Anchorage Assembly: Special Rules Committee Meeting

Okay, why don't we go ahead and get started? Are we recording? Okay, cool. Okay, so this— welcome everybody. This is the special meeting of the Assembly Rules Committee.

We're noticed from 11:50 to 12:50 PM. Today is Friday, August 21st. Let's do a introductions and then we'll talk about the agenda. George. Cameron Perez Verdia.

Janice Park. Donald Handlin. Jared Gerker. Sydney Scout. Anna Brawley.

Yarrow Silvers. And on the phone we have Keith McCormick.

Okay, well maybe he is on mute or will be here later. So, and I'll just note too, I know Erin Baldwin-Day was here earlier. She is traveling, not able to be on the phone, and then Daniel Bowen is also traveling. So, and that's who we have right now. We're also joined by clerk staff, legislative services, one member of the public.

And so I'll just briefly speak to today's meeting. So this is to finish the business that we had on our agenda previously, specifically the committee's discussion of committee assignments and what that looks like. And then we also have a training on quasi-judicial proceedings. So that is going to be given by Mr. Jeff Purcell. So at the request of at least one member of this committee, we will do the committee work first, but I will note we do need to get both of those items done today.

So, and we can go a few minutes later. We have one more work session after this. But at some point I'm going to say we need to cut off discussion on committees if we're still discussing so that we can move on to the training. So what my hope is that we get as far as we can through the committees today. There may not be agreement or kind of decision on all of these, so we'll do what we can because the goal is to start changing both our structure of committees and schedule and also making sure that we have our leadership positions all worked out.

So with that, we'll go into our committee business, and I will just note—. Sorry, I'm just trying to find the right pieces of paper. Um, so I'll just speak very briefly to this list, and then I'm really hoping we have a good discussion, and I want people's feedback. This is a working draft, so I'll say that again. This is not the final decision, um, and you'll see some things are changing, some aren't, but that doesn't mean that we can't have further changes to this list.

So just again, this is a group discussion, but at the end of the day, um, the chair is empowered and required to make these, uh, assignments. And so, for example, if we say we want a committee and no one signs up to be chair, I'm going to have to select a chair. So I just want to also we'll put that out there, or we just say we're not having that committee. So this is not a group vote, but obviously it affects the group. So I'll just very briefly walk through this, this list that we have before us, this working draft again, to generally orient you.

And I know there's been a lot of discussion previously. So, so what I heard from members is we want to have, if possible, fewer committees, or at least fewer meetings when we have meetings, to really cluster them together or kind of have days that we're doing Assembly business for the most part versus days that we're not. I know it's challenging when you have to— when you're working another job, you have to chime into a committee meeting and then jump back into your job. So looking at clustering those that way, also looking at how we can use our committees and not put everything through a work session, but also recognizing there are reasons that we have work sessions and there's things that are appropriate for that. And then also really looking at the schedule to make sure that we have committees ones that relate to each other are spaced out enough properly so that we're not having, you know, for example, Transportation Committee on the same day as AMATS, because the request was that there's different purposes for those committees.

So all that to say, I'll just briefly walk through the proposed changes. Essentially, some are not changing, so Budget and Finance would remain a Committee of the Whole. Well, and I guess I'll also say in terms of leadership, the goal is to have everybody have a leadership position on a committee if they want. That does require them to say, I want to do that. So I could assign all 12 people, but if 2 people don't want to have a committee assignment, then I'm not going to force people to do that.

So I'll say that. And then also, I think we have a lot of new members, and so some of what you'll see here, I put the word "train up." The goal would be to not have the same person in the leadership role forever, but to be able to transition out, whether it's a few months from now, whatever works for that particular committee. So I think this is what we have now, but it can also change, especially as folks get more training, more experience running meetings. That's the goal here, is we have to all share this big workload that is the Assembly. So, so the committees that we have before us, I'll just point out the changes.

One set of changes is shifting some topics around, so you'll see the proposal to move infrastructure, that general topic about roads, pipes, you know, street maintenance, things like that. Some of that does happen at the Infrastructure, Enterprise, Utilities Oversight Committee now, so moving that general topic with transportation. So the idea being transportation is not just talking about roads and, you know, what, what road improvements we're making, but it could also talk about, for example, the proposed stormwater utility or the issue of, you know, folks' properties not being on sewer or water pipes, things like that. And I recognize there is some overlap with utilities, but I think that's— there's always going to be overlap in these committees, so it's a judgment call. But that's one proposal.

We do know IEEOC is one of those that often runs out of time, so part of the thought behind this was shifting some of the topics so that they have sufficient time and we can offload some of the workload on some of these heavier committees. So that's one of them. So you'll see Infrastructure moves to Transportation. Rules Committee, we've kind of described what the general function of it is. This is really our only internal committee that we have where we talk about Assembly business, not just our work but the branch.

So Clerk staff, you know, that would involve things like our Ethics and Elections. So the proposal is, you know, in Preview 2, that the proposal is to get rid of what's called the Quality Municipal Services Ethics and Elections and move some of those functions into the Governance Committee and to call it a Governance Committee. I think it's a better reflection of what we do. So that's a proposal there. And I'll note the— traditionally, the Chair of the Assembly and the Vice Chair of the Assembly are also the Chair and Vice Chair of those committees.

So some of these are not arbitrary choices. They're kind of how we've done things to date. The next discussion— and again, I'll run through them and then I definitely want to have discussion. The next discussion is to move health out of Public Health and Safety and add it into, or create a committee called Health and Homelessness Committee. So obviously we have Housing and Homelessness, we have Public Health and Safety.

So the proposal is to kind of put, not because all issues with homelessness are related to health and vice versa, those topics seem to go well together. This also means that AHD, our Health Department, is not reporting at two different committees. So some of this is also recognizing staff workload, which departments are responsible to come to these committees and provide standing reports. And again, just to try to shift the workload around and make it easier for everybody. So that's the proposal there.

Next one then is to, if we're moving housing, that's, so a few years ago, housing, the Homelessness Committee did add the word housing with the, I think, good intent to talk about housing, affordable housing, other issues there. But I think the experience has been one, that there's too many things to talk about related to housing broadly, and also that a lot of the discussion about housing is really about code changes about construction and production. And so that's the proposal there. So, and then we know our committees can get very long. So the proposal there is to say Housing and Community Development, not because economic development isn't important, but because again, we have to think about our committee names.

So that's a proposal for discussion. Legislative Committee, Member Johnson, Zach, has said he intends to step down from that committee for reasons we don't need to enumerate. I think it's obvious. So I'm looking for a chair of that committee. And the main function of that committee is really to develop the legislative program in the fall.

And when I was chair, we also met regularly during session to discuss basically what's going on in the legislature and if there's ways that we can advocate, et cetera. So that's the way the committee's been used. And I see Janice is volunteering to be chair for that, so we'll take note of that. My goal with that would be to train up somebody on how we go through the legislative process, the legislative program process. And then to completely hand that off.

So I'll just note, like, my name is only there so that I can help somebody else understand how to run that committee, and then I would step off by the end of the year. And so we would also be looking for a chair or vice chair, or co-chair or vice chair. Next, uh, I discussed Public Safety, um, and again, you'll see these TBDs. It wasn't because I'm trying to remove somebody from a committee, I just wanted to put discussion. This was just a draft that I had to work on, um, and get very quickly out before last Thursday.

So anyway, Public Safety Committee Proposal is potentially we make that as a committee of the whole. The committee of the whole doesn't really matter so much because we're not taking votes. It's not right, but it is clearly something that is, you know, a high priority for a lot of folks and always gets a lot of discussion. So that's another thought. Audit committee, that one is actually one of the only ones that's very specifically defined in code.

It has 3 assembly members and 3 members of the administration. Its leadership is the Chair is an assembly member, the vice chair is a member of the administration. So that one is also very set in code, and that one does actually vote on our annual audit plan. And so, so that is one again that there's reasons there's set membership there, and we can talk in the future about changing that code or changing the committee via code. I've talked with the internal auditor about that, but that's where it is right now.

Next, Transportation Infrastructure, I already talked about. The proposal there has, and it's been for the last few years, that the two main liaisons for AMATS are also the co-chairs or chair and vice chair. No proposed changes to AMATS Policy Committee. That's obviously not our committee, but we have liaisons to it. And then, as I said, flipping over, dissolving as a standing committee.

So then the last thing I'll say is on the schedule. Again, this is a draft because we were trying to see how can we really stack meetings, but also I think not have 4 committee meetings. That's just not workable for us, 4 committee meetings in a day.

That's not workable for us or staff. So the goal here is to mainly fill up our Thursdays as much as possible with, with any standing committees, certain Wednesdays as well, and then keep our Fridays for work sessions, special meetings, kind of other business. So even if we don't have something scheduled now, the expectation is that it would not be a surprise if you get something on your calendar on a Friday that is Assembly business. So because what we, what we have is standing business and things that get scheduled as our business evolves. And so I also want to just say I've tried to hold some times like Monday where we wouldn't have any scheduled things, but also I cannot control or I cannot predict 5 months from now what is going to go on the schedule because that's not the nature of our business.

So trying to really hold Mondays as no assembly business, Tuesdays of course we know there's the chair, there's also leadership meetings that others don't participate in, but those are regular standing meetings. And same with Fridays, there's some standing meetings. So this proposal. Has Wednesdays and Thursdays that are main committee time that would be predictable, keeping the fourth or last week of the month with no standing meetings and just saying that is a day that you can predictably plan, again, pending emergencies and special meetings, things like that, that you wouldn't have assembly business. Because what I've heard, and I agree with, is it's, it's easier to, again, stack your assembly business on certain days and then have other days that are not scheduled out that way.

So And then I'll also just note at the bottom, the main purpose today is not these liaison positions, but I'll just note the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce and the Visit Anchorage/Anchorage Convention and Visitors Bureau, each of their bylaws has 2 assembly members as liaisons or ex officio positions. Each of those right now has 1 member and they would be seeking a second member. So that's not something we'll really discuss today, but just that's an opportunity open. It is not something that I direct and mandate people do. But those are things where those organizations have an expectation that the Assembly participates.

So, so that is a lot. And I guess, sorry, on the last thing I'll say on the committee schedule and proposed frequency, you'll see the ones coded in blue here are proposed to be monthly committees, and then the pink is really other. So whether it's their meeting as needed, so Legislative Committee doesn't necessarily meet every single month of the year or every other month or quarterly. I think Vice Chair Voland, Daniel, had proposed having Transportation and Infrastructure quarterly or month— or bimonthly. And so, and then Audit, I know Erin as chair has said she intends to keep meeting monthly with Audit, but at some point that could also be less frequent, potentially.

In the past it has been. So anyway, so what's on the table is, is this the right mix of committees? Is this the right schedule? And also who would like to lead these committees, or should we be changing these committee assignments. So that's what I have to say right now.

So I'll see if there's reactions, comments, and then I'll also note Erin had some comments that are in our emails just about her thoughts because she couldn't be here today. So start with Yara. I was just wondering why there's so much time in between meetings on Thursday. So you got 10 AM and then 1 PM. Oh yeah, thank you.

Yeah, that was another thing I meant to say. So these times are approximate, and I think what we found is there's been— and we've all experienced it— there's a benefit to having meetings closely stacked together, and that's kind of how we've been doing things, 10 or 15 minutes in between. Practically speaking, though, it also means that none of those things can go long or that it jacks the whole schedule if one of them goes long. And also, people have expressed wanting a little bit of a break to either walk out, get lunch, have a short meeting, or just kind of do some business. So these times are approximate with the idea that if any of these are more than 1 hour, I think that's another thing we can talk about, that we would either schedule them with a half hour or an hour in between.

And so that's why the times are approximate. But again, I wanted to get feedback on how long they should be. But the goal would be to have more than 10 minutes but not like 2 hours between them. I think, sir, for my perspective, I think 30 minutes would be nice. It would give us time, but I think an hour would— it would kind of waste a lot of our time, I think, in between meetings.

Other comments, questions, thoughts? I'm going to take notes as people talk to Jared.

Yeah, I mean, I'd be happy to co-chair Public Safety with Yarrow if, if there's not a groundswell of interest in that role. And then yeah, just kind of echo, I guess, kind of what you just said. We do want a good buffer built in, but an hour does seem maybe a little bit much.

Okay, Sydney.

Yeah, I'm excited to co-chair the enterprise and utilities with Zach, and like Aaron's idea of adding energy in there, so energy enterprise and utilities. Um, also would be happy to step into the housing and community development co-chair, um, with George if that's needed and helpful. But, um, yeah, and I also, in terms of liaisons, have talked— I sent an email to Zach about this, but would love to get in line for the ACDA liaison position. They're doing a lot of great work downtown right now that I'd love to be more deeply involved in. And if we need someone for Visit Anchorage, I want to check in on their requirements for liaisons, but that's something I'd be happy to help with too, since it's pretty downtown-focused as well.

Okay, thanks. Yeah, on Visit Anchorage, I would reach out to Julie Sape and just have a conversation because I think, Jared, you're currently the only—. I'm the current— yeah, the only liaison on it right now, which honestly, it isn't, it isn't too bad. There's, there's monthly government relations meetings that, you know, has a similar number of people expected to give an update on what the city is doing. And then there's quarterly board meetings.

Which run, you know, a couple hours, 2 to 3 hours, that they have right over here, usually at the DeNino Center. So it's not, it's not been too terribly time intensive. They will flood you with a tremendous amount of emails, and part of the role is just knowing, okay, does this actually matter to me or not? And a lot of, a lot of it doesn't. It's really the committee you're assigned to and the, uh, the board meeting.

It's a who?

And I'm sorry, Anna, you said you had an— there's an email from Aaron. I don't have that in my main, in my personal, or in my mass. Yeah, so Jamie forwarded it this morning, the clerk. It says 11:29, so it should be recently in there. Okay.

And I can also read her comments in the record. Oh, okay, okay, I see it now. I'm sorry. No, it's okay. Go ahead, Jarrell.

Um, the Visit Anchorage is—. It—. They have a lot of meetings, but they're, um, really flexible. You don't have to go to all of them. Um, yeah, so that it's the only reason why I, um, have stepped back is because the, the actual one governance meeting that's once a month, um, I have a time conflict with.

So I felt like Jared should have somebody on the committee with him that could actually help him with that meeting.

Other thoughts?

Cindy. No one else is talking, I'll just fill it up. Um, I also like the idea of public safety being a committee of the whole. I think that makes a lot of sense.

And I'm also very interested in Audit Committee in the future, but not, not needed at this time, but just want to share that.

Yeah, Yarrow. Functionally, what does making it a committee of the whole do aside from putting everybody on the committee rather than just the people that request to be on it? Is there anything else functionally that's different? Um, that's a good question. I don't know, Clerk or Council.

I mean, in terms of practice, I don't think it does. And of course, members can be members of committees or not and still show up to the meeting. So I'll let Jamie answer that.

You don't typically do this, but you can make motions to recommend things and not, and so it would just affect your quorum. Okay, thanks. Yeah, and to my knowledge, I know the Audit Committee functionally, like part of their function is voting on something. It's the audit plan recommendation, but otherwise we don't typically take motions in meetings. So, so yeah, I heard.

I think it's more probably a communication like this is important, but it doesn't mean these other things aren't important.

So other comments, I guess. The other thing I'll note as people are looking at this is if there are proposed, I guess, for those who are interested in these different topics. So for example, if you're interested in Legislative Committee, if you're interested in the Health and Homelessness or whatever, I guess just take a look at the scheduling because these aren't set in stone. I mean, once we schedule them, they're going to be there for a while. I didn't propose moving all of them around.

I did propose basically starting them all at 10:00 just to give a little bit of a buffer, keep it more in the middle of the day, not having them go very late. I guess I will note I did get a request from a member to have all committee meetings start at 4 PM. I understand the thought of that, but because so much of our work is staff time and they're, they're during business hours, I think for a long time, our most of our assembly work has been during the workday because we have to be supported by our staff. Obviously we have our evening meetings, but other than that, so, so I'm sorry I can't accommodate that request, but I don't think it's going to be realistic for the departments and the clerk staff. But, but all that to say, if there's things where a bunch of people are interested in this and there's a conflict, we can move, we can switch some of these committees around.

Uh, Donald? Yeah, so, uh, it sounds like Erin said in her suggestion here about not wanting to do, or suggesting for me to do transportation, I'd be willing to do that, co-share that.

Okay, thanks. Yeah, I'll make a note about that. Sorry, I'm just making notes in real time too.

Okay, so, and I guess I know we don't have all members here today, but what I'm looking for is to try to make a decision on all this by the end of this month so that we can start putting it into place in September. And the meetings that are happening the first week of September, we may not have the ability to change those right away, but with the goal of by the end of September to have this fully rolled out. I did communicate with administration staff about if there's any kind of time conflicts or just this general approach, and there was some— there was generally support. I know for a couple departments it was like, yeah, it's nice to be able to go to one committee that's, you know, instead of basically reporting similar information to both of them.

But this is our opportunity to continue to give feedback. Sydney and then Donald. I just saw in Erin's email that she said she'd be willing to co-chair Housing and Community Development. So yeah, if Donald is taking on the Transportation role, I think it'd be great for Erin to do Housing and Community Development, and I can focus on the Energy Committee.

Okay, yeah, that's a— again, this is also, I should say, because this is not something that we all vote on, it's considered internal administration. One second. It is it's something that I can go talk to other members about too. So we can also have offline conversations and work out. And again, I think the goal is to spread the workload for sure.

And so we can also plan to say, okay, I'm going to do this for a year and then, you know, you take it over after that. There's those kinds of things we can work out as well. Next, I had Donald Yarrow and then George. And so is this just, I guess, setting the, I guess, committee leadership? And then are we, I guess, are we doing more of the kind of whoever wants to show up to whatever committee kind of that structure?

Are we going to actually, I guess, have some people not in the leadership things assigned to committees. Yeah, good question. So typically what we do publish, who is a member of the committee. So the leadership of the committee is confirmed by the chair, basically. Membership is really up to the members, with the exception of the Audit Committee.

Like I said, there's only 3 spots, and so those are considered like I need to appoint people to those. The membership, I am going to ask everybody, who do you want, or which committees do you want to be considered a member of? Other than committees of the whole. So that would be by basically by email after we solidify what the committees actually are, and then that gets published. So that is not something that I assign, that's really an opt-in situation.

So yeah, we definitely want to know who's going to be members, but first we have to develop structure.

So I have—. Let me check— Yarrow, George, and then Jared. Go ahead, Yarrow.

So if Cameron's goal was to move off of the— I see the train up here— the Health and Homelessness Committee. And that would be one that I could add, if that would be helpful.

Yeah, and like I said, I can take notes of who's interested in being a member. And of course, I should have also said, so committees can have up to 3 Well, for anything, committee members can have up to 3 people participate. So the other option in this situation too, you could be the third. And then that way, especially folks who are learning this job can get exposed to that and then move into a leadership position. I actually have kind of been the third.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah. For the past year or so. Okay.

Thanks for noting that. George, go ahead.

I'll offer additional comments to the chair after, outside of the meeting, but just to thoughts and comments. I think there's, uh, everybody— body meaning the Assembly, not individuals— has an opportunity to think about the work and determine prioritizations and the way work gets developed and distributed. I think that the nature of temporal titles of committees is intriguing, but it's less interesting to me versus durable titles. Um, and so, for example, the nature of including housing as a title into a category of, uh, for community and economic development to remove economic development is an interesting perspective, and I think the body can take that action. Chair, and I think there's probably interest in that.

The question that becomes then, from my vantage point, the difference between durable and temporal.

So housing is a priority now, but it's not a standalone priority independent of community and economic development from my vantage point. And so these are my recommendation to the Chair was the way you organize around subcommittees or to get into the specificity of areas. I additionally want to just flag larger conversations that are happening outside of this body related to some of these issue areas, like housing, for example, have had conversations around whether or not the municipality should have a housing authority, whether or not we should have a czar, a housing czar, similar to Nancy Burke, was the homeless czar at a certain point in time.

And it raises the question about whether or not we— what expectations we create with respect to the work of implementation. And so I just raised that because I don't believe that we all want to take the role as a body, or maybe it is the role that people want to take on, as quasi-authoritative of specific issue areas that we have obligations to have jurisdiction over, but not necessarily the expertise. And so I don't think that we are the housing authority, for example, but I think housing is a very important conversation that we have had, we, we're leading on, and it is part of a larger community an economic development vantage point. So that's just a perspective that I would apply to a committee that I had proximity to. I think there are other changes that, that might be similar, that might make sense to as well in terms of the critique, but it also— there may be, for example, governance versus rules.

That seems to be a germane change, uh, that's not necessarily, uh, issue-specific, and so it keeps a broad perspective. Additionally, Chair, I just wanted to flag that I think, uh, and I've talked with the Chair offline, but my intention was to see, uh, additional folks stepping into leadership roles, especially around the Chamber, um, and also, uh, the committee. So independent of the name of the committee I just would reflect that I think there have been two additional folks that have identified an interest in working on that particular area in terms of leadership, and so I would encourage and support that.

Okay, thanks. I have Jared and Sydney.

Thanks. Um, just kind of a thought, you know, and people take it for what it's worth, but the legislative committee, it seems like it and it does do a lot of work with the legislature and advocating for our legislative priorities. It might be worth making sure that the leadership of that, or at least the membership of that, has a split in political ideology, because obviously I can't go down to Juneau and advocate terribly well with a member from downtown in the House, but I could also probably do a lot better than, uh, somebody else with a member from Eagle River, right? And somebody more for my political leanings than maybe somebody without my political leanings. Um, so just thought, I don't know if we want to maybe split that up a little bit so we can divide and conquer a little bit better, um, when we go, when we go down there instead of saturating one side because it is pretty split down in J-Town.

And then the other thing, can you kind of— I guess, I guess I'm a little confused. What further data points do you need, Anna, to make a decision? I know this has been a conversation we've been having for months, and you've been soliciting people's desires and inputs and where they want to go, what policy areas they want to focus on. What more do we need to make this decision? Because I'd hate to see us— I'd hate to see the new members especially lose another month without having finality to this because they're 6 months into their term at this point.

Thanks. Yeah, thanks. I can briefly respond to that. I think I do want to make a distinction. I hear what you're saying about participation in legislative advocacy.

I think the work of the legislative committee— and each committee has a description that's really up to the chairs to determine the scope of, as long as it's within the broad scope of our work. The Legislative Committee, its, its main function on paper is to be the conduit for discussing and, and then recommend— well, not even recommending, just working on the draft legislative program that we have to adopt by December 10th. And so there's never been really a direct connection between who is leading legislative advocacy per se, because for example, we had 4 or 5 members go down to Juneau a couple years ago, partly tied to the AML conference, and then really the Mayor's Office has taken lead on drafting this regardless. So I want to be clear, I don't want to put a partisan lean or a partisan framing on a committee that really has a process function, but I also agree that we do need to be strategic and really have, you know, the right folks talking to the right people. So I just want to make sure those are distinct roles that we have, because I would hope all 12 members participate in legislative advocacy in some way, whether it's for your district or as a whole.

So I totally hear what you're saying, but again, I want to be clear that that committee has been very narrowly construed, and even getting legislative updates during session, it's not necessarily that that committee is directing the work. It's the forum to discuss that work. So I hear what you're saying, and also we want to make sure we're not putting things on the committees that doesn't exist. Next I have Sydney, Cameron, and then Janice.

Yeah, my— Only other addition here is I'm wondering whether we should list the right-sizing committee here. I know that we have Janice Park serving as a liaison there, and I think it'd be great to have that reflected in some of our internal documents here so that we remember that committee exists and that Janice is representing us there.

Thanks. Thanks. See, next I have Cameron and then Janice.

Yeah, just a couple of, of comments just in response to Member Silvers, who I think said that Cameron wanted to move off that committee. None of the choices that are on here I actually had any input in, so because I missed the last meeting, so I, I have not had any input into this in terms of the choices that were made. Um, and so, and then the second thing was just a question about, is the new Public Safety Committee quarterly? Based on—. I'm looking at the schedule back here and it's in— oh no, I'm sorry, Health and Homeless.

Does that go to a quarterly timeframe? Is that correct? That's the proposal that the Health and Homeless is quarterly? Yeah, I think—. Is that an audit and legislative?

I think there was discussion about making more meetings less frequent. And so I think that's Yes, so this is a working draft. Oh, I see it at the top now. Yeah, yeah. And the proposal for it to be quarterly, I think at one point it was back when we discussed this, I think in June, May or June, Aaron proposed that.

So that's not what's reflected here. And again, these are up for discussion because I think there's the, the issue always has a lot of business and the question is what is the assembly doing and how often do we want to meet about it? I think those are again two different questions. The only other question I had was that it's in here as "Still covers homelessness, which is about services." Maybe someone can explain what that means to me. What does that mean, that, that "which is about services," as opposed to policy?

I think— good question. I think when I wrote that, probably it wasn't clear. I was thinking, again, what is the Assembly's role? Because, you know, the role used to be when I started writing funding resolutions for shelter because the administration was unwilling to do that, right. And so, so our role has changed.

And I think we have a policy role, obviously, but I think a lot of what we hear in the Homeless Committee seems to be more briefings and information about, about services that are being offered and what the administration's response is. So I think, again, it's not— we certainly are policy, but the question is, what is the function of that committee? And what is the Assembly doing are we just hearing briefings, which is useful information, or is it that we are developing policy? And that is a question for the committee and the body. Yeah, yeah, I think that's— and that's— I would just—.

That—. Thank you, because I think that the, um, I think that the, the continued conversation's been— this is not new, right? The conversation has been, um, in order to do policy work, in order to allocate funding, um, the assembly members have to be— have to have an understanding of the topics and the issues and the things that they were dealing with, right? And so, so do the committees serve as a, as a place to specifically debate on a policy issue prior to it becoming a draft policy, right? But as issues come, and, and, and then also how do members become informed about the issues surrounding the policies or the funding allocations that they have, and whether that's a work session, whether that's their own work going out into the community.

So I think that's the one of the questions going back to these, like, the purpose of the committee, right? And I think the ongoing narrative that we've heard, I've heard, is, is, is I don't want to go to that committee because there's not a specific proposal on the table, right? It's a whole bunch of reports. And so, but the, but the question is, are those reports related to policies that we're going to be debating? And so I would just say that, that that's as we move into these, what's the difference between the committee and the work session?

Like the work session, we already have a policy developed or a proposed policy we're going to do it there. So that's, that's the thing that's in my mind is, does this change our approach to work sessions? And do we see more work sessions because of this? And/or do, do committees go back to what we— I think we tried, and I just, I won't speak too long about this, but last year, we at both the Housing and Homeless and the Public Health and Safety went back to the administration and said, don't bring us presentations unless they relate directly to a topic that's going to be a decision for us, right? Only bring us the information necessary that is going to help us prepare for a decision that we're going to make.

So that was a definite— definitely a shift away from just general updates. And so that would be helpful in understanding the sort of the framework for these, both how the administration interacts with them and then also the relationship to work sessions. So that's a lot to say, but I think that goes back to like, what's the purpose of these and how do we determine what's on the agenda? So all that to be said, I like it. I like what it looks like and I'm supportive of it.

So good job. Thanks. A few more folks in the queue. I have Janice, George, and Yara.

Thank you. So first of all, about scheduling and the committees that might be quarterly, I think, not only for health and homelessness, but for any committee where some topic becomes emergent, that we should have the flexibility to have an extra meeting if that's warranted. And all committees can schedule special meetings like I did with this one. So yes. Okay.

And then also, I would just say to Mr. Gerker, last session in the legislature, the majority leader in both the House and Senate were Republicans.

All the more reason to have a Republican leading the legislative committee then.

Okay, let's— so I know it's 12:35. I'm going to suggest that we do the following. I know we still have our training because— and that is, we've been waiting for about 6 months wants to do this training, so that's why I've prioritized it. And then I imagine we might have one person for audience participation. And so after that, we can start our last work session a little bit later, but just— and then I'll talk to kind of what the next steps are too, to Jarrod's question.

So next I have George and then Yarrow. Thank you, Chair. Just a recommendation additionally.

From my vantage point, Committees, liaisons don't work if there's not a strategic intentionality of doing work across time.

So, for example, as we have an issue area that we have, and we have a dedicated administrative goal, administration goal, 10,000 homes. We are strategically renaming, or the attempt is potentially to strategically rename, a committee to amplify that work. But I think the theory of change really is about if work is broken down across the different silos, and if we think of our community partners and the liaisons as part of those community silos that help us both learn and communicate, from within this body, then I think it's really important that we have an understanding of that sort of theory of change and the coordination across systems that lead to curiosity, different than suspicion. And I just raise that particularly because Visit Anchorage was mentioned today as one of the organizations that we do have a member on. And Visit Anchorage is sending 2 members of their team to a Music City conference with the intentionality that hope to bring back that Music City work convention to Anchorage.

This is multiple years of work with the creative economies and the Michael Howard Group that we have as a body funded that work. And so the point is, work is iterative over time. And I think it's really important that the chair and members understand the strategic nature of, as we go out in the community, to have a consistent coordinated understanding of the work that may not necessarily be ours, Jermaine, but is the body's work, and how we use the various elements of our networks to digest, to process, and to deepen that work so that we do have the the opportunity for a resolution that was passed by this body to fund the music economy study that leads to the potential opportunity for the organization to have a convention here in the community. I think that that's when the work is optimal, when it's working right, that's what happens. And so that's good news, but it's also just an encouragement for the members to think about the work across each other's portfolios and the silos of our community partners, because it helps to deepen the work that any one individual member cannot drive alone.

Thank you. Thanks. Yeah, and I'll note I did speak with Visit Anchorage about that project. Um, next I have Yarrow.

Um, I'm a little confused because you were talking about the, um, health and homelessness being quarterly, but I see on the back here that it says, uh, health bimonthly, and so I thought that was every other month. So I'm a little confused there. Um, also it sounds like, um, Cameron does want to continue on that committee. I guess my other question is, um, did Jared request to be removed, or maybe I should give up my spot as third on that so that somebody else can come in there because it— yeah.

Thanks. Um, yeah, my intention here was not necessarily to intentionally remove people, but just trying to find places for new members. And then just to be clear again, the, um, we can make all of these meetings monthly. What I also heard is people want to be fewer hours in meeting. And so we either need to meet less monthly or less frequently, fewer committees, or I guess just choose to not show up.

And so the quarterly proposal was something Erin had shared in an earlier version, so I have not carried that forward. So this—. What's here is bimonthly or some other schedule depending on what it looks like. So yeah, I think—. So it is bimonthly.

Okay. Yeah. Well, and again, these are all drafts. So, so I think I'm going to speak briefly to kind of next steps. So I know this has been hanging out there.

Part of it was to let folks figure out where they wanted to fit in, kind of see the pace of work. And as you all have experienced, there's a lot of things going on, right? And so if we had said, let's just have 2 committees, that would not have been realistic. Neither would it be realistic to have 15 committees. And so, so my ask to everybody then is, well, at this, I continue to want feedback.

I could have implemented this probably a month ago. And then I knew not agree, we would. So that was— So anyway, all that to say, please give me feedback. Let's say by next— Switching mics here. And I think please share that through Jamie, and she will collate all of that.

Changes, whether it's frequency, whether it's, you know, you want to be a member, you would like to be in leadership, you don't, and then we can have those direct conversations. I have not had a lot of time to really reach out to folks and just have these direct conversations. I'm hoping to make that time. And again, we can make changes in the future. So, and I know we're going to be running out of time.

So I appreciate all the feedback, and I understand it is hard to accommodate kind of what everybody wants this to look like. At the end of the day, once these are set, it is up to each of the committee leadership to figure out how they want to use their committee, and then it's up to all the members to prioritize or not prioritize going to the committees that you care about, knowing that we have a lot of work that we have to do in addition to what we want to do. And so anyway, so thanks everybody, and happy to have one-on-one conversations as well. So with that, again, Thursday, 27th, please sign— send any additional feedback, changes, whatever you want. To Jamie, and then I'll work with Daniel.

I've been communicating with him as well about kind of what this looks like, and it's a working document. So with that, let us move to the remainder of our time, and I know we're running a little bit short on time. So intention is to start the next work session at 1:15, which should give us enough time to do the rest of our business. So I will then turn it over to Mr. Frizzell to do our training on quasi-judicial proceedings. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll just get right to it since it sounds like my time might be a little bit short here. So this short description on the bottom of the slide that you see is from your Assembly's very own webpage, and it does a fair job of describing succinctly what your roles as Assembly members are. Not that you need to be reminded, but as it states, you're legislators who were elected to create, pass, and amend local laws. All with the intention to represent your constituents. Not a bad description, but, uh, there's another role not stated in this description that you can probably easily guess is what we're going to talk about today.

Obviously, it's mentioned on the top of the slide as well, and of course, that's your roles when it comes to quasi-judicial matters. Here's a list of possible such matters you may see on your agendas from time to time. It's kind of a lengthy list, uh, now not to disappoint everyone here, but our goal isn't to go over all of these. We will, however, visit in a bit a couple business items in which you more so frequently flex your quasi-judicial skills though.

And those quasi-judicial matters concern alcohol licenses and marijuana licenses, which sometimes also includes special land use permits. In these hearings, as well as the issues from the list that we're skipping over, you end up making what the law calls quasi-judicial decisions. And when it comes to alcohol and marijuana licenses, it's important to keep in mind that you're making these decisions for individual business owners and individual applicants. Today we're going to be looking at how you approach these types of matters, but before we do that, the Clerk's Office would just like to say that we recognize most of you have taken part in a a lot of quasi-judicial proceedings at this point, and therefore this training may feel a lot like it's just review. So simply put, thanks for reviewing with us.

And of course, if you're someone new to navigating quasi-judicial hearings, very happy to have you here as well. Alright, so in exploring quasi-judicial matters, we're going to look at this subject in two different ways, and the first way is going to be pretty darn short, and that's just to remember to act as if you're a judge. The Latin prefix quasi translates to "as if," so in a quasi-judicial role, you could say you're literally being asked to act as if you're a judge. In these matters, you've been given the power to interpret and apply the law to the facts submitted and the evidence you receive. Even though you aren't actually a judge, a judge, it's recommended you do your best to act like one, and this means doing things a judge would do but as well not doing the things that a judge would not do.

For many professions out there, we sometimes literally do wear two different outfits to remind us of the separation between our roles. An actor changes into his costume and back again, or a firefighter the same with her gear. But in your role as an assembly member, once you're finished with, let's say, Item 14G, and Madam Chair says, well, we'll now move on to the quasi-judicial items on the agenda, There you are, obviously in your same clothes, but perhaps also the same frame of mind. Obviously, we're not advising you to show up to chambers with a judge's robe to change into to make this transition, but we want to stress today there is a needed transition to understand what your powers in these matters are, and that slipping back into your more common roles as legislators, it could be problematic. So if embracing the mantra, act as if you're a judge, helps, by all means, go for it.

For it. All right, we said we'd be looking at your quasi role in two ways, and that was the first. This training is sort of already half over now, but let's move on to the second way. With the second way, we're going to go a little more in depth. Now, we do want to point out that there are procedures that are protecting due process rights in our code, and in addition, as you may know, there's an ordinance under construction that will be a major revamping.

And it's aimed at standardizing the procedures in quasi-judicial matters that come before you. It's not one of our goals today to cover that ordinance since it's still in the works. Instead, we'll be focusing on understanding quasi-judicial procedures in general as they're widely known. So we're going to go over concepts like due process and ex parte communication, and we'll also touch on how you should approach evidence that you'll be seeing and hearing. Since, like we just said, most of your quasi-judicial functions revolve around alcohol and marijuana licenses— again, that includes hearings on special land use permits— we'll then take just a little bit of time to reintroduce you to, if you haven't seen them already, the flowcharts that the Clerk's Office created to guide applicants on the paths that they go on to receive such licenses.

Then we're going to give a really brief intro to some of the criteria that you should be considering in these alcohol and marijuana license hearings. Lastly, we're going to go into discussing why it's important to take the time to deliberate matters to ensure you've come to fair decisions, as well as to put into the record the factual findings and rationale and basis for the decisions you make. So, as a good place to start in understanding what quasi-judicial means for everybody, it's fundamentally important to look at some important passages from documents that you've sworn upon uphold. From our own municipal charter, the opening of our Bill of Rights guarantees rights to the people of Anchorage that are in addition to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. And from that U.S. Constitution, we have this incredibly important passage that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

And in addition, we'd be remiss not to include from the Alaska Constitution Concerning due process, that the rights of all persons to fair and just treatment in the course of legislative and executive investigations shall not be infringed. Those passages are the underpinnings under hundreds of thousands of court decisions. And speaking of court cases, let's take a look at a quote from the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Matthews v. Eldridge from 1976. The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.

Without going into the nuances of this case that revolved around Social Security Disability, although I'm sure Mr. Gates could probably take us to school to learn a great more about it, the case also highlights something else important to remember about due process, and that's that due process is also flexible and calls for such procedural protections as a particular situation demands.

While providing due process should be a standard in all quasi-judicial hearings, Keep in mind that quasi-judicial procedures are not always uniform and universal. Rather, there are varied processes that fit the particular subject matter at hand. Part of the reasons for this— part of the reason for this is due to Matthews v. Eldridge, in that that case established a procedural due process balancing test that not only has been applied in almost every federal and state case with procedural due process challenges, but has been considered in drafting the municipality's quasi-judicial procedures as well. That balancing test asks 3 questions, and admittedly I am paraphrasing a bit here. Firstly, what private interest that a citizen or business has might be lost by an official government action?

Secondly, could the current process likely lead to an error, and would adding more procedural steps or substituting procedural steps fix that error? And lastly, how much time and money will more procedures cost the government and thus the public? All right. To Mr. Gates in this room, I hope I didn't let you down in explaining that. Okay.

Moving on from that short constitutional law lesson. As legislators, you're free to apply your politics to any business items before you. But with your quasi-judicial roles, you're not proposing or amending legislation. Rather, you've been given the authority to decide how existing ordinances and laws now apply to individuals. Now, in the end, you most definitely do have the authority to vote on any quasi-judicial hearing as you decide, but remember also in that same end, a quasi-judicial decision will be a legally binding decision.

If you go outside of set criteria that you're supposed to use, when you do this, not only might you be violating the due process rights of an individual, you also possibly open the chance of a decision the assembly makes to be challenged in court. Your decision could be viewed as arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. This key phrase, arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, you'll be hearing this again in this training for sure. All right, what about public opinion? Well, part of the makeup of quasi-judicial hearings allows you to take in public testimony to learn applicable facts.

But the public's opinion outside of a hearing that hasn't been included in this hearing should actually not be a factor to consider. If that type of public opinion was considered, it wouldn't be quasi-judicial, it would be more of a referendum. Lastly, odds are in the time you're on the Assembly, you'll make a quasi-judicial decision that could be unpopular or that goes against your grain or your belief system. But your essential function overall is to make an impartial decision based on established criteria. Again, just like a judge is expected to do.

While the Assembly's decisions are binding based on the evidence presented and the application of the law, it's also important to remember that applicants have the right to appeal. Again, looking at your roles as legislators, when it comes to legislative decisions, your decisions do not actually have to be based on evidence. If a court is reviewing, say, an ordinance that you passed that got challenged as an invalid law, the basic low level of scrutiny is whether that ordinance has a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest, regardless of how much or how little evidence was considered. That's different than when a court reviews your quasi-judicial decisions. The assembly's quasi-judicial decisions may be appealed, and if an appeal is heard in court, the court is going to determine 3 things, starting with: was the procedural process provided to an applicant?

Next, did the assembly observe the essential requirements of the law to reach its decision? And finally, are your findings and judgments supported by competent and substantial evidence versus being arbitrary and capricious? All right, following due process rules, due process rules can sometimes be at odds with expectations that your citizens may have about interacting with you, but following these rules are important to ensure fairness. Now, a lot of the guidance on this slide that we're showing you now is common sense advice, but sometimes we need to reinforce even that common sense advice. So let's look at 3 helpful rules.

Firstly, good judges make up their minds after all testimony and evidence is heard. So let's say you're a juror on a trial. If so, you'd be told not to pay attention to the media about the trial. That info may be out there, but when you see it, discontinue reading it and wait until the matter arrives on your agenda.

Next, as far as researching or collecting evidence on your own, If you went out and did your own research, you're not exactly taking in fair evidence. If you were to explain why you came to your decision at the end of a hearing, you'd essentially be saying you're making a decision based off testimony that came from yourself. That's not something a judge should do. If you do want to make a site visit to an applicant's business, be sure to make it a notice public meeting so that everybody has the same opportunity to process potential evidence. Remember also, with the evidence that's presented to you, you're going to get to ask questions about it, to scrutinize it, and ultimately accept or deny it.

And lastly, perhaps maybe you oppose marijuana or alcohol even being licensed and regulated in the first place, but be careful of making statements that might evidence any kind of pre-bias. Obviously you're going to engage with your constituents, and conversations about such matters can come up, but prepare yourself with some talking points in case you find you may be talking about specific hearings. If you don't already have talking points ready, it's not a bad idea to prepare some like the example shown here, and this can help you to steer away from falling into making statements that can be taken the wrong way or from taking part in what is referred to as ex parte communication. In case you don't know, ex parte basically translates as one-sided. If you engage with— in conversation or exchange information with only one party without the presence or knowledge of other parties involved, that's considered ex parte.

The most obvious example would be meeting with an applicant outside a hearing to discuss the pros or cons of an application, or if you conducted independent reviews of maps, plans, and sketches that aren't provided to everybody, that's also ex parte. Now, before we move on, it's important to point out that in briefly looking at, looking at ex parte here, we're not taking into account in this training any possible ex parte rule exceptions that may be currently written in our code. If you do have questions about such exceptions or the future of those exceptions, maybe we hold those comments or questions until the end of our training, if that's okay. And we'll probably invite Mr. Gates to comment on that.

As far as when ex parte rules are triggered, well, that's going to be as soon as a business item has been published as being on the agenda. But ex parte also requires you to essentially have your radar up and know that if someone wants to talk to you about something that you know is going to end up in front of you as a quasi-judicial matter, well, you should wait and not engage earlier. Again, this can be difficult, as the natural inclination for many constituents is to talk to you about issues important to them. But in the end, imagine if you were the person seeking a license. You might not find it fair if you knew decision makers were having private conversations outside of their ability to be included.

If you find that you inadvertently did engage in ex parte communication, make sure to disclose such communication. Like by letting your chair know at the hearing, or let your staff know prior. Such communication is required to be disclosed on the record by the beginning of that hearing. And remember, ex parte does not apply to communicating between yourselves or you and your staff. Keep Open Meetings Act rules in mind with that as well, though.

You can actually use your staff as a resource to help you avoid ex parte problems. For example, if you receive an email concerning a quasi-judicial matter, forward it to your staff, and they can respond for you. They can also assemble emails for the hearing packet that you're going to receive for that hearing. Alright, let's talk a little bit about evidence. As far as evidence presented to you, it'd be great if judging evidence was always straightforward, but rather it usually takes some careful listening and reasoning skills on your part.

In a court trial, practically half of bench conferences are having a judge decide on admissibility. Of course, there's no actual judge in your quasi-judicial hearings to truly do this, so this places a bit of a burden on you all to determine what evidence have you seen or heard that you may properly consider. And speaking of that, the chair has the authority to accept or exclude testimony or evidence. And of course, as with any assembly meeting, the body can appeal the chair's decisions. As hopefully you know, in any assembly meeting you also always have the possibility of calling for a point of information, as per help.

Well, quasi-judicial hearings are no different. The chair can ask, or you can ask your chair to ask counsel for assistance in determining if evidence should be considered.

A few additional notes on evidence: when it comes to evidence relevant to the hearing, exclusionary rules that you'd see in a typical courtroom, well, they're relaxed in quasi-judicial procedures. This means relevant evidence that might be discounted in a court because of something like statutory rules, could still be admitted. Hearsay evidence, which is also generally not allowed in a regular court, it may be allowed provided there's some sort of guarantees of its trustworthiness. Again, use counsel like Mr. Gates for assistance here if you need it. Having said that, there are going to be times you'll have to ask yourself about evidence being competent and substantial.

In deciding if evidence is, is competent, ask yourself firstly if it's relevant, and then if you find it persuasive. Does it prove or disprove the criteria that you must consider in some way? If you don't find it persuasive, don't count it. And in determining if evidence is substantial, remember to keep in mind that you will be looking at the totality of the evidence submitted. Does that overall evidence in the record support a reasonable person like yourself coming to supporting a conclusion.

Alright, just a little bit more about public participation. The public is encouraged to take part in these hearings, but also remember, like we said earlier, that public opinion that exists outside of the hearing should not play a part. For any of these types of license hearings, notices are sent out to property owners and community council members who could be affected by the licenses in question. Specifics for those notices are listed in code and a bit on this slide. And of course, the hearings themselves are publicly noticed to allow the public as a whole to participate.

Along with accepting any of the public's testimony, remember you're always free to ask follow-up questions. And lastly, besides direct testimony, it's also possible you will be considering written objections, suggested conditions, or petitions as part of the record. All right, so let's take a little, a little look at the paths that applicants take to apply for alcohol licenses and marijuana licenses, again including the possibility of special land use permits. On the Municipal Clerk's licensing page, we recently updated the flowcharts that we provide for our applicants. Our aim was to redesign these so that applicants could better understand the processes involved in obtaining such licenses.

If you're still new to these processes, we're hoping it will also help you understand them better as well. And also, for anyone that's following this training online, these flowcharts are found at the end of the quasi-judicial presentation packet that can be found on the website. Now I'm going to forego taking you through all of these steps for now because it's a bit of a journey for each of them. But if you'd like, after this training, the Municipal Clerk's Office, and maybe that means namely me, is happy to give anyone a run-through on these charts. So no matter the hearing that you're part of, you'll always be expected to adhere to criteria for approving or denying applicants their licenses.

It would be great if all of this criteria that applied to each type of hearing was consolidated in code for easy reference, but keep in mind there's both municipal licenses and state licenses at play. And you deal not just with new issuances but renewals and transfers of licenses. And of course there's those situations in which licenses are being considered for suspension or revocation. As a result, the criteria that you use to make your decisions, like we mentioned earlier, it's a bit spread out in code. If it helps, we made a couple of guides that compile the criteria that you'll use for both marijuana and alcohol licenses.

Now, keep in mind, regardless of these guides, the goal here is not an expectation that you memorize all of this criteria, because that would be a pretty tall order. Of course, remember that the packets that you receive for your hearings will also guide you through this respective criteria. All right, while we're going to go over just a few examples of criteria, what we'd really like you to take from this really short intro is that you form an intention to adhere to the criteria to make sound decisions versus turning to things like personal beliefs or outside opinions. Because simply put, that's just the way quasi-judicial decisions should be made, as this training is stressing.

So to make things a little more interesting, sometimes criteria is written as criteria for approval, and sometimes it's written as criteria for denial. Here we can see the criteria that you should apply in deciding upon a new marijuana license or endorsement is written as denial. Now notice the statement on the top right of the slide. This provision found under administrative adjudication and code concerns the decisions you reach, and it obliges you to remember that findings must be reasonably specific so as to provide interested persons and, where appropriate, reviewing authorities a clear and precise understanding of the reasons for the decisions entered. So as an example, you may look at the fourth option here on this slide for considering a denial and ask, "Will issuance of the license before me adversely impact the health of the neighborhood?" But can you be reasonably specific and clear in describing to interested parties how this could be?

In other words, can you point to the evidence to decide that?

Here's the criteria for deciding on a special land use permit. Notice it's written as criteria for approval. You might also notice that this criteria is found in Title 21, where you'll find information on land use planning. This is because this is actually the same criteria that the Planning Department uses in drawing up its recommendations to you.

And lastly, let's just take a glimpse at some of the criteria involved in considering to suspend or revoke a marijuana license. Obviously, if you look at this slide, we're trying to keep this intro to criteria brief without going into every detail, as we've only listed a bit of the criteria from code here, but we have included what is probably most commonly considered: has the licensee engaged in any practice or procedure that is contrary to the best interest of the public?

While we kept that intro to criteria short, we do recommend if you have time to somewhat somewhat familiarize yourself with the criteria that you'll apply most often. Again, you don't have to memorize the criteria, and of course you always have your staff and counsel to help you out. You as the Assembly, you all use scripts already, and hopefully you continue to do so, as they're not just helpful for the Assembly but for the public as well to understand your processes. So now that you've heard the applicant's presentation, public testimony, and asked your questions, discussion of the evidence and the criteria may be necessary and helpful too, and is encouraged encouraged. While it may not always be necessary, your constituents love to hear you deliberate to show your rationale for arriving at your decisions.

Here you can now formulate the basis of your impending decision, and the applicant as well as everyone involved obtains an understanding of your position. Remember, it's okay to ask yourself questions to assure that you'd be able to provide reasons and explanations for why you're voting the the way that you're voting, particularly if you're planning on voting no. So let's say you have no facts, testimony, or evidence to support that no vote. Do you still, do you still feel like you could reasonably explain how you arrived at that vote if asked to do so? And lastly, remember that you always can ask for floor amendments to insert findings that can help explain your decisions and to provide grounds for your intended vote.

Alright, just a simple exercise here. We've got some very summarized criteria that should be used for coming to a decision concerning a license in the middle of this slide. After looking at that criteria, now take a gander at the no votes and reasoning to the sides of the slide. Hopefully you can see that these reasonings that these members are using are not considering that criteria at all, but rather are supported by personal beliefs.

Remember, as we learned considering marijuana licenses, if the facts you decide to use are not grounded in criteria and you cannot formulate a clear and precise understanding of the reasons for your decision, while yes, you always have your authority, it's fair to say you also have an obligation to say yes to a license. We didn't go over any of the criteria that you'll use for deciding alcohol licenses, but there's this full statement from code with some words we've already stressed. If the assembly were to protest a license, the protest shall be upheld by the ABC board unless it's found to be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. If your reasons are arbitrary, etc., maybe give your decisions a second thought. All right, as we wrap up, let's take a look at what fair can mean by considering this question.

If we were to place a condition on a licensee to mark their bottles, doesn't this mean we'd have to do the same for every other business? Wouldn't that be the fair thing to do? It's understandable to think of fair as meaning everybody should have the same outcome, but remember, that's what's most fair is that everybody receives this— that what is most fair is that everybody receives, receives the same procedures and the same respect that the quasi-judicial process should offer. This doesn't equate to everybody ending up with the same decision. So let's look at a simple comparison of two hearings to better understand this.

Perhaps both Applicant A and Applicant B have similar businesses in the same neighborhood and are up for renewals of their licenses. But it's possible with Applicant B, the public testimony and the evidence provided all added up to them not meeting their obligations as A licensee, while the other licensee did meet their obligations. In the end, a question you want to ask yourself is, do you feel comfortable knowing you afforded both licensees the exact same procedures? And can you point to the evidence and offer a sound justification for why you chose one conclusion for A and another for B? To wade into constitutional law again, it's the Equal Protection Clause that allows the government to treat similarly— similar situated persons different if there is a rational basis for doing so.

You can reach a different conclusion for A and B without violating that equal protection because the evidence provides a rational basis to attach conditions to B's license that are rationally related to bad conduct and operations of their license. And with that, I hope you don't mind that I sped through this training. I know that we were kind of short on time, We come back to the original non-subtle but much shorter part of this training to try and act as if you're a judge. This doesn't mean judges don't make mistakes or that they never think twice about their decisions. Judges are human after all.

So to conclude, if you follow procedures as demanded by due process and code, if you adhere to ex parte rules, if you apply the criteria that should be applied and disregard criteria that shouldn't be applied. This essentially means you can feel confident you're soundly fulfilling the quasi-judicial side of your role as an assembly member. Alright guys, that is it. Did we make it by one? No, that's okay.

So we do have some time for questions. Thank you, Jeff. I just want to say two things very briefly. One is, I just want to be super clear, any— all of this training is not a commentary on any recent meetings we've had, any particular item. This is something that I had to review on July 29th, and this is, again, something we've been talking about doing for 6 months.

So I guess I just want to make that clear. Second, I want to say very plainly, as Jeff said, everything we do has litigation risk, and that's true as a person and it's true as an official. Trainings and discussions like this are to reduce that risk of litigation up front, to help us prevent errors collectively, because the Chair is not the only one involved in these proceedings, and then also to make sure that we are following the process processes we need to as a body, because I will say this very plainly, if we are acting in our official capacity, any one of us or as the body, and the muni gets sued, taxpayers pay for that. So that's why it's super important for us to understand our jobs. And I'm not—.

Again, this is not commentary on anything that happened, it's just true. And this is one of those things that has massive litigation risk if we don't do the way we're supposed to, and we have to be clear about why we're doing things and what evidence we're using. So again, that's why we have— most of these we haven't had to deal with because they're just quick quick votes and there's no discussion, no controversy about a license, but that those licenses, there are some that I know some of us have already been involved in experiencing, it can get messy. And so that's why we're trying to make it less messy. So with that, questions starting with Sydney.

So the—. What I'm hearing in terms of this training is like criteria around our decision-making on how we're voting on these licenses. Is there an elevated expectation to share why you are voting a certain way on these licenses, given kind of the elevated risk of these votes, basically? I know in researching to prepare for this training that I learned that a lot of assemblies and city councils throughout the United States actually project the criteria up on a screen for everyone to see. I thought about putting a little information about that in the training, but I didn't want to put the onus on you to have to go change your Yeah, maybe that could be in the binder or something.

But in doing that, clearly some assemblies and city councils find real value for a reason there. So is there an elevated expectation to use the criteria based on that anecdote? Maybe so. Yeah, or to share your rationale for voting because—. Yeah, and I know a lot of quasi-judicial trainings really stress to deliberate, you know, even if you don't have anything to say negative about a license, to at least say that, okay, I've thought about this and this is— yeah, this is a yes, versus just going around and, you know, 12 yeses, no nos, and next item of business.

It can feel like there wasn't much thought in that case, perhaps. So that deliberation, I think, does show that some thought took place to the people watching. Yeah. Okay, thank you. And I'll just briefly add also, I think this is the answer he can't give.

We are also a political body, and so I think I've fielded questions. I know there's been a lot of questions and kind of discussion about how we operate, and I think there is the legal what you can do, and there's political what you should do, and lawyers cannot tell you what you should do, um, nor can any of our staff really. And so the uncomfortable thing about our job is that a lot of times we are out there and we have to do political things in this legal framework. And so I'm just offering that, that a lot of times if you're seeking someone else to tell you what you should do, there isn't an answer to that. And so I think, but, and even with, you can vote every single time with no justification and that's a political choice.

Yeah. Cameron and then Donald. You just said what I was gonna say. Oh, perfect, thanks. Well, sorry for jumping the gun.

Donald. So with the discussion, maybe this is a question for Dean, does that, I guess, open a, us up to more potential litigation if we're sitting there saying our reasoning and said something incorrect?

Or—. I'm definitely going to just let Dean answer that one. Mr. Gates, to paraphrase the question, the more we talk, is there more risk?

Um, I don't think I would say that. And actually, relevant to that question, a lot of the items that come before you already have an analysis of the approval criteria that's in code writing from staff. If you're following that, I mean, it's helpful to say, "We're following, we trust our staff, what they've said." If you're doing something different or you have some issue that you need to make a finding on one way or the other, it's helpful to talk about it and your reasons, more than less.

Thanks. Other questions? Chair, this is Matthew Hurts. Go ahead, Matthew. Yeah, I would just like to piggyback on that.

Like, what's most important is how the body votes, not how the individuals vote. And as long as the body's decision is grounded in facts on the record, that's by far the most important thing, is developing a record that can't be. I mean, if the record is going to be challenged in court, what matters is the action that you took as a body and whether or not that body is grounded in facts that have been established. So talking about your, your reasoning, as long as 7 of you aren't saying, well, I just don't like this applicant, right? Like, which nobody would do and nobody would vote that way.

Um, It really matters what the body does as a whole and not necessarily the individual.

Cameron. Yeah, I just wanted to say that I think that the difference, though, is that in a decision that's not quasi-judicial, your reasoning for your vote can be, I don't like that guy. I mean, there's no legal reason that you can't vote in that way. Here, I think there is risk to that, right? If you're not using the actual criteria to make your decision, I think there's real risk in that.

So I would just say that that's the difference. We would hope that in the other cases you're using some form of criteria as well, but in this case, it feels like that there's a higher burden for that. So yeah, thanks. And Dean, you had something? Yes, that's an excellent point.

Thank you.

Never mind. Okay, any further questions on this topic? Okay, so thank you everybody. And again, Dean does have a comment. Go ahead.

Yes, I'm sorry, I will mention we do have municipalities in the state of Alaska some immunity for issuing a license or permit and so forth. That's in AS 09-7625. But I just mentioned that because that's the decision you make when you're going to issue, I guess, a special use permit or license. But the risk of liability is when you don't follow the procedures, you don't give the due process, you know, you know, decision though, if you follow all of those and the decision is challenged, you have immunity from liability if you did everything correctly, all the procedures. So that's important, I think.

Thank you. Okay, so we are at the end of our committee time, but we do have, as I've said, we have audience participation on all of our committee meetings. So if— Jamie, would you like to participate? Okay, so we will do that. And then also note, I know we are running behind on time.

This was partly why we talked about having a bigger buffer between meetings, but this is where we are now. So after that, we are going to adjourn this meeting. We will take just about a 5-minute break, and we'll start our next meeting at 1:25. I hate podiums. This one works.

Okay. All right.

Okay, and then make sure the microphone's on. State your name. You'll have 3 minutes. Okay, uh, Jamie Lopez, East Anchorage, formerly Coalition for the Homeless. Uh, unprepared remarks.

I was hoping for a Judge Dredd quote, sir, not Aaron Judge. Uh, any residents of Peachtree is here? No, uh, absolutely not. Uh, Carl Urban was the best. So, uh, I am disappointed, uh, in your decision-making process right here for the Assembly Committee assignments.

I mean, moving Homelessness under health, okay, sure. But deciding it's quarterly or it's bimonthly, no, you're abdicating your duty to allow members of the public the ability to come and testify before you. And many of those members of the public on the homeless sort of situation, they have no concept of time. They don't know what day it is, let alone what time of day it is. They are endlessly wandering these streets and they are getting no help.

And I can tell you this because I'm about to go feed them literally right after I leave here, and I know some around in this town that just got shoved, you know, a couple days ago and they just moved a couple blocks 'cause that's all they can do. And more or less it is that. So all that said, you know, you routinely allow the experts to come up here and testify, members of the administration. They have no incentive to be honest with you, not at all, you know. They represent the mayor.

And so clearly, you know, when the chief of police comes up here and he says, oh yeah, you know, the policies, uh, I, I'm in charge of them. But he gives a long sort of evasive answer leading up to it. He can change them at will. Um, you know, you had AO 2023-35-S1, which was passed, and that was supposed to add some safeguards and rails on facial recognition tracking. It was supposed to provide an annual surveillance report presented, no, later on June 1st.

And reports, as far as I could tell, for 2023, 2024, and 2025 were not produced and published in any particular way, either shared with the assembly or public. And so nobody's asking questions about that, uh, more or less. Yeah, you know, it said it was supposed to ban the use of facial recognition tracking, and then on top of it, um, more or less it said you could have an outside vendor sort of handle it, but that's just a way to circumvent the process where you send it to an external vendor, you outsource it, there's no sort of regulation whatsoever. There's no limits on the amount of time that they're storing profiles and dossiers on people, and you have no idea what's going outside because again, they have no incentives to share any information with you and to be regulated. And so right now you've got this company, uh, which is tied into Real Time Crime Center, um, the loss prevention teams, and any number of other people are feeding data into that system, and then it's popping back over to APD.

And so anybody gonna ask any questions, tough questions? So I would ask that the Housing and Homelessness Committee meeting or the Health and Homelessness Committee meeting be monthly. So you provide people the opportunity to provide testimony. You actually have your oversight authority over the policies, and you try to help people, because right now I am not seeing that. Thank you for participating.

Thank you. Okay, we will adjourn this meeting today, and then again, I know we're going to take just a short break, then we'll continue with our last work session. Of the day. Thank you, everyone.