Assembly Special Meeting of October 27, 2025

Okay, I'll call the, uh, October 27th, 2025 special meeting, uh, to order. Can we get a roll call, please? Mr. Ames? Here. Mr. Gardner?

Here. Mr. Johnson? Here. Miss Roberts? Here.

Mr. Smiley? Here. Mr. Whiteside? Here. Mr. Woods?

Here. Mayor Griffin? Here. Commissioner Arkoosh. You have a quorum.

All right. Up first is citizen comments. For those who wish to call in, the local number is 907-486-3231. Toll-free number is 1-855-492-9202. Please turn off your radio or any listening devices to prevent feedback.

And for those who are in the room who wish to speak under citizen comments, please come to the podium, sign in, turn on the microphone there, make sure the green light is on before speaking, and speak directly into the mic. Please state your name for the record and address all remarks to the Assembly as a body and not to any member thereof.

Hi, how's that?

Hi, Rob Lindsay, 3162 Spruce Cape Road, 64 years on this little rock. Thank you to all my friends that voted for me. I have to admit, I did not want the job. I can't imagine why anybody does. This is a sinking ship as far as I can see.

But I felt compelled to. So I'm here to listen, run again, or support someone of like mind in the future. That said, I'm not here to spread a bunch of sour grapes because I just don't live in that kind of world. Two weeks ago, we heard our three strongest voices in Juneau say there's not much funding coming down the road. And just, I mean, they're very serious.

There's no supplemental to cover education, and then it pivots straight to taxes, tax, taxes. The citizens aren't flush with excess to take. You must constrain spending. You must lead by example. Empower your citizens by digging deep for opportunity.

Infrastructure isn't sexy. It's not shiny. But it's the cornerstone. And while the borough doesn't do infrastructure, it does plan it, fund it, and make sure it's possible. You're not going to have growth, you're not going to have a safe place for homes and families without the infrastructure in the ground.

I'm sorry, it's dull, it's boring, and I'm repetitive. That, along with maintaining a balanced budget, is your fiduciary responsibility. Excuse me. Costs keep rising, taxes are high. I know I'm redundant here.

And the voters are kind of at the emotional side of the thing. And you're going to have to lead with the discipline you expect of us. And I think that's not asking too much. I did plan on, if I was sitting with you now, a challenge to all of you. I'm going to ask it of you.

Will you give back the stipend you received from the borough, either to the general fund or the borough commitment you believe in most? You ask sacrifice of us, lead by example. That would seem to be a strong measure of sincerity. I don't think the next 3 years are going to be easy. There's a lot of hard choices to make and not a lot of fun in the forecast.

You have 2 choices: fiscal constraint or kick the can down the road. Balancing the budget and employee retention are extremely high priority. And according to some sources in D.C., I've heard the prediction for the government to reopen to be near the end of never. Credit John Kennedy. I'm not here to scold you.

I'm here to remind all of us we are— we live in a small place. We got big hearts and big weather. We make it because we take care of each other. We take care of the basics. And we tell the truth about trade-offs.

Just one more thing about that government shutdown. The SNAP program is likely, very likely, not to be funded in November. So I hope that's a plan that's on the books. We have people that don't have paychecks already, and it's coming. And I think we can, you know, we'll dig in, and nobody's going to leave their neighbors hungry.

Thanks. Thank you, Rob. Anyone else? Oh, we have a call coming through. We're now answering a call from the queue.

Assembly meeting, you're on the air. Please state your name for the record. Hi, my name is Brenda Schwantes, and I, um, listen to Mr. Lindsay and appreciate his courage to say those things out loud. And that's one of the reasons that I'm calling.

I've had the opportunity to examine our property tax, our mill rate. Ours is one of the highest in the state for our community size and population. We are at the max that the borough is statutorily— that the borough assembly can tax Kodiak residents.

What that tells me is that there can be no more property tax for revenue for the borough, which I did owe Mr. Lindsey's comment. It's time to start cutting the budget. It needs to happen, and, and the school budget as well. Everybody gets budget cuts.

And sometimes it just takes some hard decisions. But seeing what's coming down the road, the borough assembly, I think, really needs to be proactive in approaching this instead of reactive.

Hopefully, I'm going to challenge the borough assembly and ask that you set an agenda to discuss property tax and ways to reduce our property tax. In addition, the city, you know, with the 7% sales tax rate, we have a really high tax rate here in our community. And with all of our other economic issues, it makes it hard to keep people living in Kodiak. So that's my first comment. Second comment is [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] I wasn't, um, aspiring to be on the Borough Assembly but felt like a concerned citizen, wanted to be active in the community.

But I do have a question about the Assembly's matrix or your criteria for appointing vacated seats. Is there a criteria? And if so, what is it? Thank you.

Thank you, Brenda.

Anyone else wishing to make comment?

Hi, my name is Lena Harrington. Um, this isn't the first time I have spoken out asking you guys specifically to not make decisions based on how you feel or your thoughts or what you think is best, but better represent the community. Um, I was super disappointed to see The results for the vacant seat— nothing against Caroline Roberts. I've been a lifelong resident here. I'd like to see someone in that seat who's been here for 20-some-odd years and has seen our taxes fluctuate, has seen what we've been through, has seen the infrastructure we built, how we've tried to expand, see how much it's cost, um, that isn't a part of the systems that, you know, that we really like to vote on like schools and hospitals and these things that we just cannot afford.

Um, and the numbers are in black and white. There is a 104-count difference. You had 4 people, 4 people who ran for that vacant seat. 104-Count difference between the bottom and the next one running. That is black and white.

Um, I don't feel that that's representing the public. The public spoke, the public chose, and the public lined everyone up and told you who they wanted. Um, I hope that one of your reasonings is not a gender-based thing. Um, but as I said, the votes are very black and white. We chose, we gave you numbers, and then two other people threw their names in.

Um, this is the second time I spoke out about this. Um, it's super unfortunate to see happening in general. I hope that the— and I understand, um, legally we're probably going to move forward with this. So I hope moving forward that Jeremiah, Jeffrey, and Caroline, that you guys keep the public's interest in mind and use the research, use the numbers, use what we have to say. And hopefully we kind of stop making decisions with our feelings a little bit more.

So, um, there was no reasoning for that meeting. I don't think any of you really spoke up with a reasoning for who was going to fill that vacant seat. Um, it's just frustrating to see at this point. Um, I hope we can move forward and make decisions for the public. Thank you.

Thank you, Leanne.

Anyone else?

Anybody calling in? I do have— we did receive a letter that— let's see, there we go— that the author would like to submit into the record, too. This one is from Ryan Sherrett.

Ryan writes, "I am writing this letter in support of Carolyn Roberts and hope that as the vacating seat holder, this letter carries credibility." Um, first, I want to apologize for stepping down a year earlier than planned due to my son's passing. My priority has been my family. Second, I'd like to explain how I entered the assembly initially through an appointment, then by running in a general election. I had little government experience when I started and learned on the job. My desire to serve the Kodiak community isn't because I've lived here for a long time, but because I genuinely care about Kodiak.

I believe Carolyn Roberts will fulfill the duties of an assembly member in a way that meets the expectations of Kodiak citizens and, and can progress on a similar path that I took, an appointment then seeking electoral support. Thank you for the last 2 and a half years of the assembly. I truly appreciate each of you. If you have any questions, please contact me. Respectfully, Ryan Sherrod.

Okay, with that, we'll move on to the consideration of matters and the call for the special meeting. First item is to waive and release the attorney's opinion that is protected by attorney-client privilege concerning the mayoral veto submitted regarding the appointment of Assemblymember Roberts. Procedurally, in the past, the Assembly has received and then accepted an attorney's opinions without making a motion or taking a formal vote. Therefore, the clerks say it's a— so it's assumed that the Assembly agrees with the attorney's opinion.

And before we continue on with the discussion, I would ask if there are any members that may have a perceived conflict of interest. If they'd like to. Yes, Caroline. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. For transparency, I'd like to declare a conflict of interest on this item as I have a financial stake in the matter since I will receive a stipend as a member of the assembly, and I will therefore abstain from voting on this item.

Thank you. Thank you, Caroline. Based on that, I rule that Assemblymember Roberts does have a perceived conflict of interest at this time and shall be excused from participation. The Assembly may override this ruling by a majority vote. Okay.

We'll give Caroline a minute.

Okay. Ms. Roberts is out, so I will accept that. Is there a motion on the floor? Move to waive and release the Attorney General's opinion protected by attorney-client privilege concerning the mayoral veto submitted regarding the appointment of Assemblymember Roberts. Second.

All right, both seconds.

Okay, so we can have a discussion. The discussion is— should be focused on the waiving and the releasing. Mr. Mayor, if I could just allow for a staff report prior to going into assembly discussion.

So the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly appointed Ms. Roberts on October 16, 2025, to fill the vacancy in the assembly that arose from the resignation of Assemblymember Ryan Sharrett. The vacancy was duly advertised and all procedures were adhered to in accordance with the code. The assembly held interviews on October 9, 2025, during a work session. On October 16, 2025, in a regular meeting, Ms. Roberts was chosen after receiving the majority votes of the assembly. The same evening, Ms. Roberts took and subscribed to the oath of office.

The following day, October 17th, outgoing Mayor Scott Arndt submitted a mayoral veto regarding the appointment of Ms. Roberts. The clerk's office sought legal opinion— legal advice and received an opinion on October 21, 2025. Given the public's interest surrounding this matter, the Assembly may opt to waive the confidentiality of the attorney-client privilege opinion and make it public— make it available to the public. Thank you. Thank you, Lena.

Okay, discussion is open, and make sure that our discussion is focused on the, uh, the item being considered, that is the waiving and releasing of the attorney's opinion that is currently protected by attorney-client privilege concerning the mayoral Veto. Is there any discussion?

Jeff and then Beau. Yes. I would urge the Assembly to allow the release of this information. Transparency is generally a good thing. I may not agree with the attorney's opinion, which I, after reviewing some of the documents, I certainly don't.

However, transparency is generally a good practice. Thank you, Jeff. Mr. Bowe. I think I will just echo the sentiment that in this matter, it seems that clarity would be helpful, not just for the Assembly, but for the public to understand what the questions were asked of the attorney and the legal advice that was provided.

Anyone else?

All right. Roll call vote.

Mr. Ames. Mr. Gardner? Yes. Mr. Johnson? Yes.

Mr. Smiley? Yes. Mr. Whiteside? Yes. Mr. Woods?

Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote? Motion passes unanimously.

Um, okay, so now we, we can have it— the assembly can have a discussion if they wish regarding the content of the attorney's opinion. Again, please make sure that the discussion is germane to the attorney's opinion focused on the attorney's opinion there. So any discussion?

Jeff? [Speaker:JEFF] Yeah. I took the time to go through the opinion somewhat in depth and review some of the cited case law they referenced. I found the arguments generally somewhat lackluster and where they're coming from and the conclusions drawn from them. I am personally uncomfortable moving forward with a process by in the recommended manner by the attorney opinion when there is a clearly established process in statute and in borough code for how to deal with the dispute about a veto or how to override a mayoral veto.

I think doing so in the normal process for any other veto would essentially harm us in no way and reduce potential litigation opportunities by reducing the total number of people who could actually potentially litigate. That's my concern. In a nutshell. I mean, there's also some issues with the actual citations in there. I don't necessarily know that some of that case law is germane to the topic at hand at all, particularly the City of Sandpoint case, which is more about contract law than necessarily a mayoral veto.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jeff. I probably should, if it's okay with the assembly, just read just kind of a summary of what the attorney's opinion is. So on, on the 21st, legal counsel issued an opinion stating that the mayor's veto was untimely because it was submitted after the appointee had taken the oath of office. The mayor does have the power to veto an assembly decision to appoint a qualified resident to a vacant seat, but that veto must be exercised before the resident qualifies, that is, is voted in by a majority of the assembly according to the process in the KIB Code 2.25.060(d) and Code 2.30.040(a), and takes the oath of office as required by Alaska Statute 29.20.600. There are no other requirements prior to taking office.

Because the assembly's appointment was complete, uh, the appointee had taken the oath of office, thereby assuming office before the 30-day deadline, And at that point, there is no longer a legislative action to veto. Accordingly, the veto is not valid under our code and state statute, and the appointee continues to serve with full authority.

As a result, the appointment is final and not subject to veto under applicable law.

I believe that gets the gist of it. If somebody wants to correct me—. Uh, Bo? Thank you. I'd like to offer another perspective in that the assembly followed code and Alaska state statutes in the procedure for, for not only the— when the vacancy was announced, every step after that was followed by procedure according to code and Alaska statute.

The interviews were conducted, the assembly made the selection. The appointment was made. The oath of office was taken. All of this was following proper procedure through code and statute. I think where maybe my perspective of where litigation could enter would be not the process, because we followed that to the letter, thanks to guidance from the clerks.

And because we followed that to the letter, there is no risk of litigation there. I view this opinion in that the risk of litigation comes in questioning the validity of the mayoral veto. So a de facto veto coming in an untimely manner in the process after the appointment was already confirmed through the oath of office, that's where potential litigation, in my opinion, enters the discussion. So as is, there is no risk of litigation. I feel that the risk of litigation and entering into the court system or the judicial system here as if we want to entertain the mayoral veto, which I certainly do not want to do that, because why would we risk taxpayer dollars for a decision that was made after the fact when everything was followed through code and Alaska statute?

Anyone else?

Steve.

It is kind of interesting that she was the winner at that point, and therefore, we were kind of told to close it out. We needed to appoint her, and at that point, Oviedo had been said it's going to happen but hadn't. So, it's a little confusing of whether we should have even a pointer. At this point, it's a little hard to backtrack.

So I guess really, at this point, the decision is, do we take the attorney's advice and they say that the veto was not valid, which is a separate issue.

Than her being in the seat, because we already appointed her.

It's just interesting that I think we got some mixed information that we had to finish that out, where if we hadn't, then DeVito might have a different opinion from the lawyer. But we are where we are, and therefore we have to move forward. Once water is under the bridge, you can't bring it back.

Just a thought.

Jeff. Again, to clarify, when Mr. Mayor made the— made a correct statement when he said the attorney's opinion came down to it was not a timely veto. Current Allenborough Code 220-60 states a veto must be exercised before the next regular meeting of the assembly and must be accompanied by a written explanation. So either a mayor at any meeting has a prewritten veto done or it's essentially impossible to veto something within a meeting. I have an issue with that from a perspective of logistics.

And then at what point does it become untimely? That's both in statute and in our Bureau Code. So that's where I run in and I'm unable to find any reference to what necessarily timely is or definition thereof in statute. Thank you.

Dave. Thank you. I'll offer a counter perspective to that. The opportunity existed. The opportunity wasn't exercised.

If the intent was already there, it could have been done at that meeting and the assembly sitting at the time could have voted on it. So once somebody is sworn in, they're a member of the assembly and, um, this— Ms. Roberts was sworn in. So just like none of us can be removed by, um, without falling under the, um, items that list potential removal in our borough code, At that point, I believe Ms. Roberts then gained those same protections.

You know, I don't know why the intent to veto was offered but not given during the meeting, but again, if that was the intent, it could have been done before the oath of office was administered.

Steve and then Bo.

This is a question, I guess, for the Deputy Clerk, can a veto be announced and exercised during that same meeting? And then a follow-up question is, at what point does an outgoing mayor no longer a mayor? Um, I mean, he announced his intent, but the next day when he filed it, was he still a mayor and capable to do it as mayor or not? And I'd like your opinion. I don't have the answers to any of those questions, and I'd like to remind you that we'd like to focus discussion on the attorney's opinion's content.

So I think the attorney answered some of those questions within the attorney's opinions, so I would just refer to that and focus discussion on, on what's included in his opinion.

Bo. Thank you. So it [Speaker:MR. HALL] The— in my opinion, or as I understand— better put, as I understand the difference as far as timeliness of the submission when regarding the appointment is after the oath of office was taken, that's following Alaska statute. Now, that wasn't an action at that point, as I understand the statute, that wasn't an action of the assembly. At that point.

The action of the assembly was selecting the candidate. Once the oath of office was taken, that's following Alaska statute. That has nothing to do with the powers of the mayoral office for the borough. So that's the difference as I understand it. As far as the timeliness of submission for, for the veto, it happened after the fact, which you can't supersede statute once that oath of office was taken.

So there was a mixed mixed items happening throughout that process. So we have borough code in declaring the vacancy and then posting for candidacy, which we had 4 people who put their names in the hat for that appointment. Interviews were taken. This was all through code, but then once the— and then the borough assembly took on took the applicants, interviewed them following code as well. Once that selection was made, the oath of office was taken.

That's following Alaska statute. That's when that separation, as I understand it, happens. The mayor— mayor powers end there. And so the timeliness of the decision, and as I understand code and statute, is for the process of the assembly and following code. That ends once Alaska statute kicks in.

That's how I understand the process. So the timeliness can't supersede or you can't have a de facto veto that will override Alaska statute.

Okay. Seeing no further discussion, I think it's— so as Mayor, I'm going to, you know, rule that we follow the attorney's opinion and, and direction and advice on this and, and say that the appointment stands. No override vote is legally necessary. The vote— the veto is entered into the record, but because of timeliness, it has no effect. So, and then that way also the assembly remains in compliance with its 30-day appointment requirement.

Which is in code.

And certainly anyone can appeal the ruling of the Chair if they wish. If not, we can adjourn.

Move to adjourn.

Is there a second? Second. Voice vote on the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye.

And opposed, same sign. We are adjourned.