Kodiak makes public why election winner Jeremy Williamson hasn't been sworn in

Kodiak Island Borough Assembly members voted 5-1 Thursday to make public the legal reasoning behind why Jeremy Williamson, who won a seat on the assembly last month by 15 votes, hasn't been sworn in.

The opinion, from the borough's outside law firm, says the borough "cannot administer the oath of office and seat" an assembly member who holds a personal services contract with it, and that contracts for snow removal and road maintenance count. The public version doesn't name anyone, but a borough staff report says it addresses Williamson's eligibility in relation to borough service contracts held by AIM Maintenance LLC. State corporation records list Williamson as a member of the company.

Kodiak voters wrote the rule into borough code in a 2013 ballot measure. It bars assembly members from holding personal services contracts with the borough, including through a business they or their spouse own at least half of.

Under the clerk's guidance to candidates, a winner in that position has two choices: give up the contracts and take the seat, or keep them and turn the seat down. The opinion agrees and says the winner has 30 days to decide. Counting from the Oct. 6 election, that window would close Thursday, the day of the vote, though neither the opinion nor the clerk's notice gives an exact date. If the seat goes vacant, the clerk has said the assembly would fill it by appointment for one year.

Nothing at Thursday's meeting addressed whether Williamson had made a choice.

Mayor Jared Griffin said the vote wasn't about deciding Williamson's eligibility or reconsidering the election, only about whether the public should see the reasoning. "I believe transparency is particularly important when the application of our laws affects our democratic representation," he said.

Assembly member Jeremiah Gardner said he voted for Williamson and wanted him on the assembly. "The way the code is written, he's simply not allowed to take office," Gardner said. "My job up here isn't to do what I want. It's to do what's right by the community, and in this case, it's following the code."

"We have to live by the code, and that's what the lawyers say," said Assembly member Scott Smiley.

Assembly member Jeff Woods cast the lone no vote, saying the matter was likely to end up in court. "We're basically doing opposing counsel's work for them by releasing information," he said.

Williamson has argued the rule can't mean what the borough says it does. At an Oct. 29 work session, he said that read literally, even an assembly member's stipend is a services contract, "meaning under a strict literal reading, no one could ever legally sit on this assembly." Voters wanted to end "backroom deals with high-priced consultants," he said, not to bar local businesses doing "open competitively bid road maintenance work."

The opinion also says it's up to the borough clerk, not the assembly, to decide whether a winner qualifies, and that sitting out votes on the contracts wouldn't solve the problem.

Assembly member Scott Arndt wants to change the rule to exempt contracts awarded through competitive bidding. Griffin declined to fast-track it last week, saying the assembly shouldn't change the rules "in the middle of a pending qualification matter in order to affect the outcome for one particular person." On Thursday, Arndt proposed introducing the change Nov. 19, with a public hearing Dec. 3.