Resident accuses Kodiak Island Borough Assembly of illegal poll on remote-meeting rules

Kodiak Island Borough Assembly members are weighing whether to allow remote attendance for any reason, raise the annual cap beyond the current four meetings, and open a secure path for remote access to executive sessions. The ideas came from an Aug. 13 draft ordinance requested by Assembly members Jeffery Woods, Caroline Roberts and Bo Whiteside. The proposal drew a dispute Thursday when Kodiak resident Dan Rohr told the assembly that a survey the clerk's office sent to gauge members' views violated Alaska's Open Meetings Act.

Rohr called the survey an illegal poll. "I have not ever seen an elected body flagrantly disregard the Open Meetings Act," he said. He said members may be polled only on scheduling availability, not substantive topics. "What you may not do is poll them in regards to substantive topics," he said, adding, "But this is democracy, and it's not about efficiency." He said he would not file a complaint over this survey but would over future ones.

Borough Clerk Nova Javier said she contacted the borough attorney that evening and held the returned forms pending review. The attorney found the survey permissible as preparation for public discussion, provided no deliberation happened outside a meeting. Calling the results a "consensus" in the agenda summary was her mistake, she said. The completed forms were attached to the public packet.

The assembly then reviewed each item in open session. Members agreed unanimously that electronic participants cannot count toward the core quorum, and kept the cap of three remote members per meeting. Whiteside said video should stay mandatory. "Folks need to see our face, you know, look us in the eyes best we can," he said, while noting bandwidth limits in places like Dutch Harbor. Jeremiah Gardner said he opposes audio-only attendance because he is severely hearing impaired and reads lips on screen. He said a member blocked by a natural disaster or a landslide near the crane should still be able to attend virtually.

The annual cap on remote meetings remained unsettled. "I am vehemently against 9 to 12 meetings, but I could go to 4 to 8," Gardner said. Roberts had asked for a legal review of multi-tiered residency rules but formally retracted the request after members weighed the attorney costs. The assembly decided not to pursue it.

No revised ordinance on the annual cap has been introduced. Changing it requires an agenda item request to the clerk to start drafting.