what I would  say -- it sounds like you are already looking on the CDC  website, and kind of a general framework that we use for  mitigation is thinking administrative, environmental, and then  down to personal.  So administrative, being able to do things in  separate rooms, online, not having as many people in the same  room, entrances and exits being separate, all of those things.  And then environmental includes like airflow filters,  increasing the air exchange rate. That's why outside is so much  safer than inside. It's about the air exchange. And really  using your maintenance people to take a look at that because,  depending on what sort of filter is on the air exchange and  where the air moves, you want to make sure that that is done  thoughtfully and mindfully overall.  And then the personal mitigation. And so that's  where masking comes in, hand-washing, distancing, minimizing the  number of people in the space, making sure people don't come to  work while they're sick, making sure people are truly isolating  and quarantining -- so if someone is diagnosed with COVID-19,  that they are not coming into the building, that they are truly  isolating; and anyone who is a close contact to that person, has  been exposed for 15 minutes or more within six feet cumulatively  over a 24-hour period, truly does quarantine for that period of  time, either 10 days and a test, or that 14-day period and not  coming in. So those are other additional things that I would  encourage people to take a look at.  There's some pretty good school and business  guidance. I couldn't find any legislative-specific business on  the CDC website when I was looking earlier, but the business  ones -- I think that many of the same things that you've been  mentioning and talking about. And, again, it's kind of like  going outside in the cold. The more you can layer these things  together, the more protected staff and legislators and others in  the building will be.  CHAIR STEVENS: So, Dr. Zink, we have an unusual situation  here. I don't know anything quite like it in the state of  Alaska, where somewhere under 300 people are coming together  into one building from all parts of the state, whether there's  low caseloads where they're coming from or high caseloads, from  all over the state. Would you be at all surprised to learn that  there have been quarantines and isolation during our time in  Juneau?  DR. ZINK: So as you kind of bring up in your questioning,  numbers are a big factor in this. And the more people you have  gathering from more different places, particularly places with a  lot of transmission, that's just a higher risk for someone being  asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic or pre-symptomatic and  accidentally spreading it to others.  I will note that wearing a mask does not change the  need to quarantine at this time. So even if, you know, you have  two legislators in the same room, if they had been there for an  extended period of time together, or they'd been within six feet  for 15 minutes or more, and one of those legislators tests  positive for COVID-19, two days prior to their symptom onset or  they test positive, anyone they've spent that time with needs  to quarantine for either 10 days and a test or that 14-day  period, as we had talked about previously.  That's really been the limitation on, for example,  schools, is just a lot of kids needing to isolate and quarantine  as transmission can occur in those settings. What we do see in  schools and other places is that mitigation helps significantly.  A lot of those kids don't end up testing positive, but it's not  zero. But that quarantine and isolation really helps to prevent  the ongoing transmission.  So 300 people from all over the state in close  quarters, there's a definitely higher risk than two people  meeting on Zoom or 300 people meeting on Zoom. And part of the  reason our department, for example, is almost fully online  except for, again, the very few things that have to be done in  person, such as running the lab itself, where you have to be in  person to actually run the machines, things like that.  CHAIR STEVENS: Right. Right. Well, thank you very much,  Dr. Zink.  We're about to wrap up here. Any final question  anybody has at this time?  REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER: Chair Stevens?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes. Please go ahead. I'm not sure who  was speaking, but identify yourself.  REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER: Thank you. This is Neal.  Amanda with Beacon, it looks like Curative Labs is  currently administering the tests at the Anchorage airport  there, and I understand Beacon will be there. I don't know if  you're working with Curative or -- and if not, are you setting  up your own site there at the airport? And, if so, will it be  on the -- I guess which floor and what day will you be setting  up?  And then also has the location been determined for  when we arrive in Juneau where we get to get our COVID test?  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Representative Foster. That's  a really good question because I think many of us will be  traveling -- well, almost all of us will be traveling. Well,  not all of us. A lot of us are traveling through the Anchorage  airport and are coming from places where it's pretty hard to get  testing.  So could someone answer Representative Foster's  question? Where and when in the Anchorage airport?  MS. AMANDA JOHNSON: Yes. This is Amanda with Beacon, and  we are set up in the Anchorage airport. There are two programs  currently at the Anchorage airport. There's Capstone that's  running the traveler program for the State of Alaska, which they  do use Curative. So if you're traveling, you do have that  option as a traveler for compliance with the health order that  Dr. Zink had mentioned as it relate to intrastate travel.  In addition, Beacon does have an operation set up at  the airport. It is on the ticketing or departure level, the  opposite end of the airport from Alaska Airlines ticketing area,  which is down Gate A. And at that place, at that location we  will have availability of testing. We will have a combination,  depending on your timing of coming in, of rapid testing as well  as lab-based testing. We use a lab called Color, very similar  to Curative as it relates to the program setup and things for  resulting. As well as timeliness of results.  And then, again, we have rapid testing in  places -- well, and we also have a location in Fairbanks for  those traveling through Fairbanks, where Beacon is supporting  the State of Alaska with the travel program for the intrastate  travel as well as interstate travel. And we also have some  availability to support this contract from that location. At  that location, we are located at Baggage Claim 2 on the main  level of the airport there.  In addition, we will have a location here in Juneau.  We'll have a couple locations. We will have a small setup for  testing at the capitol for anyone who comes in with their  screening and has an immediate need for testing and/or primarily  located there for their regular cycle testing.  We are, however, also working with the airport as  well at a local hotel to secure space for the cycle testing  and/or your arrival testing for a convenient location so that we  minimize the crowd and the activity of testing at the capitol as  much as possible for the specific needs of capitol testing, and  then have those available options. And we are finalizing that,  as well as working specifically with Jessica during that -- for  that process, for the location at the capitol. So that should  be forthcoming here in the next day or so.  CHAIR STEVENS: So to Representative Foster's question,  and then also the answer that was given to Senator Begich, to  test one to two days before and then test on the fifth through  the seventh day, what you're saying to Representative Foster is,  if he can't get a test in Nome, he should get a test, I assume,  in the Anchorage airport, and then day five or seven after that.  Is that true? Do I have that right?  MS. AMANDA JOHNSON: Yes. If he is unable to test in  Nome, for example, he would test at the Anchorage airport prior  to his connection, and we do have a protocol in place that  individuals will test. If you test the one to three days prior,  as Dr. Zink mentioned, which is in line with the health order,  then, in fact, we also have a testing protocol in place to test  within 24 hours of entry to the capitol and then again that  three to four days later, hitting that five-day mark, again, as  Dr. Zink has outlined.  And so we do have that testing schedule. We are  finalizing that into various categories, which are, you know,  those that are Juneau-based, those that are coming in to Juneau  for 90 days, and those that intend to travel throughout the  session and maybe leave Juneau multiple times, and what  that -- what you should expect from a testing protocol, so to  speak. And we're finalizing that as of some conversations late  last week, and we'll release that out to everyone with updated  frequently-asked-questions here in the next day or so.  CHAIR STEVENS: Well, I appreciate that, Amanda, and  you'll be coming with those recommendations.  Representative Foster, is that understandable to you?  Does that make sense, that -- can you get tested in Nome, or do  you have to get tested in Anchorage?  REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER: Oh, she answered my question  perfectly. Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes. Okay. Great. Thank you.  So we do need to move on. It's been an hour, and I  really appreciate your spending your time with us. But before  we do conclude, are there any other questions anyone would like  to pose at this time?  SENATOR GIESSEL: Mr. Chairman?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes?  SENATOR GIESSEL: This is Senator Giessel.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Giessel, please go ahead.  SENATOR GIESSEL: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to have Dr. Zink  comment on the virus variants that are cropping up. Last week  the news carried a story about a variant of the COVID virus that  was occurring in South Africa that appeared to have higher  mortality. Today I read about the U.K., which has a variant  emerging, and it has cropped up in Canada due to travel,  apparently in Quebec and also in British Columbia, folks that  had been in the U.K. over the holidays, traveled home, and were  carrying the virus.  I just wanted to offer Dr. Zink an opportunity to  comment on that.  DR. ZINK: Yes. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the  question.  We do see that this virus continues to change. We  have seen variants previously that look like it had become more  contagious, however not more lethal, not more likely to cause  more deaths from the disease. We are following these variants  closely. In fact, the CDC reporting on the U.K. one was  extensive this morning, and they do have a website up about it.  Both the South Africa as well as the U.K. variant appear to  spread more easily, yet, again, don't cause higher rates of  disease.  The U.K. variant causes what we call an S-dropout, so  one of the testing components, that you lose a little bit of  that arm. However, what we see right now is it does not appear  to impact the vaccine's effectiveness, so that is being studied,  as well as other things like the monoclonal antibodies. It may  affect convalescent plasma, so trying to understand that better.  The federal government did require a test prior to  traveling from the U.K. starting today. It rolled out today.  And there was messaging from the CDC about, again, using a  two-test strategy, a test prior to traveling as well as a test  after travel, in combination with staying home as a way to  decrease the transmission associated with this virus, given that  it's a new, more contagious spread -- a new contagious strain  that we're seeing in the U.K. right now.  So we're continuing to follow it closely, and we're  internally discussing just about what that looks like in the  U.K. And, as you mentioned, it's been seen in Canada. There's  a lot of genetic sequencing going on continue U.S. right now. I  don't think any of us would be surprised if it was in the U.S.  at this time. However, it has not yet been identified, and we  are also looking through both our S-dropout cases as well as  genetic sequencing to see if it's appeared here in Alaska. At  this time we have no evidence that it has.  SENATOR GIESSEL: Thank you, Dr. Zink, for emphasizing  masking and constraining our travel.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Giessel.  SENATOR HOFFMAN: This is Senator Hoffman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Hoffman, please go ahead.  SENATOR HOFFMAN: Yes. Dr. Zink, I'm planning to have my  first shot probably within the next 10 days, and then three  weeks after that my second shot. So as the Legislature  transitions to getting their virus shots, what, if any,  different protocols do they have to follow or that are  recommended by the department between -- after the first shot  and then after the second shot? Are there different protocols?  DR. ZINK: Thank you for that question, sir.  At this time, no. These vaccines were studied for  how significantly they made you ill, not on your ability to  spread the disease to others. Some early data out of Moderna  suggested they may decrease transmission, and that is being  actively studied for both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but  at this time we do not have data to say it's time to stop  mask-wearing, distancing, minimizing your interactions based on  these vaccines at this time.  We're hopeful that more data will come out soon that  will show that are you less likely to transmit the disease, but  we do not have that as of yet. So at this time no change in  recommendations for travel, masking, distancing, or anything  like that post-vaccine versus pre-vaccine.  SENATOR HOFFMAN: Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.  REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: I have a question.  CHAIR STEVENS: And who is that?  REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: This is Representative Thompson.  CHAIR STEVENS: Representative Thompson? Please go ahead,  Representative Thompson.  REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: Yeah. I have a question for  Beacon. I'm curious. About a month and a half ago my family  and I had to travel to Arizona for a family funeral, and upon  returning we got tested at the airport. And we quarantined  completely out of town, and seven days after we returned, we  drove back to the airport and had our second test. We hadn't  got the results of the first test yet.  So the next day, which was eight days after our first  test, my wife and son got their results that they were negative  at that time. And this is eight days after my test, they came  back and said, "Sorry, we broke your vial. You need to test  again."  Well, we had gone back after seven days. The day  before that we did our second test. It took another eight days  for me to get -- all three of us to get the results of our  second test. I was wondering about the length of time and the  length of waiting for these results.  MS. AMANDA JOHNSON: Yes. Thank you for that question,  and certainly the clarification.  We have had some challenges throughout this pandemic  with some of the resulting and timeliness of that resulting.  What has taken place is -- and, Dr. Zink, you can correct me as  you wish here. The traveler program, which is what you  experienced at that time for the Fairbanks airport, is a  partnership with the State of Alaska, and we are leveraging the  virology lab there in Fairbanks using the BTM that that lab  produces, as well as using them for resulting.  And so there have been a few times in the series of  this program where there's been significant increases in  testing, which results in delays of receiving those results from  the virology lab.  In addition, there was a batch -- or have been a few  batches of the vials that have been compromised, as those are  chilled and frozen vials. And they, in the field, break, you  know, when they're thawing out that last time in the virology  lab. So we have continued to work very closely on that.  What I will advise -- and I'll pause there if  Dr. Zink wants to correct me on anything. The real situation  there is when the lab gets, you know, an influx of testing, it  has a trickle effect on how quickly we're receiving those and  resulting those, and then using state resources as much as  possible during these times.  So, Dr. Zink, do you want to correct me on anything  in that statement and in that experience?  DR. ZINK: I appreciate the question. First of all, you  know, I'm really sorry that you had that experience. Turnaround  time is essential to try and make sure we identify cases early.  There have been some significant challenges, and I think Amanda  pointed out many of those, and I appreciate that.  I would echo her statement that many of those things  have been worked out. We encourage people to continue to check  their spam box, because it's impressive how many times that's  still where they go.  The turnaround time has radically improved, partially  because of a lot of effort and time for IC in trying to  streamline the process, as well as the fact that as we've had a  decrease in cases around the state, as well as increasing  testing options, including private options that weren't  available, our turnaround time has significantly improved since  before.  I think what we'll continue to see is if our cases  continue to decline, our turnaround time will stay quick.  However, if our cases start to increase again, everything just  kind of gets gummed up through the entire system, and things  take a lot longer.  So looking at the state turnaround time right now,  1.5 days, facility turnaround time is .7 days, and commercial  turnaround time is 1.4 days. that all publicly displayed on our  dashboard because that turnaround time is essential to make sure  people get notified as quickly as possible to their test  results.  REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: Thank you very much.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Representative Thompson.  MS. AMANDA JOHNSON: I'll add to that just for  clarification. For this program in supporting the legislative  group, we are using a commercial solution. So as Dr. Zink  outlined those turnaround times, we are using a commercial  solution for this testing support mechanism.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Amanda, Dr. Zink, and  Representative Thompson.  A final question, I think. Representative Stutes.  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.  And this might be for Jessica. I'm not sure, but  I've heard a lot of talk about the protocols for the legislators  and their staff. Are there any protocols in place for spouses  or family members coming to Juneau?  MS. GEARY: Thank you. Through the Chair, Representative  Stutes, the way that the policy was looked at was that anybody  covered under the Legislative Council moving and travel policy,  which is otherwise known as the relocation policy, does include  spouses and dependents. So anybody outside of that would be  responsible for paying for their own test or, in the case of  right now, they're not allowed in the capitol. But, I mean, to  answer your specific question, spouses and dependents would be  covered under this protocol.  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Follow up?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, a follow-up, please.  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Thank you.  So they would be able to be tested through the  company we have in place, and then they would be allowed to come  into the capitol; is that correct?  MS. GEARY: Through the Chair, Representative Stutes, yes,  that is the intent.  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Well, thank you all for your  questions. Thank you, Dr. Zink and Amanda. We certainly have  the greatest respect -- I want to thank you on the part of  Legislature for what you are doing and treating all people. I  know you are an emergency doctor as well, Dr. Zink, and I know  that's got to be another taxing part of your job. But I  think -- I really want to appreciate -- I really want to express  my appreciation for your being with us, for taking the time.  And if we have further questions, we will contact you probably  through Jessica.  But, again, thank you very much, both Dr. Zink and  Amanda, for being here with us today.  DR. ZINK: Thank you so much for the time, sir, and I'm  always happy to come back and answer any other questions. I  appreciate all that you all are doing.  CHAIR STEVENS: Well, thank you.    B. COVID ENFORCEMENT POLICY    CHAIR STEVENS: Let's move on, then, to the COVID  Enforcement Policy. I'd ask Representative Stutes for a motion.  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Certainly, Mr. Chair.  3:16:17 PM  I move that Legislative Council approve the COVID  Enforcement Policy.  CHAIR STEVENS: And I'll object for purposes of discussion  and maybe to explain that we have been asked what our rules are,  our enforcement. We left them pretty vague, saying it was up to  individual legislators. Both the President and the Speaker have  pointed out how vague that is and have requested this meeting so  we could revisit that enforcement policy.  So we have prepared this COVID Enforcement Policy.  We've had a chance to read through it. I've asked both Megan  and Jessica to look at it carefully, and I appreciate their  efforts here.  You know, it's not their policy; it's really our  policy, and so I just ask Jessica and Megan, if you could begin  by walking through that document. And it's the COVID  Enforcement Policy, and it's very specific. It begins with "A  member who refuses."  So, Jessica, could you and Megan take us through the  steps of this policy?  MS. GEARY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record,  Jessica Geary, executive director of Legislative Affairs. And I  think I will start out, and then I will let Megan add any  comments that she wishes to add.  So as was mentioned, this policy really became  necessary because, as we started looking at session beginning  January 19th, both bodies are not yet organized, and, really,  these protocols will take effect as soon as legislators and  staff start arriving in Juneau and undergoing the testing and  screening protocol.  So just simply going through these little bullets,  the first one is: Any member who refuses to have their  temperature taken or answer the health screening questions will  be denied entrance to the capitol.  Any member who refuses to wear a face covering will  be escorted by the contractor to their individual office, where  they shall remain.  Any member who refuses to undergo testing will be  reported to the presiding officer and rules chair of their  respective body, as well as the LAA executive director for  appropriate action, if any.  Any member who screens positive for symptoms will be  escorted to the on-site testing location for further screening  and testing. A member who tests positive for the virus may not  gain access to the capitol until their quarantine period is  over, as prescribed by Beacon.  Any member who is identified as a close contact of a  known positive will self-quarantine, as prescribed by Beacon.  It is the intent of Legislative Council that a member  quarantining shall be excused from the call of the House under  Uniform Rules 15 and 16. In the absence of a presiding officer  or a presumptive presiding officer on the first day of the first  session of the 32nd Legislature, this policy will be enforced by  the sergeant-at-arms and/or legislative security.  Megan, do you have anything to add before it's opened  up for questions?  MS. WALLACE: Sorry. I was on mute. For the record, this  is Megan Wallace, Legal Services director.  Jessica, I don't have too much to add. I would just  emphasize that when these policies need to begin being enforced,  we will still be within the 31st Alaska State Legislature. And  so, in my opinion, it is appropriate that this group, and the  current presiding officers, make policy decisions about how  these policies that Legislative Council has already passed will  be enforced amongst members as we approach the next session.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Jessica and Megan.  So keep focused on the idea that this is interim.  This is only -- these rules only apply until we have a new  President and a Speaker. It is pretty extraordinary, but, you  know, we know the fears that many of our employees have,  concerns they have, the questioned health conditions that they  have that we may not even be aware of, that people are concerned  about what may happen to them and even are considering maybe not  working for us if they don't feel safe.  So I'd appreciate any discussion on this to see what  anybody has to say. Please go ahead.  SENATOR GIESSEL: Mr. Chairman, this is Senator Giessel.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Giessel?  SENATOR GIESSEL: So it might be important, perhaps, to  lay a groundwork for everyone on the call to have considered the  document entitled In Support of Safe Session and Enforcement  Policies. I want to thank Jessica and Megan, who worked on this  document.  One of the things that we talked about in our last  Legislative Council meeting was the legal issues to placing  constraints on legislators. And one of the things that the  Speaker and I discussed after that meeting was the fact that we  are employers, and as employers we have a responsibility to  provide a safe workplace. And that was really the seed that  began this document In Support of Safe Session and Enforcement  Policies.  So maybe it would be helpful to talk about these  before we go into the enforcement part, talk about the why  before we get to the how.  CHAIR STEVENS: Sure. That's a good point. We have  not -- we don't have that on the agenda, but it fits right in  here. It's a two-page document that you have. The title is In  Support of Safe Session and Enforcement Policies, and it goes  into great detail.  Maybe, Megan, could you run us through that document?  MS. WALLACE: Certainly. Again, just for the record,  Megan Wallace, Legal Services director.  So the document that Senator Giessel just referenced  that we're looking at titled In Support of Safe Session and  Enforcement Policies -- so what this document does is provide  some information that has recently come out or has information  that has evolved as we've gone through this pandemic, you know,  almost, I think, nine -- almost 10 months at this point.  And so what you're going to see in this document is  information from the CDC, and starting in the fourth paragraph  there is updated information from the Equal Employment  Opportunity Commission, or the EEOC. And so that is information  regarding how, from a legal perspective, testing requirements or  allowable exceptions work from an employment perspective.  And so the paragraphs that follow there -- and I  won't go into any detail unless anyone has any questions, but it  just explains that there are serious EEOC, you know, Title VII  civil rights issues that have been examined, and we are getting  federal guidance from EEOC as well as OSHA and other agencies  about how to properly administer and enforce mitigation policies  similar to the ones that are before this body, whether it  relates to testing requirements or mask requirements.  And it's at least noteworthy to note that many or  almost every critical work industry has mitigation procedures  that are required because, from an employment and legal  standpoint, there are duties that employers have to take some  steps to ensure that workers are in a safe environment when they  report to work, and that they are at least doing their due  diligence in ensuring that they won't be infected at work.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Megan. A very important  document.  It honestly reminds me of when my son went to camp  and he was asked if he was allergic to anything. And he said he  was allergic to dishwashing, and then he signed his mother's  name to it.  So that's one thing that bothers me about it, is that  health is not just an out for anybody who doesn't want to wear a  mask. Can we assure that this is not just a safe out for people  that don't want to follow the rules? And that's a question to  you, Megan.  MS. WALLACE: So the rules that apply for these mitigation  requirements, whether it's testing or mask-wearing, they aren't  necessarily intended -- they're intended to protect all  employees, both the mask-wearer and the other people that are  employed in the same building, to ensure that everyone stays  protected. And if you have, you know, potentially, as I think  the health experts just went through -- that those  protections -- if not everyone is participating, the risks to  those other employees arguably, from a legal perspective, are  infringed upon.  MS. GEARY: And I think I might add to that, if I could.  This is Jessica Geary again.  I think perhaps what you're referring to is somebody  saying, "Well, I, you know, have this certain religion, so I  don't want to wear a mask," or something along those lines. And  I think -- you know, I met with Skiff Lobaugh, our human  resources manager, earlier, and we talked about the  investigating that goes into ADA compliance. He is our ADA  compliance coordinator.  And so I think the religious exemption is a little  different. We see it at schools. Doctors see it for, you know,  avoiding getting their children vaccinated, and that's a very  specific form that they would have to sign. And then as far as  the ADA, that would be -- they would report something to HR, who  would begin an investigation. And so he's working on forms  right now which we would provide to the contractors.  So I don't -- it won't be as simple as "I don't want  to do this." There will have to be actual reasons  behind -- legitimate reasons behind why a certain person does  not want to follow the protocols.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Thank you. So it's a serious  issue, not to be taken lightly, and it has to be explained and  approved. And then there will have to be discussion to  determine if there is an accommodation possible. Okay. Thank  you so much.  So we've gone through this In Support of Safe Session  and Enforcement Policies. Is there any question on that  document before we get back to the document in front of us?  Thank you, Senator Giessel, for bringing this up. Do  you have any further thoughts before we go on?  SENATOR GIESSEL: Well, Mr. Chairman, one of the  paragraphs in this document that was helpful to me starts out by  saying, "Historically, members have been denied access to the  floor for failing to be in proper attire, having perceived  improper dress as a violation in floor decorum."  One of the things I know this committee has wrestled  with, and certainly the Speaker and I have wrestled with, is  denying someone access to the floor if they don't have a mask  on. But in this scenario that we're living in right now, a mask  is part of floor decorum, and so I appreciated that paragraph,  Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Giessel. Right on.  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, DeLena Johnson. May I  speak?  CHAIR STEVENS: Representative Johnson, yes, please go  ahead.  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Well, first of all, when we talk  about masks, I think it's a whole lot different to talk about  someone's tie than whether they're wearing a mask. And if we  are talking about this as a health issue, that's one thing. But  the chambers belong to the Speaker or the President as far as  establishing the decorum. What I'm hearing excluded from this  discussion is the need and our huge responsibility to make sure  that we're not disenfranchising people by not allowing their  legislators to vote.  And I think that that's something that -- now, we may  be, you know, careful about all of these things. We also may  need to help people identify when they are at risk and when they  may need to exclude themselves, if necessary. But when we start  making exclusions, we have to be very, very, very careful,  especially before -- when we're talking about this Legislature  making rules for a Legislature that has not yet formed,  especially when the driving force probably -- may or may not  actually be participating in the future.  So I want to be cognizant that it's the Speaker's  chambers, it's the President's chambers, and they will make  their rules about their chambers.  CHAIR STEVENS: Oh, absolutely. And so right from the  beginning we have talked about how important it is that you  realize that we're just dealing with this Legislature, which  ends in January when the next Legislature -- the next President  and Speaker are elected. So we are in no way telling them what  they have to do, but we are giving them an option and some  opportunities and some direction they can choose, should they  want to.  So the issue of voting -- that is an important one,  and we have talked about that a lot.  Megan, we have talked at one point about if someone  was excluded from the floor -- maybe they have COVID and they're  in their office or in their home. They could -- we were talking  about finding a way to let them vote. Can you talk about that a  little bit, maybe letting them be in their office if they refuse  to wear a mask and vote from their office? Do you have any  thoughts on that?  MS. WALLACE: Sure. Again, for the record, Megan Wallace,  Legal Services director.  So, you know, the concept of denying access to the  floor is something that should not be taken lightly, but the  mask requirement in the midst of a pandemic -- it's  difficult -- certainly we don't have any -- you know, this issue  has never come up in Alaska.  If this body adopts this enforcement policy or takes  this step, it wouldn't be unique amongst legislatures. The U.S.  House, for example, has a mask mandate, and you must wear a mask  to get on the U.S. House of Representatives floor. I believe  that other states have adopted similar requirements. I don't  have an active list to give you, but this is a debate that is  being had around the country, and a lot of legislatures are  struggling to decide this question that is before you.  And, really, it's a policy decision in terms of  whether you recommend to exclude or to not exclude someone based  on whether they're wearing a mask. But from my perspective,  while it's difficult to predict, there's always a risk that if  someone were denied access to the floor, that there would be a  legal challenge. But doing my best to assess, you know, risks  and whatnot, it's my opinion that the mask requirement would  likely stand legal challenge; but just, again, reiterating that  it would be a matter of first impression here in Alaska.  SENATOR BEGICH: Mr. Chairman?  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Megan.  Yes, Senator Begich?  SENATOR BEGICH: Yeah. Just a couple comments I want to  make in regards to this whole sort of segment of the  conversation. First off, right now, if I were to show up on the  floor of the Senate without proper clothing and decorum, I could  be removed from the chamber, and I would obviously not have the  opportunity to vote, whereas under these guidelines, if you were  removed from the chamber for not wearing a mask, you actually  would still have the opportunity potentially to vote from your  own office.  So in that regard, it's actually less restrictive  than the current dress code requirements that would ostensibly  keep one from voting their constituents' needs. So right now  we're already under a stricter limit.  Second, there is a difference, as Representative  Johnson points out, between wearing a mask and wearing a tie.  If I don't wear a tie, I'm not likely to either infect or  potentially put at risk my fellow legislators. However, if I  don't wear a mask, I am more likely to pose that risk. So it  seems to me that one is actually of a higher level than the  other.  So I just wanted to really lay out what is odd about  this conversation. Today, if I showed up in bare feet and no  tie and no jacket, I would be asked to leave the chamber. And  that, to me, would deny that right to vote, and that is  something we have all accepted for literally decades. So the  idea that not wearing a mask would somehow create a greater  burden than that -- I mean, wearing a mask could create a  greater burden than that, I just don't -- I don't see it, and so  I'm fully in support of these policies.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Begich. If you just  wore a mask -- I was going to say if you just wore a mask and no  clothes, you'd still be ejected.  So somebody else has a comment there. Go ahead.  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Well, I guess it depends on where  you wear the mask, but let's -- I guess my concern -- I go  back -- if we're going to follow CDC guidelines and we're going  to talk about excluding travel from our discussion, we're  picking and choosing the mask. And, you know, I'm not -- I  don't have opinions myself on the mask and a -- where I have a  concern about.  I actually have more concern about people traveling  home and infecting other communities or picking up infections  and bringing them back to the capitol. I think we're more at  risk from that than if we keep our Legislature -- I mean, I  think discouraging travel, whether we can -- whether we can  discourage it or whether we can prohibit it is one thing. But,  I mean, this seems like we're picking and choosing CDC  guidelines. That's all I want to say.  I think there's numerous things that we have to be  very, very careful with. I'm taking this under advisement. We  have a new -- we have a new Legislature coming in. Things are  changing on a day-to-day basis, and I just clearly wanted to  make sure that this doesn't -- I'm going in with an open mind  for the Legislature when it convenes, and I think that's  important for us to do. This is a three-week --  REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON: Mr. Chairman --  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: This is really three weeks of  discussion.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Representative Johnson.  And is that Senator Begich?  REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON: Mr. Chairman, Representative  Edgmon here.  CHAIR STEVENS: Oh, I'm sorry. Representative Edgmon,  please, go ahead.  REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON: I just want to point out that I  think the body itself, both the House or the Senate, has the  ability to make the decision about removing a member based on  decorum reasons. And I don't have the Mason's rule right in  front of me, but maybe I can ask Megan to address that, because  I remember we came very close to doing that in the House on at  least one or two occasions, having a vote, having a rules  chairman stand up and make a motion, and then just sort of  collectively making that decision, as opposed to the presiding  officer having to be the arbitrator on something that -- I  completely align myself with Senator Begich's comments. This is  bizarre that we're even making these comparisons --  REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON: -- between clothing items and  wearing a face mask, for God's sake. But can we get our Leg  Legal director to opine on that, please?  CHAIR STEVENS: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I  appreciate the question.  And, Megan, can you remind us of what needs to take  place to remove a member from the floor?  MS. WALLACE: Sure. So what potentially we are talking  about is a member to be denied access to the floor before a  session has really even been called to order. So potentially if  a member is not wearing a mask, the sergeant-at-arms, you know,  would let that member know that they're not permitted to enter  the floor until, you know, they have a mask on and they abide by  this enforcement policy.  But in terms of general rules for removal of a member  from the floor, there are certain sections in Mason's that  govern decorum, which starts at Section 120 of Mason's and goes  through Section 126. And so -- forgive me. It's been a little  while since I've looked through those, and I don't want to keep  you paused while I sit here and read through them to make sure  that I'm articulating them correctly, but there generally are  procedural motions that are going to be available, whether they  come from a rules chair or another member, asking permission  from the body that the member be asked to leave the chamber,  whether it's for decorum or some other rules violation.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Thank you, Megan.  Jessica, one issue, of course, is we do not want to  disenfranchise anybody. We want to make sure everyone has a  chance to vote. Now, we have talked about allowing people to  vote from their office. Is that still an option for us?  MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens, again, for the record, Jessica  Geary.  So there are some issues with remote voting. So,  yes, technically it can be done. It does require a rule change,  and there's a couple different mechanisms in which members could  remote vote. So I think that's a policy decision that hasn't  been fully made yet, but the short answer is, yes, it is  possible.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Thank you.  So we need to move on. We've got this document,  two-page document, In Support of Safe Session and Enforcement  Policies. We've gone to that as we were discussing the issue  ahead of us, which is enforcement of Legislative Council  mitigation policies. Is there anything further anybody has to  say about that, In Support of Safe Session and Enforcement  Policies?  SENATOR GIESSEL: Mr. Chairman, this is Senator Giessel.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator Giessel?  SENATOR GIESSEL: I apologize. This feels like it's  beating a dead horse here, but the fact of the matter is, I'm  going to go back to our responsibility to provide a safe  workplace, and to have legislators disregarding those safe  workplace policies creates quite a dilemma for our staff, not  only the staff on the floor but the staff in our offices who  could have these legislators walking in, unmasked. This  is -- we have a dual responsibility here. I fully appreciate  the fact that people have a right to come onto the floor, but in  this scenario of a pandemic with rather serious illnesses and  potential side effects, we have to look at our responsibility as  employers and each of us looking after each other.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Madam President. You're  absolutely right. We have an enormous responsibility to our  employees. We have to provide them with a safe workplace, and  particularly if they are -- some have compromised immune system  concerns about their health--then we have to provide -- make  sure that they can confidently come to work.  So if there's nothing else on this document that we  have been looking at, In Support of Safe Session and Enforcement  Policies, let's return to the enforcement of Legislative Council  mitigation policies. We have that motion before us. Any  comments or questions before we take action on that?  Jessica, can we have a roll call, please?  MS. GEARY: Senator Begich?  SENATOR BEGICH: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator Coghill?  Senate President Giessel?  SENATOR 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 EDGMON: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Representative Foster?  REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Representative DeLena Johnson?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: No.  MS. GEARY: Representative Jennifer Johnston?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Representative Thompson?  REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator Coghill?  Vice-Chair Stutes?  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes.  MS. GEARY: 11 yeas, one nay.  CHAIR STEVENS: Well, thank you. We have -- by a vote of  11 to one, we have passed the enforcement policy, and I thank  you all for that. I know this has not been easy, but, again,  I'll remind you that this is just in effect until we have  elected a President and a Speaker, but might be of some  importance to them as they begin to organize the next session.      C. SAFE FLOOR SESSION POLICY  CHAIR STEVENS: So let's move on to our second issue,  which is the Safe Floor Session Policy.  Representative Stutes, a motion, please?  3:46:25 PM  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Certainly, Mr. Chair.  I move that Legislative Council approve the Safe  Floor Session Policy.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. I'll object for purposes of  discussion.  And Jessica or Megan, would you go over that  document? It's the Safe Floor Session Policy.  MS. GEARY: Thank you. Again, Jessica Geary, executive  director, Legislative Affairs Agency.  This policy is in the spirit of the other policy and  allows for the sergeant-at-arms and floor staff to be able to  accomplish their duties in the absence of having a permanent  presiding officer. So the statement that begins this policy is:  Until the election of a permanent presiding officer, the  following Safe Session procedures will be carried out by the  sergeant-at-arms.  So the first point is that, with the exception of the  presiding officer -- the current presiding officer's desk,  members will be temporarily assigned the same desk they occupied  on the last day of the 31st Legislature. New members will  occupy the desk of the previous member from that district.  Members must request permission before approaching  the dais and shall not congregate.  Plexiglass dividers will be sanitized on a regular  basis, and brief at-eases will be routinely called for  electrostatic disinfection.  Floor staff will not refill water glasses for  members. Water will be available for self-service.  A member who stands to be recognized must sit before  making remarks. Members must remain seated when giving floor  remarks and testimony.  And other than when speaking and voting, a member who  wishes to increase social distancing may relocate within their  respective chamber.  The last point I'll mention is during this interim  period, press may not enter the chamber or the gallery. Floor  sessions will be broadcast live throughout the capitol.  And this policy will remain in effect during the  first session of the 32nd Legislature until a permanent  presiding officer is elected in both houses.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Jessica.  So again, very clearly, this is only this interim  period until we have a President and a Speaker.  As to the issue of the press, I have contacted all of  them, not spoken with all of our press, our press corps that  normally comes to Juneau, but I've spoken with them and told  them the situation that we're considering. They were not all  happy about it. They don't -- they prefer to be on the -- in  the gallery rather than watching it on television. But, again,  this is only for the interim period, and I think they understood  when I talked about -- explained to them how important it is  that we respect everyone's safety in terms of health.  Any questions on this Safe Floor Session Policy? Any  comments?  SENATOR STEDMAN: This is Senator Stedman.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Mr. Chair, this is Senator von Imhof.  CHAIR STEVENS: So Senator Stedman and then Senator von  Imhof.  SENATOR STEDMAN: Yeah. I'm not so sure on having the  speakers on the floors sit versus stand. I don't know what  benefit that really is when we -- with all these other protocols  that we're going through, if that's not going a little too far.  CHAIR STEVENS: Jessica, can you --  SENATOR GIESSEL: Mr. Chairman?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes. Go ahead.  SENATOR GIESSEL: This is Senator Giessel. Could I  respond to that question?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes. Yes, please.  SENATOR GIESSEL: We discussed this at our last meeting.  The plexiglass barriers don't extend to the ceiling, and even  wearing the mask, some particles do extend through, and the size  of those particles are such that they travel the farthest. So  it's actually more protective if the person is sitting down.  The plexiglass then provides additional -- what should I call  it? -- spray protection. I guess that's kind of graphic, but  that's the purpose of the sitting-down part ever it.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Well, thank you, Madam President. And,  actually, the way it works on the Senate floor is you raise your  microphone, and you're recognized. You don't even have to stand  up. Maybe that could be -- no reason for that, even.  Any further comments?  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Yeah. Senator von Imhof.  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON: Chair Stevens?  CHAIR STEVENS: I'm sorry. We'll go to Senator von Imhof  next, and then somebody else spoke up?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON: Yes. This is Jennifer Johnston.  I just wanted to say that --  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay.  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON: -- Representative Kopp has been  online, and he's been muted the whole time. And he wanted to  make sure that his vote was recorded.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Thank you. I'm very sorry that  he's been muted, and did he vote in favor of the last motion?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON: Yes. Let me get back to you on  that.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. We'll confirm that and -- yeah.  So let's go to Senator von Imhof at this time.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Thank you, Chair Stevens.  My question also was the same as Senator Stedman's,  is that I feel that sitting while we're speaking is not the best  choice. I understand Senator Giessel's explanation, but I would  like to offer that we are a body of the public, and if the  public is not allowed on the floor, and this whole thing is  going to be televised, I think it's important that we stand and  we can be recognized, and we can be audible. We are already  going to be wearing a mask and muted in that function -- a  double-ply mask, I might add, that controls -- Dr. Zink said  that earlier. It controls -- if two people are wearing a mask,  it controls pretty much a pretty significant transmission of the  virus.  And for us to be sitting down I think is not good  policy. We need to be available to -- for folks to see us, to  hear us, to recognize us. We work for the people. And I think  by having a mask, sitting behind plexiglass -- I mean, we are  doing pretty much everything that we possibly can. And I think  sitting down is not the right call. I just want to state that  for the record. Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator von Imhof. I'd be glad  to entertain a motion to amend if anyone cares to make that  motion to amend and make it allowed to stand and speak. Is  there such a motion?  SENATOR STEDMAN: Mr. Chairman, Senator Stedman. Yeah,  I'd like to make a motion that we just remove this sitting  option.  CHAIR STEVENS: And that would be: Members must remain  seated while giving floor remarks and testimony. Your motion  would be to remove that sentence; right?  SENATOR STEDMAN: Seating; correct.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. All right. Thank you.  We have an amendment before us. Let's do a roll call  on the amendment, unless there is any other debate on that  amendment to remain -- or to be able to stand when you speak.  Any further debate on that?  MS. WALLACE: Mr. Chair?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please.  MS. WALLACE: This is Megan Wallace, Legal Services  director.  In just want to note that the sentence that precedes  that says: A member who stands to be recognized must sit before  making remarks. So those two sentences likely go together. I  would just point out that technicality.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Thank you for catching that,  Megan. You're absolutely right. Those two sentences go  together, so the amendment would change those two sentences.  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Well, Mr. Chair -- Mr. Chair, may  I ask -- I'm sorry. May I ask the -- I don't know how -- I  mean, there are numbers of things in here that I  don't -- doesn't seem like it follows, but if we don't have a  presiding officer -- well, it says "permanent presiding  officer," not "temporary presiding officer."  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Let's deal -- Representative  Johnston, let's --  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: But this has to do with being  recognized, which is in that sentence. It says you have to be  recognized. By whom are you recognized by?  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Let's deal with one of them at a  time. But "A member who stands to be recognized" -- well, let's  see. So we've taken out the "Must sit before making remarks,"  and "Members must remain seated when giving floor remarks and  testimony." I assume that we'd have to change that -- "A member  must stand to be recognized."  Does that make sense, Megan?  MS. WALLACE: Mr. Chair, you could amend those sentences  or, to the extent that you want to remove the concept of it  being required to sit while you make remarks, you  could -- another option would be to delete those two sentences.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yeah, that makes sense.  Senator Stedman, is that the motion you care to make,  to delete those two sentences?  SENATOR STEDMAN: Yes, that would be fine.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Thank you.  Any further discussion specifically on this  amendment?  Very well. Let's have a roll call on the amendment  to remove those two sentences.  MS. GEARY: Senator Begich?  SENATOR BEGICH: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator Coghill?  Senate President Giessel?  SENATOR GIESSEL: Pardon me. I had -- I was muted. No.  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 EDGMON: No.  MS. GEARY: Representative Foster?  REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER: No.  MS. GEARY: Representative DeLena Johnson?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Representative Jennifer Johnston?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON: No.  MS. GEARY: Representative Kopp? Representative Kopp?  Representative Thompson?  REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: No.  MS. GEARY: Vice-Chair Stutes?  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: No.  MS. GEARY: Chair Stevens?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Representative Kopp?  We have six yeas and six nays.  CHAIR STEVENS: So the motion fails. We need eight to  pass anything. So let's move on to -- we have that amendment.  We've taken care of that. Let's move on to the entire question,  then, that is before us, which is Safe Floor Session Policy.  Any further discussion on this policy?  Then I will remove my objection and ask for a roll  call on the policy.  Jessica, could you call the roll, please?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON: And just for the record,  Representative Kopp is still muted.  MS. GEARY: Thank you. That is what I was trying to  figure -- figure that out. I can go ahead and call the roll,  though.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.  MS. GEARY: Senator Begich?  SENATOR BEGICH: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Senator Coghill?  Senate President Giessel?  SENATOR 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 EDGMON: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Representative Foster?  REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER: Yes.  MS. GEARY: Representative DeLena Johnson?  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON: No.  MS. GEARY: Representative 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.  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: Gary, Chuck Kopp is still muted and he  wants to vote.  CHAIR STEVENS: Jessica, was Chuck Kopp able to vote?  VICE-CHAIR STUTES: He's still blocked he says.  MS. GEARY: He is still muted. I'm trying to work on that  with the LIO moderator. We're not sure what's going on.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Well, I'm sorry about that, but we  do have a vote by a vote of 10 to one; right? 11 to one; is  that right?  MS. GEARY: 11 to one.  CHAIR STEVENS: Jessica, was that 11 to one?  MS. GEARY: Yes.  REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON: And I'm not sure if you can take  this by text, but Representative Kopp has voted yes on both.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Thank you.  So by a vote of 11 to one or possibly 12 to one, we  have passed this policy.    IV. ADJOURN  CHAIR STEVENS: So, again, I want to thank you all. This  has been, I know, a difficult time for us, but I think we've  made some major steps forward. And I want to wish you all a  very happy new year.  And if there is nothing further to come before us at  this time, then we are adjourned at 4:00pm.    4:00:46 PM