ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE  LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL    DECEMBER 12, 2024  9:30 AM    MEMBERS PRESENT  Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson, Chair  Representative Kevin McCabe, Vice Chair  Senator Click Bishop  Senator Matt Claman  Senator Lyman Hoffman  Senator Jesse Kiehl  Senator Bert Stedman (alternate)  Senator Gary Stevens  Representative Bryce Edgmon  Representative Sara Hannan  Representative George Rauscher  Representative Dan Saddler  Representative Cathy Tilton    MEMBERS ABSENT  Senator Donny Olson  Representative Craig Johnson    OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT  Senator Jesse Bjorkman  Senator Cathy Giessel  Representative Louise Stutes    AGENDA  APPROVAL OF AGENDA  APPROVAL OF MINUTES  CONTRACT APPROVALS  OLD COMMITTEE BUSINESS  EXECUTIVE SESSION  NEW COMMITTEE BUSINESS    SPEAKER REGISTER  Jessica Geary, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs Agency  (LAA)  JC Kestel, Procurement Officer, LAA  Shay Wilson, Chief Information Officer, LAA  Tim Powers, Chief Technology and Outreach Officer, LAA  Emily Nauman, Director, Legal Services, LAA  Sara Race, Account Executive Gartner    I. CALL TO ORDER  9:32:58 AM  CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON called the Legislative Council meeting to  order in the Anchorage Legislative Information Office Denali  Room. Present at the call were: Senators Bishop, Claman,  Hoffman, Kiehl, Stedman, Stevens, Gray-Jackson;  Representatives Edgmon, Hannan, Tilton, McCabe.    Eleven members present.    Representative Saddler joined at 9:46am and Representative  Rauscher joined at 9:49am, both via teleconference.    II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA  9:34:55 AM  VICE CHAIR MCCABE moved and asked unanimous consent that the  Legislative Council approve the agenda as presented.    The motion passed without objection.    III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  9:35:20 AM  VICE CHAIR MCCABE moved that Legislative Council approve the  minutes for the September 26, 2024, meeting as presented.    The motion passed without objection.    IV. CONTRACT APPROVALS  a. Anchorage Security Contract Renewal  9:35:41 AM  VICE CHAIR MCCABE moved that the Legislative Council approve  renewal number 2 of the contract for armed security services  with Security Services Northwest in an amount not to exceed  $199,449.20.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for the purpose of discussion and  asked that JC Kestel, Procurement Officer, speak to the item.    JC KESTEL, Procurement Officer, Legislative Affairs Agency  (LAA), stated that in the packet is a memorandum regarding a  renewal of the current contract (Renewal No. 1) with Security  Services Northwest for armed security services at the  Anchorage Legislative Office Building currently set to expire  on December 31, 2024. The Legislative Affairs Agency is  satisfied with the contractor's performance and requests  Legislative Council's approval to proceed with Renewal No. 2.  This renewal would extend the contract for the period of  January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025. If approved, three  additional one-year renewal options will remain before a new  solicitation is required.    SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS asked if the contracted security  officer also patrols Wells Fargo and does Wells Fargo have  their own security officer. He asked if the legislature should  offer security services to Wells Fargo as a tenant to keep  them in the building and continue to help offset the Anchorage  Legislative Office Building (ALOB) operating costs.    MR. KESTEL responded that the legislature is not responsible  for the Wells Fargo area. Wells Fargo is to contract their  own security officer, which they do not have currently.  Extending security services to them would need to be discussed  with the Executive Director and Legislative Council Chair to  amend the contract and extend their duties. The contract  currently does not include the coverage of Wells Fargo.    SENATOR CLAMAN offered praise to the security team.    REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked if the dollar amount was for 24/7  coverage.    MR. KESTEL responded that the coverage was Monday through  Friday 7am-6pm with two to three evening patrols and as needed  for extra duties on weekends.    There was no further discussion. Chair Gray-Jackson removed  her objection and asked for a roll call vote.    9:40:35 AM  YEAS: Senators Bishop, Claman, Hoffman, Kiehl, Stedman,  Stevens, Gray-Jackson; Representatives Edgmon, Hannan,  Tilton, McCabe    NAYS: none    The motion passed 11-0.    b. Technology Services Contract  9:41:30 AM  VICE CHAIR MCCABE moved that Legislative Council approve a  three-year partnership with Gartner and a Year 1 price of  $179,200.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for purposes of discussion and  asked Shay Wilson, Chief Information Officer, and Tim Powers,  Chief Technology and Outreach Officer, as well as Sara Race,  Account Executive with Gartner, to speak to this item.    SHAY WILSON, Chief Information Officer, LAA, referred members  to the related memo in their packets and said he planned to  speak to the issue this contract is trying to solve. He said  technology is a fast moving industry where a significant  effort must be spent to keep up with changes. Recently  technology is becoming a more vital component and touching  more aspects of our work. Despite the awe-inspiring  collection of talent the legislature has cultivated in your  Division of Technology and Information (DTI), we simply  cannot be experts in every new technology and the costs of  missed opportunity and choosing the wrong technology are just  too high.    Mr. Wilson continued that after choosing technologies, and  carefully configuring and securing to protect our systems  from the severe costs of a cybersecurity incident, DTI could  use expert guidance and a second set of eyes overlooking our  work to help us find the right technologies and in assessing  and finding our blind spots. Mr. Wilson then introduced Sara  Race to talk about how Gartner might address some of these  issues.    SARA RACE, Account Executive, Gartner, presented an overview  of Gartner's expertise and proposed support for the  Legislature. She highlighted Gartner's 46 years of experience  as a leading research and advisory firm, emphasizing their  ability to deliver unbiased information and a vendor-agnostic  approach. This contract would allow DTI access to over 2,500  subject matter experts who have experience providing IT  support for organizations across all business functions, from  Fortune 500 companies to the White House to local governments,  as well as international organizations. Gartner's depth and  range of experience ensures awareness of the latest  technology trends and pitfalls. This allows Gartner to better  advise and direct an organization's use of limited resources.    Ms. Race explained that Gartner's support in this contract  would focus on three primary areas: cybersecurity and  information risk management, efficient IT management and cost  optimization, and AI implementation to achieve operational  outcomes. She highlighted the importance of ensuring  preparedness against cyberattacks, aligning risk tolerance  levels, and benchmarking against industry standards.  Additionally, Gartner would support in assessing current IT  operations, identifying gaps, and recommending best practices  to improve services and optimize costs. In the area of AI,  she stressed the value of clear definitions and strategic  frameworks to align initiatives with agency objectives and  prevent cost overruns.    Ms. Race emphasized Gartner's service model is designed to  support a wide range of needs beyond the three outlined  initiatives. She concluded by reiterating the importance of  leveraging Gartner's unbiased insights and comprehensive  resources to ensure the legislature can make informed,  strategic decisions that align technology initiatives with  agency and legislative needs.    DISCUSSION FOLLOWED focused on the potential risks and  benefits of artificial intelligence (AI) for the legislature.  Senate President Stevens highlighted nationwide concerns  about AI and asked for insights from Ms. Race, who stressed  the importance of defining AI before addressing its  implications. She referenced a prior executive briefing on  AI's impact and best practices.    Representative Edgmon inquired whether the AI partnership  could assist in policy making, including enforcing legal  penalties. Ms. Race clarified that while Gartner can provide  research and best practices, it does not offer policy  guidance.    Senator Bishop asked if Gartner had reviewed the State's IT  program for gaps and whether, if approved, the partnership  would include assessments for LAA. Ms. Race confirmed that no  partnership has been established yet but emphasized the value  of self-assessments for cybersecurity and operations. She  affirmed that Gartner would provide these assessments to LAA.  Senator Claman asked about the frequency of updates on the  assessment process. Mr. Wilson explained that updates are  typically provided through the IT Subcommittee, which reports  to the Legislative Council, but a direct reporting method  could be established if needed.    JESSICA GEARY, Executive Director, LAA, at the request of  Senate President Stevens, said that she fully supports the  proposal, emphasizing the value of an external firm ensuring  alignment with industry best practices in a rapidly evolving  landscape. She views it as a responsible measure to safeguard  legislative operations and is open to reporting updates as  needed, depending on the findings and appropriate reporting  level.    REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON noted that Alaska is in the early stages  of AI policy development and referenced a past AI-related  bill that did not pass. He asked whether the proposed  arrangement with the advisory firm would support the  legislature in developing AI policy by providing information  through LAA. He also compared AI policy to broadband  regulation, highlighting the need for legislative action and  wondered if this partnership would facilitate that process.    SENATOR BISHOP, in follow-up to Representative Edgmon's  comment, acknowledged the perceived significant cost of the  proposed arrangement but emphasized the need for perspective,  suggesting that if compared to the potential financial impact  of a legislative shutdown, that would likely outweigh the  expense of this proposal which seems to him a bargain.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON thanked the previous speaker and members  for the discussion and before withdrawing her objection  expressed familiarity with Gartner, noting its successful  partnership with the Municipality of Anchorage, and voiced  support for the Legislative Affairs Agency's proposed  partnership, pending the vote. Seeing no other comments, she  withdrew her objection and asked for a roll call vote.    10:03:07 AM  YEAS: Senators Bishop, Claman, Hoffman, Kiehl, Stedman,  Stevens, Gray-Jackson; Representatives Edgmon, Hannan,  Tilton, McCabe    NAYS: Representative Rauscher    The motion passes 11-1.    NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Representative Rauscher intended to vote  yes on this item but was participating via teleconference and  misunderstood the motion.    V. OLD COMMITTEE BUSINESS  a. Social Media Policy  10:04:07 AM  VICE CHAIR MCCABE moved that the Legislative Council adopt  the Social Media Policy as amended and authorize the  Legislative Affairs Agency the authority to make technical  and conforming changes.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for purposes of discussion and  asked Emily Nauman, Director, Legal Services, to speak to the  item.    10:04:33 AM  Council took a brief at-ease.    10:14:16 AM  Council returned from a brief at-ease.    10:14:20 AM  CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON repeated her objection and requested Emily  Nauman to speak to the item.    EMILY NAUMAN, Legal Services Director, LAA, began by  reminding the committee that the U.S. Supreme Court issued a  ruling on the use of social media by public officials in the  Lindke v. Freed case (March 2024), which resulted in Legal  Services proposing updates to the Social Media Policy at the  April 30, 2024, Legislative Council meeting; those updates  were not adopted. In response to questions and comments at  that meeting, Legal Services amended the proposed updates as  follows:    Recommendation 1(d) was updated to include a suggestion that  if the information being posted was available elsewhere,  legislators include a link to the other option, as courts are  more likely to view exclusive postings as an official  government action. This change, proposed by Senator Claman,  provides evidence that the information is publicly  accessible, reducing the risk of First Amendment violations.    Recommendation 2 was updated to acknowledge that not all  social media platforms allow universal comment disabling,  noting that where that option was available, it should be  used and further advising legislators to turn off comments  where possible or manage them on a post-by-post basis.    Recommendation 5 was added to clarify when legislators can  legally filter, hide, or block comments and users, regarding  the removal of obscene content which should not constitute  viewpoint discrimination.    Ms. Nauman concluded by emphasizing that Lindke serves as a  framework for determining whether public officials' social  media actions could be considered government conduct and, if  so, whether they infringe on First Amendment rights.  VICE CHAIR MCCABE asked Ms. Nauman if, under Lindke, whether  a legislator, who he said cannot solely represent the State,  could ever be considered a public official with exclusive  authority to speak for the State.  MS. NAUMAN responded explaining that under Lindke, "State  action" requires both possessing and exercising actual  authority, making it difficult for an individual legislator  to meet this two-pronged test. While roles like committee  chairs or legislative leaders might come closer, Alaska's  public records system (BASIS) reduces the likelihood of  exclusive authority to make committee announcements or  exclusive authority for leadership announcements as it takes  an entire body to make a decision. Ms. Nauman said as she  understands Lindke, it would make it very difficult for an  individual legislator to act with the authority of the state;  she qualified her response by saying that Lindke is related  to a municipal employee, therefore this is still a gap in  legal precedent to know how the courts would take that  decision and apply it to legislators.  VICE CHAIR MCCABE emphasized that, unlike a mayor or city  manager who holds sole authority to act for their entity, an  individual legislator cannot act unilaterally without votes  from others and the governor. He stressed the importance of  this distinction and indicated he had additional amendments  to propose.    10:21:14 AM  VICE CHAIR MCCABE moved to amend page 1 paragraph 2 by adding  the word "solely" to the last sentence so it reads, "it is  the policy of Legislative Council that a legislator assumes  all risk and responsibility for legal defense of any action  resulted from filtering, deleting, or hiding comments on a  social media post related to legislative matters or from  blocking, banning, or otherwise restricting user access to a  social media account used solely for legislative matters.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for purposes of discussion.    SENATOR CLAMAN asked a clarifying question on the proposed  amendment, that the word "solely" is being added on the last  line of the paragraph before "legislative matters."    VICE CHAIR MCCABE responded stating that was correct.    MS. NAUMAN noted that this policy change is a Council decision  but could shift its meaning by raising the question of Council  liability for social media accounts that mix legislative and  personal content, a concern highlighted in Lindke.    VICE CHAIR MCCABE contended that without the word "solely",  the policy could infringe on legislators' First Amendment  rights by restricting their ability to discuss legislative  matters on personal social media accounts. He emphasized that  State officials have private lives and constitutional rights,  including the ability to share job-related information and  control speech on their personal platforms.    MS. NAUMAN acknowledged the concern and clarified that the  policy primarily defines when the Legislative Council would  cover a legislator's legal defense. She noted that adding  "solely" raises the question of whether the Council would  defend legislators sued over mixed-use social media accounts.  While supporting the legislator's First Amendment rights, she  also cited Lindke, which warns that failing to separate  personal and official posts increases liability.    VICE CHAIR MCCABE responded expressing appreciation for the  discussion as well as concern that without the word "solely"  the policy could expose the legislature to a First Amendment  lawsuit from legislators who feel it restricts their ability  to share job-related updates on personal social media. He  argued that such a restriction could be legally challenged as  a violation of free speech rights.    DISCUSSION FOLLOWED between Ms. Nauman and Senator Claman,  focused on whether adding the word "solely" to the Social  Media Policy would impact legislators' ability to seek legal  representation from the Legislative Council. Clarifying that  the policy as presented without "solely" would categorically  deny coverage for litigation related to social media actions.  Noting that adding "solely" could create flexibility,  allowing legislators with mixed-use accounts to request  defense, as the policy would then apply only to accounts used  exclusively for legislative matters. The Legislative Council  would continue to evaluate such requests on a case-by-case  basis.    SENATOR CLAMAN concluded his questions by verifying his  understanding that adding "solely" would give legislators  more flexibility to request legal representation from the  Legislative Council, which would decide on a case-by-case  basis.    MS. NAUMAN confirmed that is how she reads it, yes.    VICE CHAIR MCCABE said that if a legislator posts non- legislative content, their account would no longer be  considered "solely for legislative matters". He then asked  whether any legislative Facebook accounts are funded,  operated, or managed by the legislature on behalf of a  legislator.    MS. GEARY answered she was unaware of any legislative Facebook  accounts funded or operated by the State, though caucus press  staff might have accounts, but not State-funded ones.    VICE CHAIR MCCABE noted that Lindke considers whether a social  media account is state-managed or funded. He referenced the  Alaska Public Offices Commission's (APOC) view that personal  effort in maintaining an account equates to personal funding.  Since legislators fund their own accounts, the legislature  would not be obligated to defend them if they choose to use  an account solely for legislative matters.    MS. NAUMAN responded that Lindke suggests using State  resources, such as staff or a State computer, to manage a  social media account could indicate State action.    SENATOR BISHOP stated that he is unfamiliar with social media  and asked if blocking someone on Facebook is equivalent to  refusing mailed responses to a newsletter and whether there  is a legal connection between the two actions.    MS. NAUMAN responded that a newsletter differs from social  media because it does not create a public forum for  interaction. Courts have ruled that allowing comments on a  social media account establishes a public forum, meaning  officials cannot remove posts based on viewpoint. Unlike a  newsletter, where responses are private, deleting comments or  blocking users from a public social media forum can raise  First Amendment concerns.    SENATOR BISHOP clarified that "solely" creates the ability  for legislators to come to Legislative Council and ask if  they would defend them or not.    MS. NAUMAN responded yes.    VICE CHAIR MCCABE suggested a better analogy could be  comparing a legislator's Facebook page to a public bulletin  board they maintain. He said that, under Lindke, a legislator  has the right to remove inappropriate content posted by  others, just as they could remove unauthorized material from  their bulletin board. He continued that the policy  effectively advises legislators to "lock up" their bulletin  board by disabling comments.    MS. NAUMAN agreed that a bulletin board is a better analogy  for Facebook, while a newsletter reflects a no-comment social  media account. Her advice as a conservative approach is for  legislators to remove all third-party posts from their  bulletin boards to avoid creating a public forum. Courts allow  removal of obscene content, but the key legal issue is  viewpoint discriminationremoving only certain perspectives  could lead to legal challenges under Lindke.    REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether the policy allows an  existing account to switch from allowing comments to a no- comment setting or if this restriction applies only from the  account's creation.    MS. NAUMAN stated that most social media platforms allow users  to toggle comment settings post by post, even after an account  is created. She noted that LAA staff could provide technical  details but emphasized that users can generally control  comments individually for different posts.    REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether a social media account  can switch to a legislative-only, no-comment setting after  previously allowing comments on non-legislative posts.    MS. NAUMAN confirmed her understanding that social media  settings can be changed but acknowledged she is not an expert  and suggested others may have more technical knowledge.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON reminded members to please speak clearly  into the microphone so there is an accurate recording.  REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON highlighted the key issue of whether to  keep the policy general or add the word "solely", creating a  strict threshold for legislative social media use. He  acknowledged both perspectives and sought further discussion  on whether the policy should remain flexible or impose a  specific standard that the Legislative Council would later  have to interpret.    VICE CHAIR MCCABE explained that his understanding of his  amendment is that adding "solely" would allow legislators to  create a dedicated legislative page following policy  guidelines, while preserving their First Amendment rights to  discuss legislative matters on personal pages. Without  "solely," he argued the policy could restrict legislators  from posting about their job on personal accounts. The intent  was to clarify that official legislative pages must follow  specific rules to qualify for Legislative Council  representation.    10:46:43 AM  Council took a brief at-ease.     10:51:16 AM   Council returned from a brief at-ease.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON, seeing no other discussion, removed her  objection and asked for a roll call vote.    10:51:27 AM  YEAS: Senators Claman, Gray-Jackson; Representatives,  Rauscher, Tilton, McCabe    NAYS: Senators Bishop, Hoffman, Kiehl, Stedman, Stevens;  Representatives Edgmon, Hannan, Saddler    The motion failed 5-8.    NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Representative Saddler voted "nay" but  was announced as a "yea" on the record, which reflected a 6  yea, 7 nay vote tally. This discrepancy doesn't change the  outcome of the vote.    10:52:50 AM  VICE CHAIR MCCABE moved to amend page one, paragraph 1(c) by  striking the first clause so it would read as amended: If  sharing official information, do not invoke the authority of  the legislature when sharing the information; and?". He said  that the clause is unnecessary and redundant as existing  policies already govern how official information should be  communicated. Additionally, the clause risks infringing upon  legislators' First Amendment rights by imposing vague  restrictions on communication with constituents; removing  this language ensures clarity while respecting constitutional  protections.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for the purpose of discussion.    DISCUSSION FOLLOWED to confirm which language the motion  intended to strike.    VICE CHAIR MCCABE confirmed that his motion was to strike "Do  not share official information and," so the clause would read  as amended: "If sharing official information, do not invoke  the authority of the legislature when sharing that  information; and?"    MS. NAUMAN commented that this amendment is another policy  decision. She noted that sharing official information is a  key factor in determining state action under Lindke. While  agreeing with Representative McCabe that an individual  legislator is unlikely to be deemed a "State actor," she  emphasized that the most cautious legal advice would be to  avoid sharing official information to minimize risk.    SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS asked whether the policy would  restrict press availabilities, as they involve sharing  official information about legislative activities, committee  actions, and bill progress. He asked if sharing official  information in that context would be considered invoking the  authority of the legislature.    MS. NAUMAN commented that she initially considered the policy  in relation to committee schedules and had not considered  press availabilities. She said such information is available  elsewhere (e.g., BASIS, KTOO's Gavel Alaska), however, if  that information was only available on a legislator's  Facebook page and nowhere else, she would advise that  legislators avoid deleting comments on that press  availability post or block an individual from being able to  view it.    SENATOR KIEHL asked whether "official information" has a  specific definition in this context and if there is a test to  determine what qualifies, citing committee schedules as an  example.    MS. NAUMAN responded that Lindke focused on a city manager's  unilateral actions, making it a less direct fit for  legislators. She grappled with defining "official information" in a legislative context but suggested it could  include committee schedules, as they inform public  participation.    SENATOR KIEHL expressed support for the amendment,  questioning whether "official information" could include a  Senator's stance on a bill and emphasizing the importance of  clear guidelines for social media use.    SENATOR CLAMAN expressed support for the amendment, citing  constituent meetings as an example. He argued that  legislators commonly use social media to advertise such  meetings, which are official acts of individual legislators  but not the legislature as a whole. Removing "do not share  official information" prevents unnecessary restrictions,  while keeping "do not invoke the authority of the legislature"  ensures legislators do not falsely imply full legislative  endorsement.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON, seeing no other discussion, removed her  objection and asked for a roll call vote.    11:02:19 AM  YEAS: Senators Bishop, Claman, Hoffman, Kiehl, Stedman,  Stevens, Gray-Jackson; Representatives Edgmon, Hannan,  Rauscher, Saddler, McCabe    NAYS: none    The motion passed 12-0.    11:03:12 AM  VICE CHAIR MCCABE moved to amend page three, paragraph five  by either deleting or modifying it to align with the Lindke  decision. Specifically, the following paragraph should be  addressed where it says "Viewpoint discrimination by a State  actor is generally found by the courts to be an infringement  of the speaker's First Amendment rights. Viewpoint  discrimination occurs when a State actor treats a person's  speech differently based on their opinion or perspective on  a subject. For example, if a State actor deletes social media  comments that criticize a fisheries policy but allows other  speech about the fisheries policy, that would be viewpoint  discrimination. As noted above, one's view of what  constitutes an exception to free speech, such as obscenity or  libel, can differ substantially from another's. While in  deleting a comment you might not feel that you are practicing  viewpoint discrimination, a dispute on the issue could lead  to a court to view your justification for the deletion as a  pretext for practicing viewpoint discrimination."    Vice Chair McCabe said that the paragraph risks overstating  or mischaracterizing the application of the First Amendment  protections, particularly following Lindke. He clarified he  is specifically speaking here of everyone's First Amendment  protections, including a legislator's First Amendment  protections. He continued the Lindke decision clarified  distinctions between private and official actions. He said  legislators must have a clear and actionable policy that  avoids overreach and respects legislators' constitutional  rights. Removing or revising the paragraph ensures that the  policy is legally sound and does not create unintended  restrictions or usurp a legislators First Amendment rights  on his own personal social media pages.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for the purpose of discussion.    SENATOR BISHOP asked for a copy of the amendment.    MS. NAUMAN commented that it is another policy decision, and  the amendment is, essentially, a deletion of paragraph five,  all of paragraph five.    VICE CHAIR MCCABE clarified his motion stating a desire to  delete or to edit the paragraph. He restated his understanding  that the current paragraph restricts legislators' First  Amendment rights, which the court has ruled unconstitutional,  and suggested revising or replacing it.    MS. NAUMAN explained that the paragraph was added to provide  guidance, not restrict First Amendment rights. The policy  clarifies that the Legislative Council generally will not  defend legislators sued over social media actions but offers  best practices to minimize legal risk. Lindke serves as a  threshold test to determine if a legislator is acting as a  State official. If so, the paragraph advises caution in  actions like selectively deleting posts to avoid potential  First Amendment violations.    SENATOR BISHOP clarified his understanding that section five  is reaffirming sections one, two, three, and four.    MS. NAUMAN clarified and described the policy as a series of  cautionary steps for legislators using social media. It  advises against blocking comments or users but, if done,  suggests clarifying the account is personal. If blocking is  necessary, it should not apply to legislative posts. The final  guidance in section five warns against deleting comments or  blocking users based on viewpoint to avoid potential  litigation.    SENATOR BISHOP clarified his understanding using an analogy  of section five as the advice "don't touch the stove, its  hot.    MS. NAUMAN affirmed Senator Bishop is correct with his  analogy.    SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS had a comment on technical  proceedings and expressed concern that the amendment's  wording, "either delete or modify", lacks clarity and does  not provide a clear resolution. He suggested the amendment  should explicitly state whether to delete the paragraph or  specify a particular modification.    VICE CHAIR MCCABE reiterated his primary concern, that as he  reads it, the paragraph incorrectly defines legislators as  State actors without aligning with Lindke, which specifies  State actors must have the authority to speak for the State.  He expressed concern that this misalignment could expose  legislators to legal challenges for social media activity on  personal pages. Since there was no time to clarify the  language with Legislative Legal, he proposed removing the  paragraph to avoid potential misinterpretation by the courts.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON suggested that Vice Chair McCabe amend his  motion to just say "delete", instead of "amend or delete",  based on the procedural concerns raised by Senate President  Stevens.    VICE CHAIR MCCABE stated that he is happy to amend his motion  and that his intent with this was to clarify the distinction  between a "State actor" and a "State actor with the authority  to speak for the State, as defined in Lindke, and invited  corrections if mistaken.    MS. NAUMAN responded that she interpreted "State actor" in  the paragraph as referring to Lindke's test for determining  whether someone is acting as a State official or a private  citizen. She reaffirmed the advice, explained that if a  legislator is deemed a State official under Lindke, they  should avoid blocking, banning, or filtering content based on  viewpoint.    VICE CHAIR MCCABE restated his assertion that since  legislators lack the authority to speak for the State, the  paragraph is problematic because it implies otherwise.    MS. NAUMAN responded acknowledging that while it is unlikely  a court would find an individual legislator acting on behalf  of the legislature, no definitive Supreme Court ruling exists  to fully exclude that possibility. She emphasized that Lindke  is not a perfect fit for legislators, and her advice is a  cautious legal approach to mitigate potential risk.    11:14:38 AM  VICE CHAIR MCCABE moved to amend his motion to delete the  fifth paragraph in its entirety on page three.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for the purposes of discussion.    SENATOR CLAMAN stated his support for the first two points,  but not the third.    REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked a clarifying question on what  the exact amendment is.    MS. GEARY responded that it is her understanding that the  amendment would delete all of subsection five and asked  Representative McCabe to confirm.    VICE CHAIR MCCABE clarified that the amendment would remove  only the paragraph under subsection five while keeping the  bolded statement. He objects to the "State actor" language,  contesting that without specifying "with the ability to speak  for the State," it could wrongly imply that all legislators  meet that definition. He also noted that existing court cases,  including Lindke, do not clearly apply to legislators, in his  opinion rendering the recommendation unnecessary.    SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS interjected with a parliamentary  procedure question noting that there are two motions to  address: one to "either delete or modify" and an amendment  specifying "delete."    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON acknowledged that Senate President Stevens  is correct and there being no further discussion removed her  objection before asking for a roll call vote.    11:17:59 AM  Council took a brief at-ease.    11:18:46 AM  Council returned from a brief at-ease.    VICE CHAIR MCCABE clarified that he is offering a revised  amendment to remove all non-bolded text so that the paragraph  would read "If you choose to filter, delete, or hide comments,  or block or ban individuals, do not filter, delete, or hide  comments, or block or ban individuals based on viewpoint."    11:19:37 AM  Council took a brief at-ease.    11:19:53 AM  Council returned from a brief at-ease.    VICE CHAIR MCCABE withdrew his amendment to his first  amendment, then withdrew the first amendment.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON asked Vice Chair McCabe for an amendment.    11:20:08 AM  VICE CHAIR MCCABE moved to strike all non-bolded text under  paragraph five so that paragraph five would then read, "If  you choose to filter, delete, or hide comments, or block or  ban individuals, do not filter delete, or hide comments or  block or ban individuals based on viewpoint."    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for the purpose of discussion.    SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS inquired on Ms. Nauman's comments on  the proposed amendment.    MS. NAUMAN stated that the discussion on the previous  amendment that was withdrawn is the same as this one.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON, seeing no other comments, asked for a  roll call vote.    11:21:05 AM  YEAS: Senators Stedman; Representatives Rauscher, McCabe,  Saddler    NAYS: Senators Bishop, Claman, Hoffman, Kiehl, Stevens, Gray- Jackson; Representatives Edgmon, Hannan    The motion failed 4-8.    11:22:15 AM  CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON noted the committee is now back to the  main motion to adopt the Social Media Policy as amended.  Seeing her previous objection for the purpose of discussion  has yet to be removed, she inquired if there was any further  discussion.    REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked Vice Chair McCabe for his  perspective on the upcoming decision, given his involvement  in related matters and the outcome of the amendments.    VICE CHAIR MCCABE responded that he believes because Lindke v. Freed does not directly apply to legislators, the policy  could be used against them if they delete comments from  personal social media pages. He highlighted the ambiguity of  viewpoint discrimination and expressed intent to vote  against the policy due to potential risks.    REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER thanked Legislative Legal and  everyone involved for their work on the issue, noting its  importance, but indicated he would likely vote against it.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON restated for clarity that the committee is  back to the main motion, as amended.    SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS expressed appreciation for the  committee leadership, emphasized the importance of adopting  a media policy, and noted that future Legislative Councils  can modify it if needed.    SENATOR STEDMAN asked whether Representative McCabe's use of  the word "incriminate" accurately reflects the policy's  implications.    MS. NAUMAN responded that she does not believe  characterization of the policy as "incriminating" is an  accurate reflection of the policy, clarifying that the policy  is intended as a set of best practices to help legislators  avoid litigation rather than an incriminating measure. She  explained that the only binding aspect is the Legislative  Council's decision not to cover legal costs for social media- related actions. She also noted that as laws evolve, the  policy will be updated to reflect new legal developments.    SENATOR BISHOP asked whether this policy still does not  preclude any lawmaker from coming to Legislative Council to  ask for litigation expense support. He followed up his  question, stating that it's still early in this area of law  and this topic could be brought up a year from now with more  policy changes.    MS. NAUMAN confirmed that the policy does not prevent  lawmakers from requesting litigation support, but it allows  the Legislative Council chair to cite the policy in denying  coverage. The chair could still bring requests to the Council,  and legislators remain free to take individual actions, but  liability would be their responsibility unless an exception  is made. She agreed with Senator Bishop's statement that at  this point it is likely that this policy will be brought up  and updated with more changes.    VICE CHAIR MCCABE asked whether a court or lawyer could use  the policy against legislators, despite it being a set of  recommendations, to challenge their communication with  constituents on personal social media pages. He also  questioned if this could conflict with Lindke, which allows  officials to remove users or delete comments.    MS. NAUMAN responded that she does not see how the policy  could be used in court to prove that a legislator's actions  constitute State action under Lindke's legal test.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON agreed with Senate President Stevens and  Senator Bishop, acknowledged the effort put into the policy  and suggested it would be prudent to move forward as the  Legislative Council can amend it in the future. There was no  further discussion and she asked for a roll call vote.    11:28:50 AM  YEAS: Senators Bishop, Claman, Hoffman, Kiehl, Stedman,  Stevens, Gray-Jackson; Representatives Edgmon, Hannan,  Saddler    NAYS: Representatives Rauscher, McCabe    The motion passed 10-2.    VI. EXECUTIVE SESSION  a. Security Update  b. RFP 670 Alaska State Capitol Electronic Access  Controls  c. RFQ 667 Alaska State Capitol Security Screeners  d. Legal Update  CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON said that Council would go into Executive  Session to receive a security update, discuss two RFPs, and  receive a legislative legal update.  11:29:50 AM  VICE CHAIR MCCABE moved and asked unanimous consent that the  Legislative Council go into Executive Session under Uniform  Rule 22(B)(4), discussion of a matter the public knowledge of  which would adversely affect the security of the state or  nation, or adversely affect the security of a governmental  unit or agency and 22(B)(3), discussion of a matter that may,  by law, be required to be confidential. The following  individuals may remain in the room or online during Executive  Session: Jessica Geary, Sant Lesh, Rayme Vinson, JC Kestel,  Ernest Daigle, Shay Wilson, Tim Powers, Emily Nauman, Megan  Wallace; Security Subcommittee members Matt Simpson and  Micaela Bradner; Tom Koloski and Tom Wilder of the  Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency; any  legislators not on Legislative Council, and any staff of  Legislative Council or Security Subcommittee members.    11:30:46 AM  A roll call vote was taken.    YEAS: Senators Bishop, Claman, Hoffman, Kiehl, Stedman,  Stevens, Gray-Jackson; Representatives Edgmon, Hannan,  Rauscher, Saddler, McCabe    NAYS: none    The motion passed 12-0.    11:31:52 AM  Council went into Executive Session.    2:25:30 PM Council came out of Executive Session.    A roll call vote was taken to establish a quorum.    Present at the call were: Senators Claman, Kiehl, Stedman,  Stevens, Gray-Jackson; Representatives Edgmon, Hannan,  Rauscher, Saddler, Tilton.    Ten members present.    2:26:48 PM  SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS moved to table RFQ 667-Alaska State  Capitol Security Screeners, the Visitor Screening Policy, and  the ID Badge Policy.    After a brief at-ease and some confusion about the need for  a vote, a roll call vote was taken on the motion to table.    2:27:54 PM  YEAS: Senators Claman, Kiehl, Stedman, Stevens, Gray-Jackson;  Representatives Edgmon, Hannan, Rauscher, Saddler, Tilton    NAYS: none    The motion passed 10-0.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON stated that during Executive Session, the  Council discussed five topics that require action: two  procurements (RFP 670 and RFQ 667) and three Security Update- related items under "New Committee Business" (two policies -  Capitol Visitor Screening Policy and ID Badge Policy - and  the Juneau mailroom relocation proposal).    NOTE: RFQ 667 and two policies (Capitol Visitor Screening and  ID Badge Policy) were tabled.    She asked Representative Edgmon for a motion on RFP 670.      b. RFP 670 Alaska State Capitol Electronic Access Controls  2:29:07 PM  REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved that Legislative Council approve  the award of RFP 670 to Southeast Electric LLC in an amount  not to exceed $458,850.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for purposes of discussion and  asked that JC Kestel and Tim Powers to speak to the item.    JC KESTEL, Procurement Officer, LAA, recapped what was in the  packet before the members and in their discussion. On  September 24, 2024, the Agency issued RFP 670 to solicit  proposals for the installation of electronic access controls  in the Capitol. RFP 670 closed on November 26, 2024, with one  proposal received from Southeast Electric LLC. The proposal  went through the Performance Evaluation Committee (PEC) to  ensure it met all the needs listed in the RFP. The PEC scored  the proposal and chose to proceed with a recommendation to  Legislative Council for the award to Southeast Electric LLC.  Southeast Electric's cost proposal was $437,000 and the  Agency is requesting a five percent contingency fund be added  to the bid amount to cover unforeseen challenges.    TIM POWERS, Chief Technology and Outreach Officer, LAA, said  the project proposes to improve physical security of the  interior doors of the Capitol and Thomas Stewart Building. As  background, the entire Capitol Complex exterior doors and all  of the Anchorage Legislative Office Building (exterior and  interior) already have electronic access controls. We're  looking to expand that system to 130 additional doors, those  are all interior doors in the Capitol and Thomas Stewart  Building. This will replace the need to issue metal keys for  the first door of entry into all offices from the main  hallways of the Capitol.    Mr. Powers noted some benefits of this project include  enhanced security; access control-key fobs allow granular  control over individual doors in addition to groups; remote  management-access can be granted, revoked, or modified  remotely; audit trails-logs will track when and by whom doors  are accessed; convenience and keyless entry-staff won't need  separate keys for office entry if they already have access to  the Capitol; and cost savings-key fobs are cheaper to replace  than metal keys and do not require replacing door hardware if  lost.    Mr. Powers continued that the installation scope of this  project is the Capitol and Thomas Stewart Building for 130  interior doors. Wiring and installation of access control  readers and door hardware will be completed in the interim.    Programming and system configuration, similar to the  Anchorage Legislative Office Building, will be completed in- house by the DTI staff. The project timeline, if approved by  January 1, 2025, ensures that all materials will be available  by June 1, with a three-month construction period concluding  on September 1, 2025.    Mr. Powers said they worked with an engineer to design this  system, and the engineers estimate came in at $481,000- $554,000 so our request to include a five percent contingency  is still below the engineers estimate.    There was no discussion. Chair Gray-Jackson removed her  objection and asked for a roll call vote.    2:33:26 PM  YEAS: Senators Claman, Kiehl, Stedman, Stevens, Gray-Jackson;  Representatives Edgmon, Hannan, Rauscher, Saddler, Tilton    NAYS: none    The motion passed 10-0.    VII. NEW COMMITTEE BUSINESS  a. Capitol Visitor Screening Policy (tabled)  b. Identification Badge Policy (tabled)  c. Capitol Mailroom Relocation  d. Legislative Council Transition Readiness and Office  Policy  c. Capitol Mailroom Relocation  2:34:07 PM  REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved that Legislative Council approve  the proposal to move the Capitol mailroom to an offsite  location equipped with necessary screening technology and  protocols.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for the purpose of discussion and  asked Jessica Geary and JC Kestel to speak to the item.    JESSICA GEARY, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs Agency  (LAA), said that a recent security assessment identified the  onsite Capitol mailroom as a potential vulnerability, leading  to a recommendation to relocate package screening offsite.  The proposal includes purchasing the necessary equipment, two  new full-time employees, and buildout work mostly done in- house. The current estimated cost is $617,500, and approval  by this committee is requested to proceed with recruitment,  incorporating the expenses into the FY26 legislative budget  request, and issuing procurements for screening detection  equipment.    REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for a definition of "necessary  screening".    JC KESTEL, Procurement Officer, LAA, responded that since  this is a government facility, the Alaska State Capitol, all  mail is currently screened through X-ray machines. However,  this is currently done using a twelve-year-old X-ray machine,  which is outdated and unable to detect biological agents or  explosive materials. A security review identified  vulnerabilities that could allow harmful substances to pass  through undetected. The proposed upgrade includes three  advanced screening devices: one similar to TSA equipment,  capable of detecting explosive materials and biological  agents through swabbing and trace analysis. While the device  also tests for narcotics, the primary focus is on enhancing  explosive detection to improve Capitol security.    REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER attempted to ask a follow-up and was  interrupted by the Chair calling a brief at-ease.    2:38:23 PM  Council went into a brief at-ease.    2:39:11 PM  Council returned from brief at-ease.    REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked that if the final costs are  significantly higher, can the proposal be reconsidered and  potentially rejected in the future.    MR. KESTEL responded that if the RFP results exceed the  proposed costs, the committee can decline the contract at a  future meeting. He noted that significant cost changes are  possible but not anticipated.    SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS stated that it seems this proposal  modernizes the facility with advanced equipment and personnel  for $617,500, including $267,000 for staffing and upgraded X- ray, biological, and explosive detection, significantly  improving current security measures.    MR. KESTEL agreed with Senate President Stevens assertion  and added that it would provide the ability for better, more  efficient testing.    There was no further discussion. Chair Gray-Jackson removed  her objection and asked for a roll call vote.    2:40:52 PM  YEAS: Senators Claman, Kiehl, Stedman, Stevens, Gray-Jackson;  Representatives Edgmon, Hannan, Rauscher, Saddler, Tilton    NAYS: none    The motion passed 10-0.    d. Legislative Council Transition Readiness and Office Policy  2:41:39 PM  REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved that Legislative Council adopt  the Legislative Council Transition Readiness and Office  Policy as presented, to be effective immediately; and  authorize the Legislative Affairs Agency the authority to  make technical and conforming changes.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for the purpose of discussion and  asked Ms. Geary to please speak to the item.    JESSICA GEARY, Executive Director, LAA, stated the proposed  Transition Readiness and Office Policy before the committee  is meant to address issues that comes up bi-annually as the  Agency works on the transition from outgoing leadership to  incoming leadership, such as office swaps, authorizing staff  hires, and many other transition tasks. So, the Agency  identified ways to simplify the process, including setting  timelines, prioritizing leadership offices, and providing  clearer guidelines. Ms. Geary paused to note that before  further discussing the policy details, she wanted to point  out an oversight in excluding Juneau-based legislators and  staff from the proposed policy, which are addressed with a  suite of five amendments that have been distributed to the  committee. She asked that the Chair present them as a single  motion for consideration.    2:43:58 PM  CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON moved to amend the Transition Readiness  and Office Policy with the following suite of amendments.    Amendment 1, section 1.3 Packing and Move-Out Process: add a  subsection related to exemptions for year-round offices to  consider Juneau based staff and legislators to read,  Exemptions for year-round offices: legislators and staff  maintaining year-round operations in Juneau are exempt from  packing and decluttering requirements, except where essential  maintenance or IT updates necessitate temporary adjustments."    Amendment 2, section 1.3, subsection 5: add a second bullet  to read, "Year-round offices coordination: inspections,  maintenance, and IT updates will be scheduled in consultation  with year-round office occupants to ensure minimal  disruption."    Amendment 3, section 1.4 Final Inspections: to the final  bullet four, add "and year-round offices" so that the bullet  reads, "Returning legislator offices and year-round offices  will only be inspected for maintenance or IT needs."    Amendment 4, section 1.5 Artwork and Maintenance Access: to  the "personal artwork removal" bullet one, add "unless exempt  under the year-round offices' provisions" so that the bullet  reads "Unless exempt under the year-round offices'  provisions, legislators and staff must remove all personal  artwork and wall-mounted items before vacating their offices  (can be left in office until final packing deadline). Items  left behind after the final packing deadline will be removed  by LAA staff.    Amendment 5, section 1.5 Artwork and Maintenance Access: to  the "maintenance authority" bullet two, add "LAA will ensure  that year-round offices retain operational access during  maintenance or updates." So that the bullet reads, "LAA staff  are authorized to remove any wall-mounted items, including  personal artwork and decorations, to facilitate timely  patching, painting, and other maintenance tasks. LAA will  ensure that year-round offices retain operational access  during maintenance or updates.    MS. GEARY noted that Jeff Stepp, Legislative Council  committee aide, is passing out the policy that includes the  amendments and asked for a brief at-ease.    2:46:34 PM  Council went into a brief at-ease.    2:47:23 PM  Council returned from a brief at-ease.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON moved that Legislative Council adopt the  suite of previously read amendments as a single amendment.    SENATOR CLAMAN objected for purposes of discussion.    SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS asked about the practicality of the  May 31 move-out deadline.    2:48:14 PM  Council went into a brief at-ease.    2:48:44 PM  Council returned from brief at-ease.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON, restating her motion, moved that  Legislative Council adopt the suite of previously read  amendments as one amendment to the policy.    There were no objections and Chair Gray-Jackson asked for a  roll call vote.    2:49:09 PM  YEAS: Senators Claman, Kiehl, Stedman, Stevens, Gray-Jackson;  Representatives Edgmon, Hannan, Rauscher, Saddler, Tilton    NAYS: none    The motion passed 10-0.    SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS again expressed concern that the May  31 office move-out deadline may be impractical, as special  sessions can occur as late as August or later. He noted it  would be a shame to clear offices if legislators still need  them for a special session.    MS. GEARY acknowledged the concern, clarifying that the May  31 deadline is meant for preparedness, not full office  clearance. The goal is to ensure offices, especially for  retiring legislators, are ready for an eventual move. While  the policy does not explicitly address special session  exemptions, they recognized the challenge of quickly  unpacking for unexpected sessions.    SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS responded that he understands what  Ms. Geary is explaining and pointed out that the policy  requires packing personal items and decluttering by May 31  but suggested a later deadline, such as December, might be  more practical.    MS. GEARY further clarified that the May 31 deadline is  primarily for decluttering, while final inspections are set  for December 15. The intent is to leave offices accessible  for maintenance, IT work, or potential relocation. Removing  personal artwork and wall decorations allows for necessary  repairs, but authorization exists for maintenance to proceed  even if items remain. She acknowledged the policy isn't  perfect due to the variability of the legislature's timeline.    SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS suggested removing the expectation  for legislators to pack up by May 31 and the related bullet  points, noting that some may need to remain in their offices  beyond that date.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON asked if Senate President Stevens would  like to offer an amendment.    2:53:28 PM  SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS made a motion to remove Legislators  are expected to: and the related bullet points following.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON asked that Senate President Stevens repeat  his motion.    SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS moved that under Section 1.3 Packing  and Move Out Process, remove Legislators are expected to:  Bullet 1 remove or pack personal items; Bullet 2 declutter  workspaces and clearly label any remaining items; and Bullet  3 remove personal artwork and wall-mounted decorations."    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for purposes of discussion.    2:54:09 PM  Council took a brief at-ease.    2:56:04 PM  Council returned from a brief at-ease.    SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS withdrew his amendment. He then  moved to add at the end of Section 1.3 Packing and Move-Out  Process the following language: The presiding officers may  extend the May 31 deadline due to possible special sessions."    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON objected for the purpose of discussion.    SENATOR STEDMAN sought clarification on the issue of office  move-out deadlines, questioning why legislators elected for  two years wouldn't be able to leave their belongings and visit  their offices as needed.    MS. GEARY responded that this is at the end of a second  session only.    REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER restated what he understood the  proposed language to be and questioned whether extending the  May 31 move-out deadline shouldn't be based on an official  special session call, rather than a presiding officer's  speculation about a potential session.    SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS responded that it's often unclear  when a special session may be called and noted that  legislators have needed their offices as late as November.  The proposed motion allows presiding officers to act on the  possibility of a special session before requiring office  move-outs.    REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, in support of Senate President Stevens, said that under Governor Walker, legislators were  in special session as late as two days before Thanksgiving,  and have also been called into multiple special sessions in  one year highlighting the need to consider this possibility  when setting office move-out deadlines.    REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN stated support of Senate President  Stevens' motion, appreciating the need for guidance on office  move-outs while emphasizing the importance of interim  maintenance. She highlighted the extensive work required to  repaint and repair offices before each new legislature and  noted that clearing personal items helps the maintenance crew  start sooner. She appreciates that the policy provides a  deadline while allowing flexibility for presiding officers to  grant extensions based on individual circumstances.    There was no further discussion. Chair Gray-Jackson removed  her objection and asked for a roll call vote.    3:00:48 PM  YEAS: Senators Claman, Kiehl, Stedman, Stevens, Gray-Jackson;  Representatives Edgmon, Hannan, Rauscher, Saddler, Tilton    NAYS: none    The motion passed 10-0.    CHAIR GRAY-JACKSON stated Council is now back to the main  motion to adopt the Transition Readiness and Office Policy as  amended.    REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification on the term  "presumptive presiding officers," questioning the basis for  that presumption and noting that leadership decisions can  change before the session begins.    DISCUSSION FOLLOWED between Representatives Saddler, Tilton,  and Rauscher, Senate President Stevens, and Director Geary  regarding Section 2.6 Early Engagement with Presumptive  Leadership: concerns about how presumptive leadership is  determined, the need for a smooth and efficient transition  from one legislature to another, a preference for general  policy language that allows for response flexibility, and  confirming the Agency can quickly and easily pivot if  presumptive leadership changes during the transition.  Additional discussion covered the continued need for  transition memos between legislatures and setting in policy  the start date of session funding.    There was no further discussion. Chair Gray-Jackson removed  her objection and asked for a roll call vote.    3:11:23 PM  YEAS: Senators Claman, Kiehl, Stedman, Stevens, Gray-Jackson;  Representatives Edgmon, Hannan, Rauscher, Saddler, Tilton    NAYS: none    The motion passed 10-0.    3:12:39 PM  REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved and asked for a reconsideration  of the previous vote regarding Technology Services Contract.    DISCUSSION FOLLOWED regarding Representative Rauscher's  request, including two at-eases. It was determined there  would not be a reconsideration vote and Representative  Rauscher withdrew his motion.    VIII. Adjournment    Chair Gray-Jackson stated that she had a few remarks for the  record, noting that it appeared to be her last meeting. She  reflected on her time as Chair of the committee and shared  that she was filled with immense gratitude and a deep sense  of accomplishment. She expressed that the role had been an  extraordinary journey and that she had the privilege of  collaborating with some of the most dedicated and talented  legislators she could have hoped foreven jokingly including  Senator Stedman, which drew laughter from those present.    She first extended a heartfelt thanks to the outstanding staff  across all divisions in LAA, offering a special  acknowledgment to JC Kestel, Procurement Officer; Shay  Wilson, Chief Information Officer; Tim Powers, Chief  Technology and Outreach Officer; Emily Nauman, Legal Services  Director; Megan Wallace, Chief Counsel; and Mike Warenda,  Anchorage LIO Operations Manager, along with his exceptional  team. She emphasized that their reports, insights, and  contributions had been invaluable to the committee's work  during her two years as Chair. She also recognized Jessica  Geary, Sant Lesh, Molly Kiesel, Madison Truitt, and the  entire team, acknowledging their consistent dedication to  supporting all 60 legislators, ensuring that they knew their  hard work didn't go unnoticed.    Additionally, she expressed her profound gratitude to her  Legislative Council staff, Jeff Stepp. She recalled how, when  he accepted her offer to work alongside her, she felt immense  gratitude, knowing that selecting him as her staff member  would be one of the best decisions of her public service  careerand affirmed that it was. She credited his experience,  expertise, and steadfast support for making her role as Chair  of the Legislative Council a truly stress-free experience.  However, she humorously admitted that she had spent the  previous night dreaming about the meeting.    Among the many projects the committee undertook, she  highlighted the completion of the assembly building  apartments as one that stood out. She described how bringing  the project to fruitionfrom establishing rental leases and  policies to furnishing the apartmentswas no small feat.  While it may have seemed straightforward, ensuring that these  spaces reflected privacy, comfort, and professionalism for  legislators and staff, while adhering to responsible use of  taxpayer dollars, required a careful balance. She recounted  how drafting policies, selecting a rental agency, choosing  furniture designs, and overseeing every detail to blend  function with tradition was both a unique and rewarding  experience. She expressed immense pride in what had been  accomplished, emphasizing that the project's success would  not have been possible without the dedication of the  exceptional staff, whose expertise, commitment, and attention  to detail transformed a vision into reality. She noted that  the apartments now stood as a testament to their hard work  and the committee's commitment to excellenceand happily  added that she would be living in one of them during the next  session.    Addressing her fellow committee members, she expressed deep  appreciation for their commitment to making the committee a  priority. She recognized their attendance, thoughtful input,  and dedication to the meetings, which had been instrumental  to their collective success. She also took a moment to  acknowledge Senator Hoffman, who was not present but had never  missed a meeting, thanking him for his insight,  collaboration, and unwavering dedication to their mission.  She reflected on how, together, the committee had tackled  complex issues, from ensuring the safety of staff and  constituents to upholding the clear division between the  legislative and executive branches of government. She  expressed gratitude for the opportunity to lead the committee  alongside her Vice Chair, Kevin McCabe, and his amazing staff,  particularly Angie Stephl, recognizing the privilege of  working with such a devoted team.    Looking to the future, she shared her excitement about seeing  how the committee would continue to evolve. She expressed her  honor in remaining part of the important decisions that would  come before the Legislative Council as a member of the  prestigious committee. She concluded by thanking everyone  once again for the opportunity to serve as Chair, for the  memories they had created, and for the collective efforts she  was confident would have a lasting impact.    SENATE PRESIDENT STEVENS said that Senator Gray-Jackson has  done an excellent job as Chair. He continued that she has  been fair, judicious, wise, and kept all members in the loop  and concluded by thanking her for her Chairmanship.    3:21:43 PM  With no further comments the meeting adjourned at 3:21pm.