Anchorage Assembly: Governance Committee-of-the-Whole Meeting

Okay everyone, let's get this meeting started. Today is Thursday, October 8th. We are convened here for the Assembly Governance Committee. I will note this is the first time we're calling it that. This is the former Rules Committee, same general idea, new name.

We are noticed in this room from 1 to 3 PM as Committee of the Whole, so we'll go through the motions and into our business. Zach Johnson. Donald Handlin. Daniel Voland. Anna Brawley.

And on the phone, I see Member McCormick.

Here. And Member Scout. Present. Yes, thank you. And I'm just realizing I need to switch gears because this is the First Names Committee.

So thank you. Sorry, it's been a long week. So we're also joined in the room by Assembly Council members of the public, Clerk's Office, Mayor's Office, Ombudsman. And so, and I'll just note a couple changes to the agenda in terms of order. So we're going to first go through our legislative employee, we'll go through our reports.

I'm going to move the discussion about our election ordinances to after these other new business items. But my is if for some reason you and it gets to 2 PM or full hour and I am going to switch. Switch gears for us, if not sooner. So the goal is just to make sure we have plenty of time for that. So we'll do our other items of business first.

So with that, let's do our Legislative Employee of the Quarter. So, and this is, I think, the first one that I have done. So I'm just reminding you, so I think I need to talk about it. So we do our Legislative Employee of the Quarter, recognizing folks in the legislative branch. So that's Clerk's Office, Ledge Services, Ombudsman, and Assembly Council.

And we like to recognize folks who are doing a good job. And so today we have actually two people that we have our awards here. So they have been recommended for awards. So that is Mandy Honest and Liza Spano, if you want to come up.

And then, and then we'll do the pictures as a, as a why, you know, for why we're recognizing these folks. First, because they are great employees, but more specifically, they are our business licensing team. So they deal with alcohol licenses, marijuana licenses, a number of other things. So specifically, since February of this year, they've worked really hard with IT to develop our online registration for short-term rentals, and they have worked with over 1,000 hosts to register over 20, uh, per AO 2025-115-S2. They fielded many, many phone technical issues walked hosts through the process and our— so just noting that we wanted to recognize the extra hard work that they did on top of the regular duties of dealing with our other license types.

Congratulations to Mandy and Liza.

And I'll just check, Jamie, is Liza out of office today or—. Okay. You need your trophy. Build it your own trophy. Yeah, go ahead, Mandy.

Oh yeah, and I should have said, so I'll just note that they get the— yeah, okay, so they get a mug, some pins, these certificates, and then the joke is that in our branch you— where do you reward yourself? So we'll do some photos really quick. Oh, thank you. Yeah, Liza's had some vehicular incidents that they're trying to fix. So she's remote.

Yeah, so we will make sure she gets the award. I will leave that one on the table, and then I will— we'll do some pictures of Manny.

OK, always fun to celebrate some good news. So next we have our reports. So we have Suzanne Fleet Green for the mayor's report. I'll turn to you and then I'll do mine. OK, sounds good.

Noting all that's together this week, I will keep my report short because I feel like, you know, a lot of this. But one, just want to refresh, you had Nolan Clowder and our lobbyist Wendy Chamberlain at your Ledge Committee meeting this week where where we went through the draft list of priorities, as well as thinking about what we want on a federal list. It will continue to evolve over the next month, so we will be sharing more thoughts on that. And then also post-election might change a little bit from there. But I believe the goal is that that is all buttoned up by the first week of December.

Also, a lot of fun will start happening soon. Alaska Federation of Natives, coming to town across the street, and so you will start to see some banners hanging on this building, the 9a, as well as the PAC, like we did last year. We also have added an extra day of early voting, voting on that Saturday, October 24th. It may impact your parking a little bit on Friday the 23rd. Because we typically close half the park truck roundup associated with AFN, but there is parking on the other side of the parking lot.

Only half of it will be closed. So heads up on that.

Um, also, we are about to hit— I think it's a high mark, uh, filling 12,000 potholes in Anchorage. Also, there'll be a reflection of the condition of our roads. So for putting more money into the bond so that we actually take care of the underbase of the road and do not have so many potholes, but still, It means your street maintenance crew is doing an awful lot of work. And then they are quickly trying to transition from summer street maintenance, clearing storm drains, etc., to be prepared because any day now it could snow for real. So they are in that transition.

Your public transit system is in transition to winter hours. So please note that. But if you want to ride the bus for free, this is your week. Reminder on that, you have 2 more days.

Okay, is today the 8th? Oh, all right. I'm a day—. Also speaking of winter, I want to flag that at Fairview Rec this Saturday there is a Winter Fair. Health Department is partnering with a number of organizations to help residents look at different strategies to reduce their energy bills in the winter.

That's at Fairview Rec. And then lastly, I brought a special guest, Travis Morrison. Um, you might recall that Graham Downey has now gone over to the Permit Center, so we in the Mayor's Office, it is now filled by Travis Morrison, who will go similar to what Graham had, looking at taking some things off Nolan's plate. So his background, he formerly worked at Solid Waste Services and has worked on energy and sustainable sustainability issues. So he will be taking on the energy portfolio.

He'll be working with Parks and Rec. He'll work on food security, outdoor recreation. So probably some of you should— and that's it. That's all I got. Okay, thank you.

Questions for— and also welcome, Trevor, to see if there's any questions. I don't see— thanks for your report. Are you welcome to stick around, or I know there's always a lot going on, so thank you.

Okay, moving through. So chair report, frantically grab all you mentioned here. So I'll run through. There's just a few things I wanted to give up. So the first, just piggybacking on Suzanne's report, the AFN convention will be happening in a couple— also just note, so I'm really trying to not schedule anything on Thursday, the October 22nd.

That is kind of— I want to make sure folks have an opportunity to head over there if they would like to. But I will note that on Friday, October 23rd, we do have our second of our sessions. And so we know the parking lot is not going to be available. So I know—. I think Lead Services or Clerk will go up on kind of reminder for members.

And I think in the past we've done garage parking or— anyway, we'll figure it out. So just a heads up. Give yourself a little extra time to get there. But we will still have that meeting. Other brief schedule updates to— Budget work session, of course, the next one is in a couple weeks on the 16th and then the 23rd.

I'll note that I know we've had a lot of meetings, so thank you to everybody again for being— I think the alternative was pushing even more things to a future meeting, so we know that that can stack up, but thank you everybody for making time for that. I know it's hard to fit those things in at short notice. Certainly, actually, we have to. I'll also note that right now we don't have anything on the schedule, but I know there's a couple things to schedule work sessions for before November 4th, and so I'm looking tentatively at Wednesday, October 28th. So I'm just mentioning that, trying to stack those, of course.

And then also we have our Fiscal Future Summit on October 30th, so making sure that we're not scheduling over that. So just heads up for members on that for planning. And then I'll just note the meta update on committees, I guess, is that we have updated our committee schedule. It rolled out this month, and so thanks to everybody. So I know committees have been looking at their, descriptions, you know, new leadership settling in, and of course some new staffing of committees as well from the clerk's office.

So thanks, everybody, for that. I know it's been a transition. And of course, if there are issues in the future that we need to adjust with committees, then we can discuss them here. A couple other updates that I'll give. One is, and it's just going to be brief, but so we had an item on Tuesday regarding the hiring of the ombudsman.

So very briefly, it is my intention as chair to form a selection committee for the position of ombudsman. This is one unlike the clerk, the ombudsman has a set term in office, and it's a 4-year term that ends. So we are working through that process. I can provide more, I guess, update. We're a little behind because there's been so much going on, but just to let folks know, feel free to speak with me if you have more questions on that.

The last thing I'll just briefly mention, and I will ask the clerk to circulate this email Sorry, I'm again behind on my inbox. So there was something we did in meeting. This was, or doing a straw poll essentially. And so a follow-up to that that I got was that we were looking back in Robert's Rules and kind of the way that we do our motions. So I think maybe I'll turn to Jamie to describe this, or either Jamie or Jasmine, Jasmine's left, to describe a little further kind of, so there's not a way to go back and undo what we did, but just to say that this is actually not a procedure.

So I'll turn to Jamie maybe to explain a little. Sure. So you suspended the rules, which is fine. But as far as rules, what you were technically doing is those are not in order. As the straw polls are not in order, a motion to take an informal straw poll to test the waters is not in order during a meeting because it neither adopts nor rejects a measure and less dilatory.

If the body wishes to discuss and take without the vote constituting final action by the body, it may instead vote to go into a committee of the whole or quasi-whole. And then under those procedures, the Assembly can consider the matter and its vote while in committee would be a recommendation. And so you guys suspended the rules and that ended up working out just fine. But that's what Robert's Rules says on straw polls. Thanks.

And just to clarify, can you— quoting from Robert's Rules, or what were you quoting from just now? Robert's Rules. Thanks. Yeah. And I think— and just a note too, I know you mentioned the word dilatory.

I think the assumption here is not that the intention behind that particular item was dilatory, because I think we were— obviously it was a compromise on But just wanted to make sure that was in the record. I know sometimes it's— we have both Robert's Rules and then we have may not be codified, and so it can be complex. So just wanted to put that on the record as well. And I will ask— belatedly, I will ask the clerk to circulate that around to members for reference. Again, I'm— so I think that concludes my report for now.

Are there any questions? Additional comments from members on any of that?

Okay, not seeing any right now. Then next we will move on. Thank you. We are, I think, well on our way to the new committee reorganize— committee schedule after we just finished the October 6th meeting last night, and the team is presently getting your agenda ready for October 20th. And then, um, just give me a second.

I had it pulled up and then I had to find it. Um, so a few weeks ago we received a petition approved. They need over 18,000 signatures in the next 60 days for that one to be, um, approved. And then 5 more petition applications were filed yesterday. They are to discontinue fluoridation of water, personal property taxation, disallow the use of mRNA vaccines, require the use of halogen bulbs in muni vehicles, and require the use of halogen streetlight bulbs.

And so, legal team has that and they review the legality before we move forward with that. I've got a question. Yeah, Mr. Hindeland. The timing of all 5 of those submitted by the same individual. Okay, thank you.

Okay, any further report? Yep, that's it. I'm sorry, I had my microphone off when I said yes, it was the same individual, and that is the end of my report. Okay, thank you.

One question, can you clarify the— so it's for the one, the recall petition you mentioned, it's 18,000 signatures?

It's some number, I can't remember off the top of my head. It's like 25% of the last mayoral election.

Okay. And they have to turn it in within 60 days.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions?

Okay, sounds like there's incorrect information, so we might want to reach out to them. Okay, I don't see any further questions from members, so next Assembly Council, if you have a report. And I know I will also preface by saying, you know, we know you have been very, very busy, so thank you both, and for Brandy, for all of your work.

Hey, so we're trying to refine some of our systems and processes, then we wanted to share that with the group, specifically with requesting new projects. One, I would like to reiterate the established systems we have with Hive and emailing us. Reiterate this enough, if Brandy does not know about it, then no one knows about it. I don't care if you looked me and we had a very deep, meaningful conversation. If Brandy does not know it, I don't know it.

I won't speak for Dean. I don't know if it's that— yeah, we've got a lot of conflicting, a lot of stuff competing for our attention. So please, please, please CC Brandy on all communications with us. Additionally, we're going to start when we reach out to confirm receipt or when the assigned attorney reaches out to you to discuss a project, we are going to send you back a list of projects you have currently open with us and ask you to prioritize the new project based off what's already pending instead of us trying to guess or do what we think should be prioritized. We're going to ask y'all to do that.

Additionally, with getting things submitted, I know that the deadline for things in agenda and addendum is Thursday at noon, but that is the clerk's end. Our office has been horrendously abusive of the clerk's office on Thursdays. We have not made a deadline ever.

Yeah.

Jamie's making light of it right now, uh, cause a lot of, uh, stress in her office, um, for us to, to go past deadlines. So we're going to, um, Wednesday close of business be the deadline for projects that you're working with us for us to get the, the ominous dominus final guidance okay to submit, just so, um Thursday is not consumed with us trying to get things in late, last minute. Additionally, with work sessions and committees happening on Thursday, we anticipate not really having the time as we're starting to shift more of the bodies, informal and formal meetings, to Thursdays. Oh, and the last thing is late on the table items, floor amendments, things like that. Earlier is better, but most people don't know this, the printers that the municipality buys are sensitive intelligent machines, and the more urgent something is, the less likely they are to work.

It is a scientific fact, especially if it's a large thing that you would like distributed, particularly if it needs to be color, stuff like that we need to send to Reprographics, but even then we have sent large color things to Reprographics and all of their printers have shut down under the stress, so Again, the earlier we can get stuff, even if it's going to be laid on the table, like stuff can— we can know about it in advance and get it printed well in advance. You know what wants to happen. So any lead time you can give us would be appreciated. And unless Dean has anything to add. Thank you.

I think that's it. Questions for council?

Okay, not seeing any. Thanks for your report. I will just note briefly, yeah, I think one of the kind of aha moments for me as chair in this job now is how much I am basically part of the management structure. And so, and branch management, not in the sense of day-to-day supervision, but dealing with, you know, making sure everybody's workload is manageable and a number of other things. And And so just wanted to note that that is something that I'm sensitive to as well.

We do have in our budget, and the budget that was submitted includes full funding for a third attorney position. So that's been there. We have not successfully filled that after some attempts in 2025. I am seriously considering pursuing that and making sure that we have a full team. And also we know, of course, the pro and con of everybody being very active members is then it generates a lot of work for our staff.

So I'm not at all advocating that we don't do our work because we need to do it, but it is definitely something that we think about as membership and balancing those, as well as the fact that we have 3 people for 12 people's priorities. And so, at least 3 people. And on that subject, I would like to add that our summer intern, Zach Christie, has been approved to do an externship spring semester in our office, so he's going to be working full-time in our office after, in the new year. As an extern. So that should essentially, like, help, help with capacity.

Great. So we can double the number of ordinances that we do in this video. That was not moral. Yeah, just kidding. Um, but yeah, so, so that— anyway, just to note that that's things we're tracking for sure.

Um, uh, Daniel, I don't know if it's maybe the right time to bring this up, but I'm going to. Um, That sounded very ominous. This is not a big deal.

Okay, so, M-HOP, we got the full stack of amendments, like, as the meeting was starting. And so I'm just kind of wondering if we could just briefly touch on that. You know, I think sometimes there's a strategy where members don't want to preview something, and so maybe bring it last minute. And that is, you know, something that any member has the right to do and can be strategic depending on the situation. But that, I think, to me, because that night we got the S version and we got the stack of amendments, and then we were in our second public hearing.

And so I guess I'm just like trying to put this out to my colleagues and also the council.

I think to have that many amendments, to have a very complex S version come forward last minute, I mean, maybe folks are operating under the assumption that we would postpone. I don't know. I just— it would be nice if folks, if they want their amendments to be thoughtfully considered, to get them in sooner, just from my perspective, so I have the time to digest them, to read them, to understand what they do, and also to understand— with some of the amendments, if you're not careful in complex passages of code, can actually mess some stuff up. And so, you know, I— something— there's a couple where I would want to take to the Planning Department and be like, hey, is this going to break anything if we pass this? Are we going to have to change something else?

What, what is the impact of this? And so, yeah, I guess I just put that out there. Something to think about is the timing of your amendment. Sometimes the sooner you can get them distributed to your colleagues, the better. Thanks.

Thanks. Any other questions, comments? Okay, not seeing any. So that is our council report. Next, I'll turn to Legislative Services.

I know Claire is out of the office, so I'll turn I'm going to turn to Allie. Hello, everyone. Allie Hartman here representing the Legislative Services Office. Theme of the day, October is a busy month. We've got a lot going on, and we're full steam ahead supporting the Fiscal Future Summit on October 30th.

I'll emphasize that this is an initiative that was set forth by you all by resolution, and this event, we already have 65 folks signed up for it. We're expecting over 100 over the course the day at the UAA Student Union, and the intent of that convening is to engage the community in big picture conversations about the municipal budget, which as you all know is one of the three core tenets of your role as legislators and on the Anchorage Assembly. And so I would just underscore that for that all-day convening on October 30th, we'd really appreciate your full participation to the greatest extent that you are available to offer it. We're also in the midst of migrating to a new muni.org platform. We got trained on the platform at the end of September, and the go-live date is set as of today for October 29th.

Okay, so October 29th, new website. October 30th, Fiscal Future Summit. There's a lot going on, and then all the other things that we've got going on. So here in the next couple of weeks, we'll distribute a link for you to preview that that new website, explore it. It's pretty snazzy.

It's definitely an upgrade from the platform that we currently use. And alongside that, we know that we're going live with a good enough standard, right? A functional website that has the information that members of the public are looking for. And then in the months to come, we'll continue to iterate that website and make the best use of the new platform as we get to know it better and better. I know we've had several conversations about how information is displayed on the website, how you all are available through the website, and what folks are looking for there.

And so continue to look for your feedback and so that we can incorporate it into the design.

That's it for me. Thank you. Thank you. Questions from members?

I just have a brief one, and that is It probably isn't true for every page, but are we still using muni.org? Will the actual URLs change, or is it more that the design and kind of setup of the website is changing? Muni.org will still be our domain name. The link that you will have access to will not be muni.org. October 29th is when muni.org transfers from the current site to the new site, and thus the new site goes live.

I guess I mean more specifically, like for example, I provided— because I couldn't go last night, I provided a community council with a link to our assembly budget and tax access page. So things like that. I know we can't say every single page is going to be the same, but do we anticipate all of those might change?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. The clerk says yes. The clerk says yes. I do want to caveat that I think there's always a chance that things might break. And so there's kind of built into this a lot of team members from the administration, from the legislative branch, that will be paying attention to those changes and that you can flag those issues with so we can get them resolved.

Okay, thanks. Yeah, and let's just notice for folks, if you're linking to things in social media posts, e-newsletters, things like that, just to double-check, because I know I have some static links in my newsletter that may or may not still work. So things like that, just do another round, and that helps us with quality control as well. Okay, any other updates?

Any other updates? Okay. I'll note too, I know there's a number of things that the branch has been working on, for example, potential changes to our emailing process. We've got some— anyway, there's a number of things, so we will kind of get back to those as we have time. And, and so those will be kind of just got future discussions at this, this committee.

But just noting that there's some things we aren't talking about today, but they're still in process. Okay, next we have a report from ombudsman, so I'll turn to Darryl. Thank you, Anna. We're continuing to plug away in the ombudsman's office. Today we are going to record— on Ombudsday, we're going to be recording our 1,000th constituent contact for the year.

We're continuing to focus on professional development. Since June, Heather has registered for 5 trainings. Drew has been accepted into Leadership Anchorage 30, and recently Heather and I registered for a 2-day depolarizing conversations training with the Humanities Forum. Uh, we started developing our first ever strategic plan. I believe you all should have received an email.

I hope you can take a few minutes and, uh, Answer the questions online. It will help inform us as we develop the plan. Yesterday we were at the Permit Center to hand out 6 Above and Beyond Awards to Development Services Department, and it amazes me. I came back and I looked at our annual report for last year, and 66% of the awards that we handed out last year were to Development Services Department. It's something you wouldn't expect because they're code abatement, building safety, right-of-way, land use enforcement, permitting.

So I think it says a lot about their professionalism and the team that they have there. Uh, we recognize Scott Campbell, Bill Peterson, and Devin Reed, who were nominated by a resident of Fairview, uh, and it was regarding a problem property near where I live, uh, and she was just effusive in her praise of how professional they were and how they have really helped turn around that area with, with all of their hard work. And then Mike Radovan, uh, Kevin Hanson, and, uh, Darren Patrick were nominated by a couple of business owners, which, uh, contractors, and that was really impressive to me that these contractors took the time to recognize the professionalism and the level of assistance from these employees. And I was really impressed. Scott Campbell gave a report about code abatement and their recent efforts.

One of the things our office hears a lot about over the years is derelict, vacant, you know, boarded-up properties. They become a nexus for criminal activity. They become drug houses, fire hazards. Scott reported that two properties were torn down yesterday, but what really resonated with me, there is a notorious slum landlord in this town that I was familiar with his name when I was president of the Fairview Community Council 20 years ago, who rented properties that had open sewage, had mold so thick mushrooms were growing out of it, and people were living in those buildings. He owned over 2 dozen properties.

As of today, he owns one that he won't own for much longer, and this is because of the efforts of Code Abatement and Building Safety. So there's a lot of people in this town that will be living in a lot less because of their efforts.

Um, we will have a table at the Democracy Fair, the League of Women Voters Democracy Fair, on Saturday. October 17th from 11 to 3 at the LUSAC. And I don't know if LED Services or the Assembly or the Clerk or Elections, if you're going to have tables, but if you're not and you want us to distribute any materials, just let us know and we can hand them out. We interacted with literally hundreds of constituents last year. It's a well-attended event.

And tonight is our Ombuds Day event at the Wilder Marston Theatre. We're partnering with the state long-term care ombudsman and the State of Alaska Ombudsman. The doors open at 5:30, the program starts at 6:00. It should be fun and informative. It's something we want to start doing every year with the other ombuds offices in the state.

I hope you can make it. It should be a lot of fun. And that is it. Okay, questions for Daryl?

Okay, not seeing any. Yeah, and definitely encourage folks to participate in the democracy event. I remember going last year, it was very, very good. Got to see a lot of community folks and a lot of organizations. So thank you.

Um, okay, and thank you. And actually, Darryl, if I could ask you to stay up here, I mean, as I said, we're going to switch. We'll do the election stuff last on our agenda, but first, if you want to give an update on Eklutna Valley Community Council. Thank you.

As where the ombudsman jurisdiction over community councils, and the assembly though has limited jurisdiction because community councils are under Title V, which belongs to the legislative branch, to the assembly.

To be recognized as a community council and maintain recognition under 2.40, community councils must have a policy of open meetings and open membership and must implement 14 items in their bylaws. They must have those 14 items in their bylaws and they must implement them. A constituent contacted me recently concerned that Eklutna Valley Community Council may have not been meeting the requirements to maintain recognition because they have not been meeting regularly. So community councils are required to meet at least for a minimum of 4 times a year and at least 1 time per calendar quarter. Preliminary review, and it appears that Eklutna Valley Community Council has not met those requirements for the last 2 or 3 years.

I did not do a deep dive because the code says this is something that should come to the Rules Committee, which is now the Governance Committee, and the, the committee can look at it themselves, or they can assign somebody else, including the ombudsman, to look at it. So I just want to make you aware that it— there is— could potentially be an issue with the Coltona Valley Community Council not meeting the requirements of AMC 2.40 to maintain recognition.

Okay, thank you. Questions on this item, members?

Okay, not seeing any. And I know we've had multiple discussions about community council-related issues, possible code changes. So, so, well, I'll just say that I know there's interest in looking at that as a future project, so this may not fit into that. But Mr. Handeland. So I guess, would it be, I guess, appropriate now, I guess, within the committee to make a recommendation or for action, or to, I guess, ask you to look into this further?

I guess, what are you looking for from us?

It's up to the committee, per the code, whether they look at the concern or whether they ask somebody else to look at it. So I can't, on my own initiative, do a deep dive and look into it because we don't have jurisdiction over community councils, but the committee can ask the Ombudsman's Office to look at it. Yeah, and also respond to— I know there is a code provision, we don't need to look it up, it does refer to the Rules Committee, so that's a very minor— when we get to some other code changes, we can throw that one in. But yeah, I think, and it hasn't— this gets rarely used, if ever, and so there's not like a clear procedure for how we do that, but I think that this is the place to discuss that. So if members would like us to direct the ombudsman to do that, happy to do that.

Yeah, I mean, I guess, I mean, we usually don't do motions and stuff within the committee here, but I mean, I would just move to recommend that we look into that and direct the ombudsman to investigate and come back to us with a report. Okay, I'll just ask quick procedure to Jamie, do we need to make a formal motion? I guess I want to make sure that Since we don't keep like a record of this meeting in the same way, just want to make sure whatever we do is proper. Yeah, you— this is a committee, so you're totally welcome to make motions. We don't do minutes of meetings, but the record is the recording, and the recordings are retained for a period of time.

And so if anybody wants to hear the recording again later, that's the record. Okay, well, in that case then, also, so we have a motion from Mr. Handlin, or from Donald. Is there a second to that motion? Look into this from the ombudsman? I'll second.

Okay, second. Any objection to giving this direction to Darryl, the ombudsman?

Okay, not hearing any, then, um, yeah, please consider this the homework assignment, I suppose. I will, uh, do a deep dive and I will report back at the November meeting. Okay, thank you. And I'll note too, I know as we said, there is some, some possible look at code changes to the community council. So I think maybe looking at it from that lens as well, if there's something unclear or something where that's an improvement.

I know Sydney had expressed interest in that, and I think others as well. So thank you. Okay, so next item of business, this will be brief, a review committee purpose statement. This has been coming up in all our committees. Thanks again to Jamie for this recommendation to make sure it's on everybody's radar for the committees.

The—. Ours is on the very back of our agenda. We did update the name, so it says governance and not rules. Excuse me. So we do not need to wordsmith this, but as I'm reading this, I'll just note one of the things we did with this committee is to fold in more formally what used to be the functions committee.

So one verbal— I guess what I'm suggesting is if there's any recommendations, let's verbalize them here, and then I can work with staff and we'll just come back and share the updated one next month. So I would note, I would want to include reference to the Ethics in Elections code review, and then if there's any— and there's a couple other— I'm not sure that we've studied best practices for procedural methods for a long time, so I'm going to suggest we might make some changes there. But if there's other thoughts on this, I'm happy to entertain them now as you're reading through it.

I'm sorry, what was that? Oh, I was just— I was saying that I would welcome members to give feedback on what we'd want to change. We do not need to wordsmith it, but I flagged adding ethics Politics and Elections, rewording some of this best practices procedure stuff. Certainly that's a good idea. I don't know that we've ever done that.

And so if there's any other thoughts about changes, let me know. Or if you have thoughts after the meeting, just email Jamie directly.

Thoughts on that? Got it. Sorry, I thought somebody else said something. My only— I would just, if I can—.

Yes, please. —Reiterate here the procedural methods for handling a wide variety of matters. I think an example of that was The change to 2.30 with the who can speak after a motion is postponed indefinitely. I think that was something that came to this committee too, so not, not often, but that is, I think, an example. Okay, thank you.

That's a good flag. Donald. Thanks. Yeah, I mean, I, I like it. I mean, I think having a wide variety of matters and stuff is kind of keeps the rules as kind of a catch-all for Sorry, the Governance Committee as kind of a catch-all for, hey, if something doesn't fit into one of these nice baskets and stuff that we've already established, that it falls to us.

So making that, keeping that, or making it more clear, I think we should. Okay, any other thoughts from members? Checking text for phone. Um, okay, I don't see any now. So, so next steps on this, we'll make some tweaks, we'll bring it back next month.

We will not make it too complicated. And make sure that this reflects what we're doing. So, okay, next we have Assemblymember discussion on pending business. So I'll note this is one we have not had the chance to get back to for a few meetings, and I think Daniel spoke earlier kind of the value of sharing ideas early, socializing them even if they aren't fully formed ordinances or projects yet. So just wanting to make time for folks to do that briefly.

And then, as I said, then the last item of business will be events. So I'll start in the room with Mr. Johnson or with Jack if there's anything to share. Okay, nothing from him. Donald? Yeah, I mean, today is kind of my busy day with where we had the school board.

That's, that's one of the, the main things that I've been working on here, and then now the, the election stuff, which I had been working on with Sydney and then also with Jared on that. I have a couple other things that should be announced later on here, but that's about it. Daniel.

I think we're gonna be partnering with Anna on— we're just saying what we're working on right now, correct? Okay. So we're still— okay. On extending the timeline for the pause on residential design standards.

Also, we had a work session recently where we heard from some developers on what they perceived as some of the cost barriers or holdups to multifamily development. After that, Tyler Robinson, Sean Devinham, and Bill Taylor sent us sort of their wish list or their recommendations for things that could be done to tackle some of those things. One of them, Sean Devinham had asked for support for a petition to the Regulatory Commission of— on allowing there to be one central energy unit on a multifamily building rather than each unit having to have its own panel. And I've been aware of that issue. He actually brought that up with me, gosh, I think a couple of years ago, because that was a major cost factor that they ran into when they built the Block 96 Flats downtown.

So I have a resolution supporting that change. Um, see what else. Oh, I also have a resolution I'm working on with Council right now, asking them, the administration, to form a task force on permitting policies and procedures. I think that's something that we've heard from the building community. That some of those internal processes are really holding up projects.

And so I think it'd be great to get the administration folks, the development community, and assembly members all in a room together to sort some of that out. And can we make code changes, or are there policy changes that could be made?

So I think those are majority of what I'm working on right now.

Okay, next I'll go to the phone. I'll start with George. If you have any project updates or other items you want to share.

Oh, I'll come back. I know he was transitioning from being here in person. Next, Yarrow, do you have any items you want to share?

No, not at this time. Thanks. Okay, thanks. Sidney, I know Sidney's out of state, but—. No items, Chair.

Sorry. Oh, that's okay. Thank you. So no items for George. Sidney?

Yeah, new stuff on my list that I'm in. Research and stakeholder convening phase on are looking at energy efficiency in housing and commercial buildings. Daniel mentioned one project in that category and also looking at how we better get folks to use CPACE and then also exploring other places within the municipality where we could get energy savings in our own buildings. So longer-term projects getting started there thanks to our legislative support team. And then also doing some research on how we can better enable grocery stores and food access and some of the food deserts around the municipality.

So really grateful for Matthew's support on that. And again, but very open to partnership on those two if anybody else is interested. And also working on some potential code around holiday lights and prolonging the kind of relief that, or permit exemptions that we've had around holiday lights to better down activate parts of town, or better activate the urban core and enable small businesses to not have to do a bunch of applications to put holiday lights up. So working on that with Vice Chair Bull in front of y'all soon.

Okay, and Keith, any updates you want to share?

Yeah, thank you. Um, no large substantial updates, just, um, I know I publicly talked about introducing a charter amendment in regards to the surveillance, um, issue. I just wanted to let members know, like, that is something that, uh, while I'm exploring what mechanism I'm going to be using to bring that forward, it is something I intend to bring forward with enough time that members have to review it. This isn't going to be something that I'll be like springing on members. It should come out with plenty of time for review so everybody can see the wording and how it looks.

So just that update. Thank you. Thanks. And then if that's everybody who's here and on the phone, so I'll roll back to me very briefly. One is I forgot two other— I'm just going to use this for other chair update stuff that I forgot.

But things that hopefully are good news, one is that we are actively— I'm working with Jamie and IT to resolve our ongoing OnBase issues that I know is affecting members, the clerk, and everybody who has to be in our meetings. And so we are really working hard. I think we're closer to a solution. It will not cost a bunch of money as far as I am really making sure that we are getting that done as soon as possible in the chambers. So I know that will make everybody's lives a little easier, and I think we've narrowed down what the issue is.

Talk to Jamie if you're curious. I won't go into detail here. And also, one thing we had not really started, but I wanted to put this opportunity out there is, so we have, of course, we can have 3 members in a meeting outside of a public meeting. We have a chair and a vice chair. I want to make sure that folks have the, are invited.

If you would like to see a meeting cycle from the leadership perspective, we would certainly welcome that. So whether you are interested potentially in being chair or vice chair in the future, or even if you're not, this is not a commitment, but really kind of the other pieces that happen every couple weeks with meetings. The mayor's office, we meet internally, you know, and we're not there to discuss how we feel about things. We're talking about order, changing the order of the day, for example. We worked that out a few days in advance, and that's where those things happen.

So just wanted to say that's an open opportunity. Basically, if you would like to do that, then you would be committing to going to a meeting the Tuesday before our meeting, another meeting on Friday morning before the meeting, and then a morning meeting the day of. That's really our cycle. So, so just talk to me or talk to Jamie, and then we can certainly make that opportunity available. Again, it is not a commitment to doing further, but it's a way to kind of understand the other pieces that aren't really visible to most members in our process.

So that's just put out there. And then the last thing I'll just mention— Dan talked about the design standards pause extension. The other one to mention, we have two ordinances that were introduced. They're supposed to come back on October 20th. But I think we know that meeting is going to be busy, so I'm going to recommend we postpone those to December 1st, past the budget cycle.

And they have to do with some changes to the B-3 zone. And then I'm halfway through an email to request some time at the Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee in November to review those ordinances. We have some time. So just to mention that. I think that's the updates.

So with that, we are right before 2:00 PM, and so we are going to switch gears now and move back to what is technically unfinished business we didn't get to last time. And that is the review of the Title 28 ordinances. So I will note there are two of them. I'll just read the numbers really quick. One of them is AO-2026-129.

That is a proposal from Donald and Jared around requiring petition signatures for being on the ballot. We'll talk about that one. And then we also have AO-2026-131, an omnibus ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending and updating Anchorage Municipal Code Title 28 elections. That is sponsored by Donald and Jared.

Donald and Sydney. And then we also have, um, uh, Jamie will be speaking to these as well, I believe. Um, so, uh, I know we don't have a long presentation on these, uh, but we'll go through. I think we'll— so it looks like we'll start with 129, uh, the candidate petitions, and I'll turn over to Donald. And I'll note that on the screen there is a presentation.

Go ahead. Yes, uh, thanks, um, for this. Unfortunately, Jared was not able to attend. His, uh, son fell and is in the ER, so wishing him the best there with that. So yeah, I mean, we— a member had requested that we kind of split this original proposal kind of out, and so just to kind of keep things simple, we obliged with that.

And so I'll get into it. So if you go to the next slide.

So there's been some kind of discussion kind of going back and forth, we kind of heard from the community. And so just to try to keep things simple, originally the proposal was to have it 1% of the last race, whichever one you were running in. And so whether it was school board, mayor, assembly, this kind of complicated a little things because you would have some districts that had small numbers, some things. And so to just kind of keep things simple, also for the municipal clerk there was just to have it by district. For assembly seats, it would be 50 signatures.

For mayoral and the school board, if those are at-large, for 250. I know I've got another proposal for changing the school board thing, and so the way that this is written, it would apply so that it— the assembly— the— for the district seats. So if you wouldn't go next. There. And so this just kind of covers kind of what the numbers were for the earlier proposal.

It was a little bit too kind of extensive for this, but so kind of dialed those down a little bit and made it so that the original idea behind this proposal is not to have any kind of burden where we are limiting anyone and their ability to run, but just to establish kind of some minimum criteria there. For this. And I mean, as everyone in this room knows who has run for office, that these are— talking to 50 people running for assembly is a relatively small number for what you actually have to do if you're looking to, to win. So if you want to go to the next slide. So these are just some Alaska examples of what other cities and municipalities do.

And their corresponding population there. And so, if you look at this, I mean, an assembly district is smaller, or is larger than all of these in terms of just population that we would be representing. And so, it seems fairly consistent with what other municipalities across the state does for their kind of screening of candidates, just making sure that there is a kind of minimum threshold there. Next slide. And then here's examples of cities kind of throughout the United States, similar size to Anchorage, and just kind of looking at, hey, what do they do?

What is their barrier? And so we would actually kind of be on the— for mayoral there, kind of on the lower threshold of that. I mean, some of these municipalities where it was like, yeah, 5% of the city vote. I was actually surprised at how high some of these Got to. Next slide.

So yeah, this is kind of just the basic principles there. I mean, show basic level of support, having clear accounts. We really didn't want to have any kind of filing fee. Other municipalities have that. I was surprised at the number of filing fees that were even in Alaska that was required there.

And this also doesn't impact a write-in candidate. So I mean, this is just to get your name on the ballot. It doesn't preclude anyone really from running a campaign or their ability to serve in office. It is just for ballot access. That's—.

I'm happy to answer on this proposal. Okay, questions from members? Mr. Sorry, Zach. Yeah, how much work is it—.

Maybe this is a question for the clerk— to go through the signatures verification process. I mean, this doesn't seem like it'd be a whole lot of signature lists, but just want to get a sense.

I'm going to start out by saying I was the deputy clerk in the Hainesborough, which requires 10 signatures, and then I was the city clerk for the city of Kenai, which requires 25. So Anchorage is the first city that I worked in that does not require nomination petitions. And so I am used to having nomination petitions, and so it's new for the staff. I do not anticipate that it would be difficult to implement. We have, in addition to the core team of 3— well, 4 with me— we also have 6 election workers who are trained in signature verification.

And so if it became burdensome in the weeks of candidate filing, I could ask 1 or 2 to come in and spend a day or 2 helping us. And then, and I don't think that would be cost prohibitive. And then we also have moved, bumped the week, bumped it a week early. So it gives us, it's, it's still 2 weeks, it's just 1 week earlier in the year. So it gives us an extra week to reach out to the candidate if they need extras.

Yeah. That's helpful. Thank you.

Thanks. Other questions? Let me check my phone. Um, George, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. Just a question to the clerk on that subsequent— on that same point. Uh, how many legal challenges did you face with respect to people challenging the— not only the verification, the signatures, but then the legal challenges in the appeals process with your history of working with ballot access? In my previous two experiences, we did not have any legal challenges to the nomination petition process.

We always encouraged candidates to get more than was needed in case we had to disqualify one or more on their petitions, and so we would give you extra lines on the forms provided.

Okay, thank you. It's informative. And just to follow up, does the clerk have any familiarity with, with why some communities make the choice to not have ballots, or versus Yeah, if you've had experience with small spaces that have valid requirements, but do you have any experience with why folks choose to not, or why this municipality made the choice in the historical sense?

Um, I do not think that I know the why behind why a municipality chooses to do that. I believe it was in, uh, the City of Kenai's charter. And so they, when they went to being a home rule city, they started out that way. And it may have come from the Kenai Peninsula Borough. I'm looking at Donald, was Kenai Peninsula Borough is also, do they have to have a nomination petition?

That was actually one when I was looking up things like that, was not able to find clear information on that. But because I remember, yeah, you had some discussions on this. But yeah, I'm not sure on that one. They actually might not because I think they're a different class borough than home rule. I think home rule is where you can have the nomination petitions because you have a charter.

But anyway, I don't really know the reasons why that was selected. Yeah, thank you. And I wasn't particularly asking for that place, just other places. I have some familiarity with with both questions. And so I would just offer that I think in one of the things we heard recently, just to kind of couch this, was that I think we heard from the municipal attorney that the increase in the amount of legal documents that are from the world of, for example, access to AI tools has increased exponentially.

And so I just would offer that in cities that do have robust petition processes, they also have robust industry and robust industries and the need for the— because people get kicked off the ballot, so it becomes a legal journey as well. And especially when the community is quite contentious and there are contentious, uh, kind of responses. So I just would offer that it may not be as clean as a small space with 10 signatures necessarily, uh, challenges in terms of the— a number is required in a city that has a lot more diversity of political opinions, and that may impact the amount of resources required that may be underestimated. Thank you. Thanks.

And I think Dean wanted to also—.

Oh yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. So relevant to Mr. Martinez's question, we have a state statute that sort of speaks to it. Um, this statute goes into limitation on home rule municipalities, but it basically says the governing body should provide by order of the institution of elected officials by providing for a declaration of candidacy or for petition requiring the signatures of not more than 10 voters, or for both. Municipalities in Alaska can choose to do one or the other or both. And I guess the number— a number of them on the table that Mr. Handeland showed, showed a lot of them have 10, and those are the ones sort of bound by the limitation to have only 10, but the others can have more or Well, I would assume homu municipalities like us.

So, but I can't speak as to why municipalities make a choice between one or the other, but the state statute gives them that choice.

Okay, thank you. Next I have Daniel, myself, and Yarrow.

That the signatures have to come for the ones that are specific to a district. Oh, they must reside within the district. Yes. I'm reading the language now. Got it.

So if I'm— if I'm— they all— 50 of those have to be District 1 signatures. Yeah, you can't come out to Eagle River and get your signatures. Got it. Okay, that was my plan. I was going to hole up at Jitters and get my signatures.

Okay, thank you. Okay, next I have myself just a couple questions for Jamie. So can you— we talked about petitions. Can you remind us kind of what the types of petitions the clerk's office already deals with? Because I know I've seen election content, like those kinds of things.

Like, what are the things that you would be getting as petition items?

We also process initiative and referendum petitions, and so the application requires the signature of 10 qualified voters, initiators. So that in itself is sort of a petition that they have have all the same information as petition on them. And then if the application is approved, then they're to go out and get a certain number of signatures on a petition. It depends on the type of petition. And then the recall petition is the other one that we deal a lot with, and that one is more governed by state statute.

Application requires the signature of 10 qualified voters and 2 sponsors, and then they also have to get the— I don't remember what initiative and referendum is off the top of my head, but the mayoral is 25% signatures. So yes, we are— we have the potential to often look at petitions.

In the clerk, we have not received very many. Not many have made it to the point of us having to review the petitions themselves. We've gotten the applications, we've approved them, they've been approved for circulation, but then petitions— signatures on their petitions has been my experience since 2023. Thank you. And then other quick question is, so just reading in this, so as you state, I just want to make sure I understand.

So you stated there's still be a 2-week period to file I think this year it was, and I'm, because I was on the ballot, I think it was January 16th through and to the 30th, something like that. The dates don't matter so much, but just to check. So what you're saying is it would be that 2-week period, but in this scenario it would be, I guess, January 9th to the 23rd instead of the 16th to the 30th? Yeah, I jokingly deemed it, this microphone isn't working, is it? No, it's pretty scratchy, yeah.

Um, I deemed it Magical Friday, and it lines up second public hearing for the bond propositions. And so it's, it's the Friday after the first, it's the 16th, and then it's 2 weeks. And so then you guys approve the bond propositions on Tuesday, and then Friday is the last day for candidate filing. And then, um, 3 days, they have 72 hours to withdraw if they want to withdraw, or 3 days to withdraw. And so by moving it forward a week, the deadline then would be the Friday, the magical Friday.

That's the Friday after you guys approve your bond propositions, and that would be the date that the ballot content would be finalized. Okay, thank you. Yeah, and I'll just note, I know practically speaking there's two— when you're a candidate, obviously there's two pieces. There's the clerk getting on the ballot, and then there's the filing, which usually happens much earlier, that has nothing to do with what the clerk does, but at least in my experience, candidates who have decided to run have filed sometime in the calendar for our April election. So, okay, next I have Yarrow in the queue and then Donald.

Sorry, Donald, were you in response to my question? Okay, okay, thank you. Go ahead, Yarrow.

Yeah, um, On your proposal, what kind of personal information needs to be gathered by the petition gatherer?

And then how does that compare with personal information that needs to be gathered by petition gatherers in other instances? And what happens to that personal information? To the clerk. Yeah, I mean, I'll defer to Jamie on that. I'm assuming it's the same as all the other petitions.

We didn't specify, I guess, proposal here, any differences than, I guess, what the normal process is. Yeah, so to verify a voter, we need— we typically require two identifiers, and so we would— they would be providing their their name, their address, their birth date, and then one other identifier. They can choose the last 4 of their Social Security number or their driver's license number or their full Social Security number, and then they have to sign it. And that is the same across the board with all petitions. And then state law requires that that information be confidential, and so once the petition is submitted to my office We are required to redact that if we ever got a public records request for that.

And so, um, petition— the petition signature gatherer collects that information, that's— and that's like verified.

Yes, the signature correct. Yes, the sponsors of the petition are gathering that information.

And then yes, it is the same information and it is used to verify residents' voter status. Okay, thank you.

Thanks. Next, I have Donald and then George. Yeah, so I just, uh, one other comment that I had missed there. So, uh, kind of coincidentally with the numbers that, that were selected, it was around 1 in 1,000, the numbers of the population that just was kind of happy happenstance on that. The other thing that talking with Jamie was having these early out to candidates so that their ability— and part of the thing of the signatures was, was as a candidate is doing normal kind of campaign activities, either fundraising, door knocking, anything where you're already interacting with voters, that this could be something that is kind of being accompanied with that so as not to create any kind of burden.

So yeah, if you're hosting a fundraiser or something like, yeah, getting 50 signatures or starting that process should be fairly simple.

Okay, thanks. Next, George.

Thank you, Chair. Just to make sure, maybe I missed it, But was there a problem that folks were trying to solve with this that was identified in the statement, the sponsor statement, or etc.? I'm just listening for that. What was the problem that was communicated that folks are trying to identify or rectify with this?

So, I mean, it wasn't, I guess, a particular like, hey, we're looking at an election and being like, oh, hey, this candidate shouldn't be on the ballot. I don't really view of trying to have stuff like that, and this isn't a reactionary policy in that sense. I mean, in previous elections, I know for mayor, we've had a number of candidates, and I don't want to get into the thing of validity because anyone can end up winning there, but I mean, having it where you could see candidates who essentially file and that is the extent of the campaign that they run, and just trying to establish a minimum level of support there for, for the ballot access for assembly school— have any kind of primary system. And so the people that go and file there, essentially with their single signatures kind of verifying they are on the, the final ballot there for these races that are larger than Senate, for state Senate, state House races. And so just kind of having that minimum threshold was kind of the thing, but it wasn't, I guess, in reaction to any particular candidate or anything like that.

But potential problem of— I mean, you could see in a mayoral election, 50 people going sign up. And talking to Jamie, if you ended up— we did get it, getting enough, hey, potentially having that bump to another and some of that stuff. Stuff, kind of preventing a potential future problem as well.

Okay, thank you. Just to clarify, there's not an immediate problem that folks are seeking to address is what I understood there to be the answer, but I also wanted to just flag that it also just seems that there are, and I'd be curious to understand the range of the assumptions behind candidacies in the first place. It just seems like there's a range of assumptions that I would be curious to kind of maybe having that even described as all the reasons that people run for office, and then kind of attaching value to that might be interesting. But I just would flag that as something that strikes me as curious, the assumptions why folks run for office and kind of an assumption I think is curious.

And then I potentially would flag that I just, again, from some degree of experience, some communities, from my understanding, have advanced, who previously did have, I mean, requirements for candidates, they worked against those, they worked backwards from them because of access and opportunity and some of the problems that come with gatekeeping. I think this is part of the term that might be out there. But thank you for the conversation, everybody.

Thanks. Next I have Sydney.

Thanks. I wanted to share my perspective too, as someone who was in some of the early conversations about this proposal with Donald and Jamie. And I was intrigued by this because I think it could be a proactive policy to really strengthen our democracy. They're hearing from voters, getting feedback, and using that to shape their campaigns and eventually their time in office. So, yeah, I think it's an interesting concept, and there's a— I'm interested in any ways that we can strengthen democracy and build public trust and really not just say that we're listening, but actually be doing that in practice throughout the campaign time in office.

So appreciate this proposal being put forward and what I learned in the conversations about it.

Okay, thanks. I have myself back in the queue just briefly, and this is also, I think, a transition because we'll move into the other ordinance shortly. To ask, and I forgot to say this earlier, so, so it is common for us, the Assembly, to take up regular review and updates of our elections code. We certainly do that well before before the actual elections, because the goal is to have those changes in place. And we really do rely heavily on our clerk staff and the expertise they have as far as best practices and also our Election Commission.

So that's all lead-in. And so that's— and I was actually, I did request splitting these out because I think it is worth, certainly worth having the conversation. And also, you know, a lot of the other changes that were being put forward are kind of more routine, although certainly we'll get into those shortly. So I appreciate the sponsor's willingness to separate those. But my question for Jamie then is, because I know that they brought to the Election Commission, which included this and the other changes, did the— I guess, where's the Election Commission at?

I know they met. I don't know if they've made recommendations to us or if they had thoughts about this. Would be curious where they are at this point. I think they had some thoughts and ideas for the sponsors of the other ones They didn't have any comments on the rest of it except for Section 9, which is now 8 on, on this ordinance.

Their comment was that they didn't appreciate some sentences being there, and so they got removed into this, in this version. And so they met on them, they did not make a formal recommendation, they encouraged different. And then they were invited to this meeting. I'm pretty sure one or two of them, and I'll work with the chair and see if they want to get back together again and make formal recommendations before the 4th. But yes, they did consider all of these concepts.

Thanks. Yeah, and partly I bring that up just to note for members to remember that we have been— a lot of the phone calls during the elections, and we certainly don't interact with them. I mean, certainly not if you're on the ballot, but even if you're not, So, you know, they're going through the election adjudication process, but the other piece of their work is really advisory on code changes and process. So just wanted to make note of that as well. Okay, I don't have anyone further in the queue, so I'll check one more time.

Donald, do you have anything further on this one? No, I just want to, I guess, kind of thank the clerk for her help on all of this, and then Sydney as well, and then Jerry. Here at the end. For this proposal, and yeah, I mean, they were very helpful, and I think from my takeaway, put not opposed to the idea. They were actually— it was just kind of more tweaks on the numbers.

That was most of the discussion. Thanks. Yeah, and I think that'll be up to the Commission if they want to make a formal recommendation, but they are out there and available. So next, let's switch gears to the other ordinance. So that is AO-2027.

131, The omnibus ordinance updating election— Municipal Election Code Title 28. And then I will note that we do have a crosswalk here as well. So I'm going to turn to Jamie on this one, and, and I'll ask maybe to talk just generally about our annual code updates, because I think we did here as well. No, we didn't have one last year, so this is the first time some folks might have seen this type of thing, and then go into the specific. Sure, thank you.

So yeah, we I believe since— well, I know for sure that since the municipality moved to at-home, there have needed to be some probably significant and then as of late less significant changes to perfect the system as we've learned. And so annually there have been edits, some of them more substantive than others. And said that they— I asked them if they would also sponsor the stuff we had already identified as going in that. So I thank them for that sponsorship. And then I'm bringing back the crosswalk so that we're not— we don't have to do a presentation document.

So on page 1 is Section 28-20040, Notice of Elections. Reduce the requirement of 2 public notices to be published in newspaper 1, and it gives the clerk the discretion for a second. So election notices are currently required, and they're required to include a lot of information such as date, location of vote centers, candidates, subjects of propositions, bonded indebtedness information, voter qualifications, and precinct boundary, boundary information. The— these are two full-page ads in the newspaper, and so newspaper is $7,500, and so this ad is $15,000. And so I would— the reason we are asking to reduce to one is $2,000 and be redirected to savings or redirected to earlier outreach.

The information, while obviously the candidate and proposition and vote center location information is still relevant, much of the second vote notice in the newspaper is written in past tense. The deadline for voting, for registering, for requesting temporary was 10 days ago. The deadline for— so, and I don't really know that because we're vote at home, I don't know that the public cares much in While I know the campaigns are very interested in the precinct information, I don't know that the voters really are asking for information. So, is the reason for that ask.

If you guys have questions along the way, I think you can interrupt and ask. Yeah, I'll just keep an eye on the key. Okay. Section 2 is on page 830040, Review and Challenge of Candidates. Someone challenging any person to being any resident of the municipality.

So last year there were two Ken period, and this year actually, and while both of those challengers were a reality, we recognized that the language in code and that could mean any, anybody in the state or anybody in the country. And so this change would first have standing and be a resident of the municipality.

Section 3, it's 2850.220. Video viewing of election processes at the designated return location. This changes the date that we turn off the livestream. In 2024, we changed the time for submitting an election contest. It was changed from being— they had 10 days to submit that until noon on the day of certification.

And this section was missed in those edits. And so now you're watching nothing happen at the election center for an extra 9 days. And so we're just asking that it be shut off, um, when once the election is certified. Does leave in that if there was a recount demanded, then we would turn it back on.

Um, Section 4 is on page 4, 20, and privileges of— it changes the required appointment of an election observer liaison from shall to may. Um, and so the provision 22, when we was watching the process the last 3 years the liaison— the liaisons were on call, and then we rarely, if ever, even called them in. In 2026, I assigned this to a core team member, and they never had any responsibilities for this role. And so the core team is always there and able to answer questions of the public, and that is also part of the responsibility of the election administrator. And so without a lot of observers in this space, we don't have the need for having a whole extra person there.

A question from Zach. Probably trying to fix and rebuild this rule when there's no need. Potential scenario where it felt like we had a lot of observers and the clerk may in that circumstance choose not to appoint a liaison. And I mean, I understand as a judgment call maybe you wouldn't do that, but I'm just wondering, is there a scenario where we have observers and they're not able to liaise in the way that they should because use this discretion not to make someone available to them? I think that— well, he's there to answer the questions, and so if the court— they'll be getting the questions and best interests to hire— appoint a liaison, also take care of their regular responsibilities.

Okay, so regardless, for the observers, they would be with them as necessary. Okay. Okay, thanks.

Please continue. Also on page 4, Section 5 of the ordinance, 030, the ballot standards regular, um, this provides that a voter could update their signature on a form filed with the clerk. Rejecting ballots for no sig match, one of the most hated. We find a way that they don't have to reject as many ballots. Um, so currently under the code, we're required to get the voter information from the Division of Elections.

The state collects those signatures from various, um, forms such as the voter registration forms, um, other election records, and the DMV. And then they provide us with those updated signatures every year. And so this this proposed provision would allow voters to directly with this. An example would be after an injury, we have broke their hand, or they had surgery on their arm, or a 16-year-old put a heart on their eye anymore when they sign their name, and that's how they did it from the DMV when they got their driver's license. And so it would just allow them to come in and say, this is my signature.

Broken, and that to avoid a void process and potentially having their ballot rejected if they— notification— Protect Against Fraud voters would be required to verify by providing identification or multiple identifying pieces of information similar to the existing CURE process. Thank you. I do have a question on that just in general. So you mentioned, uh, this mass signature is one of the haters most hated things. Is it also the most common reason, or what is it, where is most common deletes are rejected?

And marked after Election Day are the two most highest numbers of rejected. And I know our most recent election report had really good data on that, specific numbers, but I know it's documented in there. So folks do want to go back and look, it's in each of those elections. Other question is, who made the decision on let's say there's a ballot and then it's a scribble and it's clearly not whatever the signature is, like, who's actually deciding whether that ballot counts or not? It is— the system is designed that two election workers trained in signature verification make the decision.

This ballot is scanned. Let me start over. The envelope is sorted and we take a picture of the signature as it crosses. And there is a team, and the worker is assigned a batch. They review that batch, they make decisions.

It goes to a second worker who is making the determination if they agree that yes, it's a match, or no, it's not a match. Any not— any no-sig matches are outsorted. And then there's a review and resolution team. We've empowered them to then go in and look to see if they agree. And so then, because they work in teams of 2, so they're looking at the 5 signatures that they have from our database or registration from the state's database to see if there's any additional signatures there.

And if they agree that it's a match— not a match, then they send the voter. And then occasionally we will, the court team, will triple-check and make sure with, with the team. Okay, thank you. Yes, there's multiple points of review. And then my last question on this is, I think this is an interesting idea and I can see the value in it as it says, you know, someone's signature can change, whatever that is, and otherwise we inherit.

If this system is in place, let's say I've updated my signature with the clerk's office, is there a way, a way formally that we would send that information to the state? Like, would it be a two-way? And I don't know if that's even— we recommend you also update with the state separately. So, uh, change your, uh, your signature with us. We scan it in, put it in our database, and then you vote and you use that signature.

The signature on your ballot is what goes back to the state. So that's essentially going to be the match. Okay. So that actually seems like it would improve the feedback loop then. Correct.

And I also wanted to go back to your earlier question and say that we have a vault where we keep the signatures on file and we prioritize maintaining current signatures but also our own, because they're wet signatures. People just don't sign the same on electronic pads. That's just something that we've noticed over the years, and, and since we've implemented the database, the number of signature— no signature matches has decreased.

Certainly want people to be able to vote, and I'm Hearing the voice of Barbara Jones, our former clerk. Use your grocery store picture because I know we all get in that habit. Okay, I don't see anyone in the queue right now, so let's continue.

The next one, 6 and 7, sort of their companion addition and certification. This provides that the certification of any recount— certification of any recounts conducted before the election certification are certified before taking the oath and electing the chair and vice chair. So in 2020, the code was amended to recount within 7 days of certification instead of certification. And so our recount in '25— '25, '26, '26, um, I've messed that up like 6 times today. Um, we did it before the election commission, um, reviewed everything, and you had 2 AMs sitting in front of you to be there was the question brought up, well, then swear everybody in.

And then where does that leave Janice, the one who had the recount chair and vice chair? So to solve that this year, we approved both AMs at the same time. But this sort of puts it in the law. Approve AM 1 and then you're going to approve AM 2, you're going to go through the oath of office stuff. Just ensure that.

Okay, thank you. Question. Let's continue. The last one is page 5. No, it's not the last one.

It's 28-120-060. It's on page 5. It's the Election Commission, and it adds the commission follows the ballot return envelope review standards. So ordering us to count, follow our law. It just closes a loop there.

And then the last one, Section 9, which is 220-020.

The term membership and qualifications of members. When you work with Dean long enough, you're going to get an email that says, I found this obscure section of law that we haven't considered in a while. And so he found one of those and it says in state law that we're supposed to be certifying on the first Monday following, or we're supposed to be taking oaths on the first certification immediately after certification. Certification, our practice. And so just make sure everything is copacetic.

We are adding this to the law that that is our practice that we do after certification. Okay, thank you. Additional members? Ruth Erbue? Yeah, I will share one brief anecdote, which was it is— certify the election, and as previous members have said, it's the last vote a member ever takes.

You know, you vote, you vote yourself out of office. Office, essentially, or you vote at the end of the term. And then I reflected, I think it was '28, there was a very tiny office, and I thought I could just walk out of this room right now, but I did not. So there is this really interesting little liminal space of a few minutes when you are not sworn in and until you get sworn in again for those who end up serving a second term. I also see we were joined— and Jamie, go ahead.

I do think Eva has some things to say. And also I wanted to point out that I was a pain in the rear this morning and noticed that when I was doing this crosswalk that there's Section 9 is Title 2, not Title 28. And so we're going to change the title, which means another version is going to be introduced on the 20th. Probably part of what you don't— gotta love ordinance time. But I am glad there were a few things on my list that I did with the clerk in time to make this last year one puzzle through some of these, you know, certification timing and protest timing that appear to just be artifacts from the way things maybe were at some point prior to several rounds of updates ago.

So just a few housekeeping cleanup changes, no dramatic policy changes coming, but I'll put them in the Ask version.

Okay. Okay. Donald in the queue. Yeah, and I just want to point out, I mean, just how our system is set up because this was something me and Sydney started talking about, like, hey, we just got wind of what kind of reforms and stuff. And it's just the way the municipality is, it's you're either here or looking for one and trying to have it so that it wasn't looking reactionary towards, or so new candidates had plenty of time and stuff with any changes and stuff.

And so appreciate Jamie and all her help. Yeah, and also I would just say that, you know, as Christopher Constant was leaving, he was always trying to round somebody up to be elections, the elections champion. And so when Donald and Sydney came to me, I was excited to. And I just want to put in a plug about counting season. It is amazing.

So I went, we thought we might get a challenge last year, and so I was like, okay, we went and spent some time there. We took 3 lawyers, 2 or 3 of us, and we just kind of walked through and got a detailed tour, and that's pretty cool and does stuff in the way that we do things. Okay, thank you. Well, I personally will commit here on the record to go and do that. I do not anticipate being on the ballot for any reason at all, so I will not be self-interested there.

So yeah, and thank you so much for that. The other thing I'll just briefly mention on the subject of elections, first, thank you, Jamie, for pointing out, I think, core responsibilities. It doesn't mean that all 12 of us need to become the election experts. We certainly have election experts already. But it is very helpful when members pick that we work in.

So, um, gratitude for folks' interest in that. The other thing I'll just briefly note is we are working on our legislative program. That is a topic for a separate committee, but one of our legislative priorities that usually is carried by our branch because it's something that we manage is, um, is, uh, elections reform at the state level. And so, uh, just to note, there was a— for it did not pass the no, and where that is something that not only our members have been involved in, but also our clerk staff, not in a lobbying capacity, but to say there's some things that we have found in Anchorage that work really well that we've recommended. I think ballot curing is one of those areas that we've brought changes to, and then of course we're always on defense to make sure those doesn't negatively impact our elections because there's change, sometimes changes to local elections too.

So, so also just a note for folks interested in elections going into the next session, I expect there will there will continue to be discussions about that, and we do not weigh in on things like distributions, APOC, things of our purview, but for the election process, that's certainly something that we watch closely and communicate with. I know other clerks around the state, other entities that are watching elections. So, Jamie, you had another thing to say. Sorry, I had thought of two things while Anna was talking. Yes, there is a— I believe it's going to carry forward on the legislative committee.

It's been so long since we've been talking about this, I kind of forgot it was still there. In 2022, the Election Commission heard from the Division of Elections regarding voters and their main— the voter registration database and how long voters stay on the voter registration database. I understand there's federal requires how long they have to stay active and inactive. And before they can, I think that in Senate Bill 64, there was language that reduced it. I think that there's currently language that has to be sent by mail.

And so how is the person ever going to find out that they're still a registered voter in Alaska if it's non-votable? And so I think that was one of the recommendations, to shorten the time frame at all if possible. I think it's 4 years that they haven't voted in 4 years, then they sit on for 4 4 more years, and I think that the— they consider general election years, and I think that it could be 3 years because in the space of 3 years you're going to have 2 general elections, and that's still 4 elections being primary, city, primary, general. And then to the tours of the Election Center, yes, nobody will in theory be on the ballot this year, and so feel free to come down to the election center and take a tour and watch the processing. But even if you are, you can come as an observer, right?

Even if you're a candidate.

Okay, yeah, yeah, thank you. So, uh, yeah, just a preview on legislative issues again, if you're interested, um, to speak to that, but that if we have fewer ballots of people who don't live here anymore, that is a cost savings, and then is also an election security 'Cause we hear hypothetical extra ballots that may be turned in by people. That is what happens, but of course, having extra ballots go in mailboxes where they weren't supposed to be is not good. So, okay, with all of that, thank you so much for the overview. Again, those two ordinances will be back on our November 4th agenda for public hearing, and then we may hear from meantime.

So we are down to got through our business. So we will go to audience if there's anyone to participate. Yes, as expected, there is. And so, Okay, and then we'll get the timer pulled up.

Okay, please go ahead when you're ready. All right, so Jamie Lopez, formerly homeless. So the impromptu comedy routine, uh, today might be a failure on me, uh, going on the fly. So, uh, absent-mindedness of, uh, researching into how to protect the public, obviously, I uncovered a treasure trove of code violations, and then my therapist, Serson, decided to act upon them. And so the client— again, more comedy for the masses.

But what I will say is there are still violations of 3.102.040. and I've sort of made light of those things with the order. And when you look at AO-2023-35-S1, and specifically pertaining to if you obtain that is derived from, no matter if it's coming from somebody within the muni or somebody outside of the muni, it's sort of a filter, and somebody else is doing the dirty work, and you receive the, and, and, you know, or, and, you know, the other thing, it's called parallel construction. And this was done decades ago with warrantless warrants. So any of that stuff is supposed to go into that annual surveillance report. And I did notice on the assembly agenda, they didn't even name it as an annual surveillance.

They said AMC 3.1020.40 because messaging.

Let's see, looking at 2026-129. Declaration candidacy, one of the things I just looked at this and sort of an epiphany is item number 2, the full residence and mailing address of the candidate. I mean, if you're homeless, what is your mailing address? Just Postal Service, but what's your full residence? It sort of just looks a little bit like it's not always an equal playing field for some people.

And then to get to the last, so obviously the Mayor's Charity Ball is this Saturday apparently, and you know, there are tables which are $10,000, $500, here the ticket price was $300. And so this is not charity when you set a price floor at $300, that is not inclusive, that is exclusive. And it sort of— boss about recent Nuka Learning Center thing because when you want to open it up to everybody, and you invite everyone, do not set a price for. So, all right, thank you very much. We see you at the next one.

Thank you for participating. So that concludes our agenda today. I will note just for the record that there is an event called the CAN that is not a municipal event, that is privately organized. But, and then, so this is our last meeting of the day and the week. Blissfully, we have a no-meeting Friday tomorrow.

We know we've had a long week, and then there's a holiday on Monday, at least for staff. So I will just note, have a good weekend, everyone. Adjourned. Thank you.