New legislation proposes steep fines for violations of Alaska’s open-meetings law, but opponents see an attempt at revenge

JUNEAU — Anchorage residents opposed to pandemic-related measures and furious at the Anchorage Assembly are supporting legislation that would allow fines of up to $1,000 for violations of the state law that requires local governments to act in public.

Opponents of the proposal include the Alaska Municipal League, Association of Alaska School Boards and the Municipality of Anchorage, and say the proposal is ripe for abuse and frivolous complaints that could discourage Alaskans from running for local office or volunteering for boards and commissions.

If Senate Bill 15 becomes law, anyone could file a complaint with the Alaska Public Offices Commission, alleging that a public official had violated the state’s Open Meetings Act. The commission is required to investigate the complaint, and if commissioners agree that the complaint is valid, the official could be fined up to $1,000.

In the 1960s, former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens proposed a similar fine while serving as a member of the Alaska House of Representatives.

Though neither “Anchorage” nor “COVID-19″ appear in the measure, its existence is a direct consequence of the Anchorage Assembly’s decision last year to temporarily stop accepting in-person testimony because of the coronavirus pandemic. (In-person testimony has resumed since then.)

Sen. Mia Costello, a conservative Republican from Anchorage, drafted the bill and said in a series of prewritten statements that she has constituents who “feel locked out of the discussion.”

That feeling “happens because when public officials (such as some of the ones in my city) decide they don’t have to hear the inconvenient input from a beleaguered public, there aren’t any consequences to those officials.”

Costello canceled two interviews scheduled to talk about the bill and didn’t answer questions by email.

Sen. Elvi Gray-Jackson, D-Anchorage, served on the Anchorage Assembly and worked as an Assembly staffer for several years before being elected to the Legislature in 2018.

She opposes the bill and said it could be an invitation to a “whole other series of bad behavior” if people file complaints over frivolous issues or mistakes.

“They’re not thinking about the consequences ... and the extent of who’s going to be affected,” she said.

Last year, the Assembly closed its meetings, broadcasting them online, and required members of the public to submit comments by phone or email. While protesters rallied outside the Assembly meetings that followed, members of the Assembly approved a series of pandemic measures, including a series of controversial emergency orders.

A group called Alaskans for Open Meetings sued the municipality, alleging that the restrictions on in-person testimony made the Assembly’s meetings illegal, and by extension all actions taken during those meetings are invalid.

A judge has preliminarily ruled against the group, saying that the Assembly did not violate state law, but legal actions are continuing.

Frank McQueary, the group’s president, testified that his group expects to spend as much as $250,000 fighting its case up to the Alaska Supreme Court. He and the group support Costello’s bill and said elected officials need to have “skin in the game” to be held accountable.

Other Alaskans who oppose the Assembly’s actions also testified in support.

Anchorage Attorney Kate Vogel opposed that testimony in writing and by phone.

“This legislation is premised on the false narrative that the Anchorage Assembly violated the Open Meetings Act in August 2020 and that such conduct needs stiffer penalties. I would like to correct the record,” she said.

She also pointed out a bit of hypocrisy: The Alaska Legislature has blocked in-person testimony since last year under even more stringent conditions than used by the Assembly. The Legislature is immune from the state’s open-meetings law, and Senate Bill 15 doesn’t hold legislators accountable. Only municipal officials, including the members of volunteer boards, would be exposed to possible fines.

Nils Andreassen, director of the Alaska Municipal League, said that presents a problem. What happens if a volunteer board makes a scheduling mistake and a meeting takes place without proper public notice? Current law allows for that problem to be fixed by holding another meeting. Under Senate Bill 15, members of that board might be penalized.

“Its effect will be to chill participation,” he said.

Andreassen said the League hasn’t seen evidence that open-meetings violations are “a widespread problem.” but there have been notable exceptions. Before Anchorage’s protests began last summer, Wrangell city officials took a secret vote to fill a vacant seat on the local Assembly.

If the bill becomes law, the Alaska Public Offices Commission would be placed in charge of enforcing it. In an unusual move, the commission’s director testified against the proposal, saying that it would represent a huge workload for her agency. She estimated it would cost more than $400,000 per year to cover the increased work.

“We feel that this is going to politicize the Open Meetings Act more than it needs to be. It will have a far-reaching impact … on many volunteer board and commission members who simply want to try to serve their communities,” she said.

The bill has passed one committee in the Senate. Its next hearing is Wednesday in the Senate Judiciary Committee.