Alaska Legislature: Special Coverage - September 14, 2026 9:00am

I'm going to call the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics full committee meeting to order. The time is 9 o'clock. Today's date, September 14th, 2026. I want to thank everybody for making themselves available for the meeting. I know this is not the best of times actually to be having these meetings, and I know people struggled with the calendar, and it was greatly appreciated.

Hopefully there won't be a need for another one for a while as we get through the campaign season and then the start of the session. So thank you all for making yourselves available. So the meeting is called to order. Kevin, if you would call roll, I'd appreciate it. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Senator Stevens, we see you there on Teams. I'm here.

Representative McCabe. Here. Representative Galvin. Here. Corl White.

Here. Deb Fancher. Here. Skip Cook, we see you on Teams. I'm here.

Can you hear me? We have you loud and clear. Joyce Anderson. Here. Mr.

Chair, we knew that Senator Yunt and Senator Cronk were not available. Mr. Chair. I'm here. Mr.

Chair, we have a quorum. Okay. Thank you so much. The next item on here is approval of the minutes. However, maybe unless there is some objection before we get to that, I might move to public comment and then we will move into approval of minutes.

Did you want to approve the agenda, Mr. Chair? I am sorry. The question, as Kevin raised, is we should have a motion to approve the agenda. So my— in my haste, I overlooked that.

Is there a motion to approve the agenda? Any objection? Hearing none, agenda is approved. As I indicated, I would like to move on to public comment and then we will come back to approval of the minutes. I don't see anybody in the room for public comment.

Is there anybody on the teleconference? Mr. Chair, we have no one online. Okay. With that, without objection, I would close public comment.

The next item that we're moving on to is approval of the minutes. The first item is full committee meeting for January 26th, 2026, and it's under 3A. Mr. Chair? Yes.

I believe you meant to say June 26th and not June. I'm sorry, June. You're right. June 26th, 2026. Mr.

Chair, this is Joyce Anderson. If I could comment, please. I know the minutes are abbreviated, but, um, I feel it is important and I wanted to bring these items up. I feel it is important when a motion is made that we have who made the motion, seconded, and the vote if it's required, or a roll call vote. I know there were quite a few motions in here and it didn't say who made the motion.

I think it's important to put that in there for anyone to read down the road instead of having to listen to the minutes. The minutes were abbreviated. I think that's probably good. I noticed that the adjourn time was not put down on these minutes. We need to do that as well, again, by the motion.

I also think that on page 4, item 8G, I feel that the information was too vague and it said staff to reach agreement with APOC, but I think we really need to put in there what the agreement was. So we have it on record. I think that was too vague. Also, if you would like to look on page 6, under 8L, it says that I stated that I would not seek another term. It was not me, it was Skip Cook.

So that needs to be changed as well. So I would suggest that we not approve the minutes, Mr. Chair, and that we have these corrections made and be brought up again because And I'm going to throw this out for discussion because I feel it's important that we do say who made the motion, especially if there's a roll call vote. And again, they're abbreviated, which is fine. It doesn't say who said what.

But I do think that, like I said on that 1A-G, I think if it just says that there was an agreement, we need to know what that agreement was. So those are my comments. So I would state that I know we haven't gone to the House Subcommittee minutes, but I would again state that, you know, that we do the same thing for those. So I would say that we do not approve the minutes today and wait for an update. We can let people weigh in on that.

One thing I would notice on the very first paragraph, it does reference this as being the House Subcommittee meeting. I don't think that's accurate, actually. I think it was the full— Full Committee as opposed to the House Subcommittee. Thank you. Mr.

Chair, if I may. My apologies for that. We did correct, but we got the wrong version of the minutes in here, particularly noting on page 6 that it was— should have been skipped, that it indicated he would not seek another term. With the rapid nature of assembling the packet, That was my failing for not doing a second review.

And what about the first paragraph? Did you catch that on the other one too? I did not catch that one.

Any other comments? Any reason we can't just change it now? I mean, do you want to go back for a full rewrite and then bring it up at the next meeting, or do we— I just want to change these few things right now. We could just amend, do a line, line out House Subcommittee, for instance, and it would just be called the meeting together. I mean, we could do all those via an amendment if you wanted.

Representative McCabe, I—. Although the APOC thing might be a little bit bigger. Right. And then also who made the motion because we don't know. So I guess my feeling is that we should wait.

Fair point.

Anybody else? Any objection to tabling this till the next meeting? Hearing none, then we'll move on to the House Subcommittee meeting, which is also June 26th, 2026. And it sounds like Joyce had the same suggestion. Any comments with respect to that?

Although that's much more truncated than the full committee meeting with much less activity. So I guess, Joyce, what would you say with respect to that one that needs to be—. Mr. Chair, I would say the same thing. There's a couple motions in here, motion to go into executive session, motion to return, and then we needed a motion really to adjourn.

So I think that we need to update this one as well. Any comments? Any objections to that method of proceeding, tabling this one also until the next meeting? Hearing none, the two minutes that we've just discussed, both the full House and the House Subcommittee meeting of June 26, 2026, are hereby tabled until next meeting to address the issues that we just talked about, which would include identifying the motion maker, and then there were a couple of other modifications that it sounds like have been— will be addressed by Kevin. So the next item concerns our House Bill 298, which is the legislative ethics bill, and an update.

You have some information in your packet. With respect to that. Of course, Joyce has done a lot of work on that. She's the one that also caught what appears to be a typographical error in a portion of the bill that passed. And so the real question is how to address that.

So with that, I'll let Joyce address the legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So House Bill 289 was engrossed on June 22nd without the governor's signature and became effective on June 24th. And I was going through the committee rules of procedure because we need to change that based on the new language.

And when I got to— and on the back page you'll see that it's Section 15 of the bill. When I got to that section of the bill and I read it and I'm going, hmm, this doesn't make sense. So basically what this section says is that the subject can request a meeting with the committee. And so if you go to line 13 of the bill, It will say the committee shall meet with the complainant within 10 days. Basically, the committee shall meet with the subject of the complaint within 10 days, not the complainant.

So, I— well, let me just say I know Dan Wayne had retired; however, I did have his phone number and he's the one that worked on the bill with me and I've worked with him over many, many, many years so I felt comfortable calling him. I did talk to Dan Wayne. Dan Wayne was in complete agreement that this was the wrong word.

It should have been the subject of the complaint. And so his suggestion was to go with, you know, stating that we're going to get a hold of Ledge Legal and let them know that there is, there is a, you know, a word error here. And there is a reviser's bill. I'm sure the two legislators and Senator Stevens knows that there's a reviser's bill. That's the beginning of each legislative session where the reviser goes in and says, you know, these are, these are Technical.

Thank you. Thank you. I was going to say blatant, but technical, technical errors in the bill, and that would be the best route to take. And so it's being brought up before the committee to state that the committee is in agreement with this error. And then we would send something to the Revisor of Statutes stating that it has been reviewed and, and the reasons why, and then recommending that it go in the reviser's bill because there's really no reason for it to go before committee in the House and the Senate and then go before the full floor, you know, both the Senate and the House.

That's just not what's really done. So basically that's why this is here. The recommendation is to make a motion to agree with the analysis that the word complainant on page 11, line 13 should be changed to subject of the complaint and then have a roll call vote taken. So if there's any questions, I can certainly answer them, but like I said, I did have a conversation with Dan Wayne, who actually wrote the legislation, and he was really surprised that that was in there. So, but he was in complete agreement that it was a technical error.

And I'm happy to make a motion if one is called for. I think we do need a motion. Okay. So I will make a motion that we ask for the reviser's bill to cover line 13, section 15 And that it be amended to say the subject of the complaint as opposed to the complainant. Deb Fancher, second it.

Any discussion? I mean, I guess, you know, I don't know what sort of things the revisers think they can just change with the revision.

You know, as opposed to that would require additional legislation. But I guess we'll find out. I agree, it may be tricky, but I think it's worthy of the asks, given that that's what we heard from the legislator or the legal who worked on this. I think that perhaps will give us the opportunity. Maybe Senator Stevens knows more.

No, I think you're exactly right, Joyce. Thanks for bringing that up. That's what the reviser is there for, to make these, technical changes, and, and I, I do think you're correct. We should send them a letter or a note indicating that those changes should be made. And this happens all the time.

Mr. Chair, if I may, is there a specific form that is used, Senator Stevens or Representative? No, no, it's not that formal. Just, just let them know they can easily change it. Okay, thank you.

Any additional discussion?

Kevin, if you want to call roll, then a yes vote will be to send it to the revisers along with the letter similar to the letter that is in your packet with respect to pointing out the problem. Senator Stevens? Yes.

Representative McCabe? Yes. Representative Galvin? Yes. Carl?

Yes. Deb Fencher? Yes.

Skip Cook? Yes. Joyce Anderson?

Yes. Mr. Chair?

Yes. By a vote of 8 yeas and 0 nays, It is passed, Mr. Chair. Okay. Thank you.

Next item is Chair/Staff Report. Starts out with outside attorney update. So, Kevin, if you want to—. Well, if you look at your tab 6A, because the committee had acted, had voted to extend Brent Cole's contract if he was amenable, we were able to do a revision to his previous FY contract. It's the same contract that he had in place before.

The only exception is there's language that the contract can be mutually agreed to between the committee and Brent at such time as the committee identifies a new legal counsel, outside counsel. So it's, uh, it's in effect until such time that we notify Brent, we found alternate outside counsel, he agrees, and then it goes by the wayside and we enter a new contract with the new legal counsel. And I believe, Mr. Chair, you're, you're working to identify a new legal counsel. I, I am and have been and do have somebody in mind that I would of course bring before the committee before making any kind of commitment.

But at any rate, he's going to be there until at least through the end of the year, right? Brent? From what Brent has— Mr. Cole has identified to me, Mr. Chair, he's going to remain in place until such time as it's mutually agreed. There was not a specific date, and that's the way the contract was written, was it would remain in effect until such time as the committee And Brent agreed.

Okay. I brought that up because I did speak with him and he said he would definitely be continuing to practice at least through the end of the year and probably longer. So that's why I mentioned that. So, Mr. Chair, if I could point out, it does have a June 30th, 2027 date on here that it goes through.

So, right, I wasn't sure if you meant that or if you meant—. You sounded like it was endless, but no, no, it was It was for this FY or until such time as it was mutually agreed. Okay. Mr. Chair had more information than I had.

Okay. Okay. If you would like, Mr. Chair, I did find out some additional information.

Joyce had mentioned that Dan Wayne had retired. I did the research. No new ledge legal counsel has been identified for the Ethics Committee. When I spoke to ledge counsel, they opined that they should have a new ledge legal staff member assigned to the committee by December.

Mr. Chair, I have a question. Does— is— did you say Ledge Counsel? I'm sorry, Ledge Legal. Okay, I was going to say I wasn't sure.

Let's go. Okay. No, okay, I'm sorry. Thank you. Um, if we do have any business that comes before the committee that needs to go to Ledge Legal, they certainly would assign someone before then, I would think.

That would be my understanding, but they They indicated they would not have a formal work assignment until potentially as late as December. Okay, thank you. Any other questions with respect to that? Okay, hearing none, uh, next item is budget status.

So as you will note there, um, these are numbers that were reflected as of last week. Um, we had talked briefly, I think, at the last committee meeting that the budget remains at the FY 2025 level. The FY 2026 level we had bumped up to bring on a long-term non-permanent employee, so those monies went away. That's reflected in the $12,600 increase for step adjustments, the COLA, health insurance premium increases, and PERS. Travel services and commodities all remain the same.

So basically it's a flat budget from what we had experienced in the past. And last FY we had a additional funds remaining at the end of the FY. One thing for the committee to be aware of is that due to some personal matters, the— Keeley's hours were adjusted, and I can go into that more in detail in the executive session if you would like, Mr. Chair. Okay.

Any questions about the budget?

Okay. With that, moving on into a staff report.

So for the period since our last meeting on June 26th to date, the number of inquiries have been pretty consistent, but they all focused on very specific topics. There were lots of— lots and lots and lots of questions. I do need to correct, because again, in the rapidity of putting this together, the blue text on the staff report— the purple text on the staff report should be omitted. So I will need to reproduce these for—. I'm sorry.

What purple text? I'm sorry. You don't have— because your packets were produced in black and white. So let me just walk through them. So on page 1, the only question that should have been Included was a staff member asked on behalf of the legislator.

So that question, Question 1, should remain. All of the questions on the bottom of page 1 beyond that, all of page 2, and the top of page 3, Item 13, should be deleted. I can reprint those if you would like. Kevin, I'm sorry, I don't have— I must be looking at a different document because my first thing says a legislator and involved staff. I don't have anything that says a staff member.

Then I may have the wrong copy in my— do you have an extra copy?

Yes. Yeah, let me look. I may have— we put the binders together and I may have had an earlier version. So my apologies for that. Mr.

Chair?

Mr. Chair? Yes, Ms. Sharp. I wonder if while we're waiting for him to readjust and look at that, I have a— sorry to ask us to go back one item on the agenda, but I did have a quick question regarding the budget piece. Sure.

Yeah, go ahead. I was just thinking about how every other year is a little different for ethics and may require more travel. When there is a new slate of legislators due to the training and so forth. So I just— when I was looking at the travel portion of that, I wanted to ask, as a newbie here, I don't know what it typically looks like every other, but it— when I heard the word the same, it triggered me to wonder about the travel expense and whether or not that is the proper amount given the extra need for training in Juneau.

To speak specifically to that, Mr. Chair, the travel budget has been sufficient for the time that I've been here.

In 2025, We still had money even though due to unfamiliarity I had to make additional trips to Juneau. It was sufficient and we always have the latitude of adjusting the number of folks that go to Kogul. So, and my correction, my adjustment, I apologize. Now that I have the right version of the Informal advice.

Going back to what I was saying, the volume of calls have not really decreased, but they were all focused on specific topics related to campaigning, newsletters, and things like that, which is very understandable being that this is an election year. And there's some lack of clarity on whether or not the cam— when the campaign period is actually in place and when it runs. A lot of folks thought that there were breaks between the start 60 days before the primary and then that there would be a reset in some period of time during the— the time from the primary to the general election. So that was really the focus, and as you will see there, a lot of repeat questions, but it was all primarily related to campaigning and newsletters. So if there are any questions on that.

I do have a question. Because my office may have been one of the inquiries. I am looking at— and this is regarding whether or not there is a break or an opening, if you will, wherein a legislator may engage in a newsletter from their office, specifically from their office, because my understanding was it was 30 days prior to each campaign and And I just wanted a clear-cut answer around that, publicly put on record, because other colleagues of mine also were doing the same thing where if it's— if the primary is completed and then it's more than X number of days before the general election, does that mean there is an opening wherein a legislator may engage with their constituents using what I have as Constant Contact, but there's any number of mail things that we're already paying for. That said, I choose to— I chose to move everything over to a different methodology of getting the word out about what's happening in the legislative world. But I wanted to find out on the record from you all what the answer is for that.

And not just to say, "Oh, be careful and be sensitive." I'd like to know if there is a clear-cut answer. Well, if I may, and then the Chair will correct me if I misspeak, but if you go to AS 24.6003, it says, "Unless approved by the committee during campaign period," A legislator or legislative employee may not use or permit another to use state funds other than funds to which the legislature— legislator is entitled under AS 2410.110 to print or distribute a political mass mailing. Then in C1, it says a campaign period begins 60 days before the date of an election to the border elect— of an electric or telephone, a municipal, a primary election that begins, et cetera. Paragraph C1 further states it ends after the municipal or general election. So, as defined in O3-0C, the campaign period starts 60 days prior and expires after the general election, but it's only related to state funds.

So if you are using your state funds to pay for Constant Contact for printing of email material— or not email, but you're paying for using the print shop to produce your newsletters, then that's a use of state funds. Funds, but if you use office allowance funds for your constant comm contact or you use personal funds, as long as it is not state, it should not fall under this provision. The 30-day advisement we continue to give is because of the sensitivity and the potential for appearance of impropriety, we highly strongly recommend that you don't do newsletters 30 days before the election. If I may comment then, um, so I just want to be crystal clear here about the, um, interactions that we are asking about. It is a newsletter that's via email only, nothing to do with print at all, and it is not using the state print shop in any way, shape, or form.

It is about sending out an email wherein we are already paying for Constant Contact as a throughway.

And again, that would be— the other question was for the period of time. There is a time between the general and the primary wherein it is more than 60 days. So there is— there was the thought that for that— and it's a short period of time, it might be like 10 days, I'm not exactly sure— but it is longer than 60 days before the general election, and it would be sending an email out to constituents. And that was the very simple question, and it felt like a very muddy answer. So I'm just trying to make sure we're clear that I appreciate the trying to be more on the cautious side, but if there is a runway for that, then that needs to be said, yes, you may, but only up until this date, which we understood to be, I believe, September 4th or something like that.

So there was some period of time between— and I'm getting in the weeds here. I know that this is probably driving you all crazy, but it is all abuzz among the legislators who are trying to do the right thing. And anyhow, I took the lane of nothing but caution because of all of the buzz going around. And being on this committee, I didn't want to do the wrong thing, and it seemed like we were getting muddy answers. So I just— so you know, I think I'm on the clear because I moved everybody over to my campaign account and then ran it through my campaign.

But that becomes very confusing for the constituents. And I'm not talking about campaign at all, I'm just talking about what happened in the legislative work. And so that, to me, Anyway, I just want to put that out there, and maybe Kevin has his own story, but we're just trying to make sure we get clear answers so that we can do the right thing. I was just going to ask if it was on state letterhead, but maybe it's too soon to ask that question. Too soon.

If I may, real quick. So Kathy Giesel is my representative. At the bottom of her newsletter, I marvel that she has This was put together by me and no state resources were used to do this. That seems like a very easy way. I appreciate your question and we need to answer that for sure.

But she made that very clear. Every time I read that, I just kind of smile. Every newsletter. It says that. I love that.

Absolutely. So that means not using your office constant contact —using a separate one. No, she is using every— I mean, what she newsletters, I mean, it is— I don't have any idea what database that she is getting. She states that she is the only one. She writes it.

Correct. Yeah. But that is the—. Yeah. But you are— in answer to the initial question, is there a break, your answer is no.

That is correct. There is no— there is no break. However, if you use your office allowance for your Constant Contact, then you— it— no harm, no foul. You're not using state funds. So— and I apologize, Representative Galvin, because it was a convoluted answer, but is it print in your specific?

Because it's going out email. Your staff relayed that you were using your office account to pay for for your constant contact, then no state funds are used. There's no prohibition on newsletters or other correspondence, so it would be acceptable. And if I may ask one more, um, clarifying question. Office account is for House members, $11,000.

That does not come from my pocket, that comes from the state of Alaska. So I'm confused about that. I just want to make sure that's clear about why I'm confused, because it's not from me. So again, that's why when I heard those things, I said, nope, we're going to move it over and we'll do it from my campaign, and folks will know that that's where it's coming from. And that's what I ended up doing.

So I just wanted clarification on that as well. What do you call state funds? Well, your office allowance account, though, is specifically exempted. Okay. In 030C.

Thank you. So it's clear that that's totally fine to use. Yes. Thank you, thank you. And if I could comment, Mr.

Chair, the 30 days was a recommendation from the committee back when I was administrator that it felt like— the committee felt like it looked like it was a campaign piece if it's that close to the election, even if it may only be information, you know, but it's still coming from you. So that's where the 30 days came in. So the 30 days was strictly a recommendation by the committee in addition to the prohibition that's in statute, you know, regarding the 60 days before the primary and then the day after the general.

And thank you. And Chair, part of the confusion is, so it's okay for me to send an email saying all the things that I would say in a printed piece, I can send an email, and the ones that I send out don't happen to be looking like campaigns, nor do Cathy's, frankly, Senator Giesel's. So I can see then how that would be permissible, but there may be some edges where it's not if they speak about their campaign or other things unrelated to the work of the Legislature. Is that correct? Mr.

Chair, if I may comment on that. Please. One thing that I would call to your attention is that a mass mailing is considered to be political if it is from or about a legislator. So even the fact that it's from in the statute, then it's called out as a political mass mailing. So then it goes, it goes back to the issue of Were state funds used?

And if not, no harm, no foul. It's not under this section of the statute. Comments? Yeah, real quick. Where does it say, Kevin, where did you— you were saying that there's a glump of funds that are exempt, and I can't find that.

You said it's in C. Where? In 20.03.

It's the next to the bottom sentence where other than— okay, you may not use or permit another to use state funds other than funds to which the legislature is entitled under AS 24.10.110. 030, Are you in 030? I don't know. But you're not in C. I am in C. No, you're not. You're under A.

Thank you. Yes. There you go. So you have to go to C, which is on the top of that page. On the right.

Nope. Got it. I'll take your word for it. I just couldn't find it. Yeah, you were under A.

Perfect. I'll find it. You know, the other thing that I think, since we're having this discussion and I know we need to move along, is the term mass mailing has never really been defined. Mass mailing, we have always felt, was printed and sent in the mail. Does mass mailing include email?

Maybe that's something that we need to request an advisory opinion for a clarification. Because that is very confusing as to what you are saying and everyone else.

We talked about possibly putting this in the legislation, but we didn't. You know, that was just passed. But my feeling would be, let's get an advisory opinion. What is a mass mailing? Does it include strictly something that goes through the mail service, or is it also a mass mailing?

Could mean you know, a mailing via email. So I think maybe that's the best thing to do, Mr. Chair. Well, that might be reasonable, although that brings up another question. I mean, is sending the email in and of itself a state resource?

Well— De minimis. But it is if staff is putting it together and sending it out. I mean, I guess you get into all that. Right. And that would be part of it, because that was part of what the discussion was when I was on board, too.

Because your staff would be doing it and so forth and so on. So anyway, let's—. Well, and that's— but that is a— and to Joyce's point, that's part of what I ferret out when we get the question. Who put the email together? Was it a staffer?

In Senator Giesel's example, she self-acknowledges. But those are the level of detail that I ferret out when folks such as your staff had called and asked about it is who produced it, how was it produced, et cetera, et cetera. Which, that seems like the relevant questions to me. Those seem like the relevant questions. And it does get very complicated and convoluted.

Okay, thank you. Anything else on that? Okay, next matter is our harassment and civility training. You may recall At our last meeting, the committee unanimously passed a resolution to send a letter to Legislative Council— or not Legislative Council, but— Yes, it is. Yeah, yeah, it was Legislative Council— asking that we be relieved of the responsibility for harassment and civility training under the belief that it was not our responsibility.

We got a response back. Which Kevin will address, which took issue with our position regarding the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee and also indicating that while they would help us with the training, responsibility still is with us. So with that, Kevin, if you want to— Thank you, Mr. Chair. So in essence, it's a partial win.

We had identified as discussion points that staff did not have subject matter expertise to identify appropriate providers of harassment and civility training. Ledge Counsel agreed from that perspective. But they— and it's almost more that it's a scheduling thing. And in talking with HR, They want to keep the harassment, civility, and ethics as a 4-hour block of training. So it's going to be tied together.

However, HR has— or Personnel, more correctly stated, has taken the lead. We are changing to the Office of Civil Rights. NCSL did not— was not open to changing, modifying their video that has been used for years. So for the harassment training, we've got a state agency, Mr. Robert Cobusier, Cobusier, is going to be doing an hour-long harassment training in person. I've had discussions with he and the personnel manager to get that scheduled and arranged, and then we have had discussion with NCSL, Mr. Mark Quiner.

Uh, he has agreed to refresh his material, uh, and to limit to an hour and a half. So the big win for us is because personnel is involved and they are instrumental in selecting appropriate providers of the material, uh, that takes a huge, uh, lift off of our plate. The downside is that the training will still take from our block of time to go over the Ethics Act, and I know that's been a concern since, I think, Joyce's time, wasn't it? No, that was put on after I left, Mr. Chair.

Go ahead. I just wanted to comment that I don't— I think it would be important for us to not look through the lens of wins and losses, that instead it really is about whether or not we are ensuring that we're accomplishing what we want to accomplish with our legislators getting the information they need. And having spoken with the chair of ethics now, after the letter, I've been well educated to understand the history of sexual harassment and how important it is that we now have included this as an important part of our thinking that certainly aligns with ethics and what we're learning in ethics and the history of— of a lot of harassment that has happened in the past in the legislature. I think helps guide us to know how important this is. So I'm really grateful that we're thinking and looking at how we can rightfully put this in, in the right framework.

And working with HR makes perfect sense to me as well. I appreciate Kevin's comments about that. I just wanted to make sure to put in a word here because I was one who voted to separate it. I wasn't aware of where this sits in some of the statutes and differently than I knew, and I think it's important that we do align with Ledge Counsel and making sure that we highlight how important it is to learn about what is harassment, what is assault, the differences, all of those things which I don't think that many have been educated about. So I just wanted to make sure to put that word in because it has made a difference from what I understand in terms of the number of cases we've seen.

So I'm very grateful that this is still on our plate in one way or another. Okay. Mr. Chair? Go ahead.

I have a question for Kevin. Kevin, you said that this person you named, and I don't remember how you pronounced his name, will be giving a 1-hour presentation, and then you said NCSL would be an hour and a half? So my question is, that only leaves us an hour and a half. Am I not understanding your comments? I must not have been clear.

So the state, and I'm just drawing a blank right now, it's Office of— but anyway, they will be doing 1 hour. Mark is cutting down his presentation to a 30-minute presentation on civility. So that gives a total of an hour and a half for the harassment and civility piece, which then still leaves us with 2 hours. When we give some breaks, that puts us right at 2 hours for the actual AS 24.60 ethics training. And do you think that's adequate?

It's what we've had since I've been here, so we can make it work. Um, it gives us an opportunity to do an overview and to hopefully embed with the covered employees that we're here as a resource for you. And contact us. It's more of a high-level awareness. It is not a down-in-the-weeds level discussion as we had with Representative Galvin about the campaign period.

We just, even if we had a couple of days, we wouldn't have that level of time. It's to hit the high topic, high-level topics, O3O, O8O, et cetera, and give them a general overview and offer them the resource that we're here to help you. So—. You know, I just want to say that, you know, I don't think anybody was saying that this is not a topic that should be addressed. The question I think that the committee had was the time that it takes from what we perceive to be our core objective with respect to the Ethics Committee, although I do think that the letter does make a pretty compelling case for us.

So— Mr. Chair, I have a concern that we only have 2 hours for training. Is there any way that the 1.5-hour training on civility and, you know, on harassment could be a separate training for just an hour and a half and then possibly maybe have ethics go to 3 hours instead of 2 and have them as 2 separate trainings. I don't know whether that's a possibility or not. I guess based on my previous experience, I just feel 2 hours is such a short time to cover everything regarding ethics in addition to questions coming from either legislators or staff.

And then it just doesn't seem adequate to me. So I'm going to throw that out for discussion. Mr. Chair, if I may. Sure.

45 Minutes, Joyce, is all you're going to hold anybody's attention, an adult especially. 15 For a kid. You're going to kill them after 3 hours. They just— what you can do is there's ways to limit in teaching practice 101. We can't take questions until afterward.

And to Kevin's point, You know, here's our office if you have a specific question. Don't get me wrong, I hear what you're saying and I know your passion for the committee and your history. I'm just telling you in teaching, after 3 hours, people are gone. They're— even adults, they're gone. They're just not hearing you anymore.

If you could break it up. I mean, there's a lot of things you can do, but you can't hold people in a room for 3 hours and talk about anything. We just don't live in an age where people can have that kind of focus.

Go ahead, Representative. Thank you, Chair. I will concur with the concept of how long our attention span is, number one. I've heard 7 minutes, but boy, you're giving us a lot of credit. Adults.

Okay, adults to 45 maybe. But in addition to that, that time period for legislators is swamped with so many other things. So to your point of can we just get it a little longer, I would make it suggestion that perhaps we have modules. Like, are you curious to know what campaigns and how campaigns correlate to ethics? A half-hour moment in time on Teams, for example, I think could be very valuable, especially if it's set into the time period where, you know, it becomes relevant to the legislators' lives.

At that point, they're paying attention. Or if it's something related to I can't even think of all the examples, but there are many times when you'll send a newsletter out and we'll pay attention because that headline was associated with something we know is hot. So anyhow, I do want to recommend that we maybe try not to do anything more than what is absolutely necessary, and as we do have the engagement of training, that it become as much as possible engaging, just because it is so tricky of that time of year for legislators. I would also just, I guess I would echo that to some extent and what Deb's comment is. Plus, I don't know about the idea of adding a separate kind of a training.

People are probably already tired of having to come to these as it is, so I don't know about another mandatory training. I mean, we think we have trouble when people don't show up to what we have now, then we You can have a whole nother—. So. Mr. Chair, also, I have had discussions with personnel, and particularly for their scheduling of new employees and whatnot, they want to very much limit the ethics, harassment, and civility training to either a morning or an afternoon.

So we are pretty hardwired into a 4-hour block. Okay. One thing I would say that I think Kevin hit on which is correct is the quality of the training, which over the years has been less than ideal in my view. So I do think that's kind of a separate issue, not the topic. I'm not certain how to address that, although it seems like that you have made some effort to have some of the people modify some of the things that they they've just been doing over and over and over again.

Mr. Chair, that's, that's 100%. I had very hard, specific discussions that, wait a minute, I've watched this this many times and it's the same PowerPoint, it's the same outline, it's the same examples, it's the same videos. And that is going through a complete refresh. We've seen a very rough outline of the new topics for civility.

The gentleman that will be doing the harassment is working on his outline and agenda.

Stacey Bentley and I are scheduled to have a follow-up discussion with him. But yes, we're trying to keep it relevant, relatable, and engaging instead of the first 2 minutes of the video, it's the same that you've seen 10 times before and you— your brain shuts off. And when is the first training to happen? Right now, the first training that is scheduled to happen is here in Anchorage. That's hardwired.

It's December 16th for the new legislators. Okay. Connor, if I may real quick. Sure. So one of the beauties of going to COGEL is you get to rub arms with— rub shoulders, whatever— with people that are really at the top of their game.

And there is a guy by the name of Michael. He's from Michigan. He does all of Michigan's training. And we've gotten to know Michael over the years because he has this dream of coming to Alaska Before Kevin was in place, we were toying with trying to get him to be employed. All that to say, I bounced off Michael because he is the head trainer for all ethics training.

He's also one of the young emergers, one of the top young people in Kogul. He's dying for a trip to Alaska. And at one point, Kevin offered to take him out on his boat, and we talked about, you know, getting him up here on miles. I think he would be a phenomenal resource. I mean, this guy is charismatic.

He's a good presenter. I've sat in on— and I'm very critical of teaching because when you're a teacher for a long time, you become very critical of poor teaching. He's a fabulous teacher. I think Carl would concur. Anyway, if we could pursue that, his only thing is he would have to get the permission from Michigan to come up and share training stuff.

But he could put something together fabulously. Why recreate the wheel when you've got somebody that's made a really good wheel.

Well, I mean, are you suggesting that he train on Alaska-specific ethics? No. What I'm suggesting is that he could come up and help our administrator put something together that's dynamic, that's not same stuff, different day, that he would be willing, you know, in exchange— I'm not going to speak for him, but I know he has the desire to come to Alaska. He could look over our stuff and he could help us train our legislators after looking over our stuff, which is going to be different than there, but you got somebody that's willing to do it that's a rock star as far as I'm concerned. Mr.

Chair, I, I am more than open to that. I think that what he might be able to do is talk about methodology but not content because he would not know Michigan's laws are different. So he may have stylistic delivery, presentation, but I would not envision that he would be able to assist in any way with content of the actual specifics of the act. Sure. I have a question.

Kevin, I think I heard you say that you were scheduling something, hard scheduling training for December 16th for new legislators. That is correct, Representative. How does that work? I mean, they're not sworn in yet, they're not getting paid, they have no account, they have no travel account, they can't even really— I couldn't even get the keys to my office before I was sworn in, in the LIO. So they have no travel way to get to Anchorage.

So is it just Is that kind of a voluntary thing or what? Through the chair, Representative McCabe, that's outside of my scoping. We are simply scheduled into— so I think it's the 16th, 17th, 18th are the dates, and it's LAA personnel that puts on a whole packet of training. Oh, that's part of that packet, okay. Yes.

So we're not traveling them. We are just— we are strap hangers. We are riders on that medium for delivery to the new legislators. Okay. Any other topics, questions with respect to the training?

I'll just comment that Representative McCabe is absolutely right. I was already traveling when I— my first year when they did the same thing, the LAA, 3 days of orientation. I did it from Belize, I think, because my travel was already set. And so it is online, which is helpful. But if you're a working person and you're working during that time period, you're expected perhaps to not be working.

And it is asking a lot and it is voluntary, but they do have another makeup then following January. But it is, I think it is something for us to all be mindful of that, uh, it's asking a lot of the new legislators and to give them the heads up as much as possible. I wrote down the 16th in my brain thinking I'm also going to tell them it's going to be 3 days around that so that they have a heads up. I think that is really important. Thank you, Representative McCabe.

Anything else? All right, next item on here is a COGIL conference update.

So just real quick, the last I checked, we still do not have the agenda for the COGEL conference.

I've had discussion with the chair. We've got indication of 5 folks that would like to attend COGEL. We have gone ahead and paid for the registration for 5, so we maximize the early saver account or early saver's early bird special price for the conference. I'm working with accounting right now because they say we've got to have tribal authorizations, but we are working on that. As soon as I see an agenda out for the conference, and I did not have a chance to check last week, I will forward that to the the folks that have indicated they would like to attend.

Okay, any questions about—. So don't go forward and do any plane reservations or hotel. That's the big thing, that the hotel is the problem. I, I understand that, and that's what I'm working with accounting on, is they have to understand that we needed to buy the attendant— pay the conference fees so we could book the hotels. And I'm working on that, and I got pushback.

I think it was on Friday that we cannot— they can't approve the purchase until such time as we have travel authorization. So COGAL allow the rooms to be reserved? No. Because of the problems in 2025, they published the block of rooms and how to reserve at the rate. And that everyone grabbed them up, apparently, displayers and others, not just attendees.

So you have to register to unlock the block of rooms so you can make your hotel reservation. And that's why we're trying to get ahead of this and do it early so that we can open up that block of rooms so the attendees can make their hotel reservations and not end up like I did in 2025 where I was a mile away from the conference venue. So does that— this is Joyce—. Does that mean, Kevin, that we can't make a reservation? It has to come through you for the hotel?

No. Once we get— so in other words— once we put a name in, there will be an email associated, at least the way it worked last year, and then For those that— I think, Deb, if you got an email which opened up the block of rooms that you could make your reservations. Well, what I did is I made a reservation on my own early because I didn't want to be a mile from the hotel. And then, so I had my own reservation and then it was pushed to the last minute. Yes, that happened, but it was interesting because I don't know whether it was a week ago, but I saw something come through that said, hey, these are the things that are going on in COGEL.

You need to get your stuff together. That's abbreviated into Deb Bancher words. So I know I would— I'm stunned that the stuff isn't out there already. You know, we listened and this is what's going to be happening. So I— yeah, Kevin, I can't remember.

I think that is what happened is I did get an email and then I went through and was able to get the reservation at the cheaper rate. And cancel my reservation at the other rate. And so what we have to do is we have to— Keeley and I— Keeley will enter the names. We've paid for 5 attendees. We've got to enter the names, email addresses, and whatnot.

And at least what happened last year was once that was in, then that released an email to the individual attendees so they could book their hotel room. And that was an outcropping of 2025 where the whole block of rooms was swallowed up by non-attendees. They were presenters, vendors, other people, and not the attendees. So that's why we're working as diligently and as quickly as we can to get names identified, get it paid for, and get your hotel reservations made. I just have a quick question, Connor— er, yeah, sorry, through the chair.

Kevin, what about doing— you've got 5 people that you've registered— what about having the committee just— having the Ethics Committee reserve 5 rooms under one broad name? I mean, we're going to get the money back anyway. We can try and do that, but the way we can talk to Twee, and we'll see if we can do something like that. But like I said, at least last year and what I believe is this year, we've paid for 5 attendees, but it is dependent on us putting names and email addresses in, and then they, uh, communicate directly with you. We will double-check that, and I will provide an update email I'll try and do that this week.

Okay. But you're right. They are sending out emails. We've listened, blah, blah, blah. But they hadn't formalized agendas and whatnot when I looked last.

Any other questions? Last item before executive session is the falsified complaint update. That's just real quick. If you— the committee remembers we had a complaint that was filed It was falsified. I had reported to the committee last meeting that I had been queried about my availability to testify.

That is now a moot point. The individual that falsified the complaint has pled guilty. And so it's no longer consideration.

Any other comments with respect to that? Okay. Next item is executive session. I would entertain a motion to go into executive session to discuss matters which by law must remain confidential under AS 246160, Uniform Rule 22B regarding executive session, and Rules of Procedure Section 5. Executive sessions and discussion of matters of the immediate knowledge of which would adversely affect the finances of a government— governmental unit and discussion that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of a person.

So with that, I would entertain a motion to go into executive session. This is Deb Fancher, so moved. Any objection to that? All right, with that, we would do what we need to do to move into executive session, and then— and frankly, we can take a 5-minute break if you want to.

The Select Committee on Legislative Ethics is now out of executive session. The time is 20 minutes to 12 on September 14th. I'll now entertain a motion to adjourn. Adjourn. I move that we adjourn the Select Committee on Ethics.

Any objection? Hearing none. The time is 20— I guess it's 11:20— oh, 42. Okay.

11:42. One of them dyslexic— yeah, yeah. Hey, wait a minute here. I can't read. Thanks.