Leaning Local

In general, the Open Meetings Act provides that “[a]ll meetings of a governmental body of a public entity of the state are open to the public except as otherwise provided by this section or another provision of law.”

AS 44.62.310(h)(1) defines “governmental body” as:
an assembly, council, board, commission, committee, or other similar body of a public entity with the authority to establish policies or make decisions for the public entity or with the authority to advise or make recommendations to the public entity; “governmental body” includes the members of a subcommittee or other subordinate unit of a governmental body if the subordinate unit consists of two or more members;

AS 44.62.310(h)(2) defines “meeting” as:
a gathering of members of a governmental body when
(A) more than three members or a majority of the members, whichever is less, are present, a matter upon which the governmental body is empowered to act is considered by the members collectively, and the governmental body has the authority to establish policies or make decisions for a public entity; or
(B) more than three members or a majority of the members, whichever is less, are present, the gathering is prearranged for the purpose of considering a matter upon which the governmental body is empowered to act, and the governmental body has only authority to advise or make recommendations for a public entity but has no authority to establish policies or make decisions for the public entity;

Finally, AS 44.62.310(h)(3) defines “public entity” as:
an entity of the state or of a political subdivision of the state including an agency, a board or commission, the University of Alaska, a public authority or corporation, a municipality, a school district, and other governmental units of the state or a political subdivision of the state; it does not include the court system or the legislative branch of state government.

A gathering of members of a public entity is considered a “meeting” that is required to be open to the public when there are more than three members or a majority of the members, whichever is less, present. 3 Thus, it would depend on the total number of members of the “governmental body” to determine whether two or three local elected officials getting together to discuss official business violates the Open Meetings Act. If the governmental body in question consists of six or more members, then a meeting of two or three local elected officials would not violate the Open Meetings Act. In contrast, if the governmental body in question consisted of five members and three elected officials met to discuss official business, such a meeting would likely violate the Open Meetings Act.

More Information about the Open Meetings Act: https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/dcra/LocalGovernmentResourceDesk/LocalGovernmentElectedOfficials/OpenMeetingsAct.aspx

18.28.065 Auxiliary vessels
Only one auxiliary vessel is permitted to each primary vessel at no charge from March 1 to November 15 when in the company of the primary vessel, except that auxiliary vessels may be left in the primary vessel’s exclusive slip unaccompanied for 24 hours at no charge. An auxiliary vessel may not exceed one-half the overall length of the primary vessel and not exceed a maximum length of 25 feet. Auxiliary vessels may not have an enclosed cabin and must be consistent with and designed to support the type of fishery or operation engaged in by the primary vessel. [Ord. 1205, 2006; Ord. 1188, 2005; Ord. 1168a §1, 2004; Ord. 879 §4, 1990]

18.28.220 Securing of auxiliary vessels
No person may tie or attach a skiff, scow, raft, or any other auxiliary craft alongside, astern, or ahead of a vessel moored within the small boat harbors if such auxiliary craft will obstruct or interfere with the normal movement of any vessel or be likely to cause rubbing or chafing damage to any other vessel. [Ord. 653, 1982]

AS 39 applies to municipal elected and “appointed” officials so when considering gifts to municipal employees, make sure that they are not actually appointed; many don’t consider the difference.  However, several municipalities have exempted themselves from AS 39 (APOC financial disclosure and reporting requirements).  If the municipality is exempt, then the answer should be in their code or regs. 

The gift value in statute for reporting is above $150.  Gifts from lobbyists are presumed to be inappropriate so stay away from them to be completely above board.  A few friendly reminders,

• A gift worth more than $150 to you or your immediate family must be reported if:
• • You could take official action that would affect the gift-giver, or
  • The gift is being given to you because of your position as a public employee.

Though a gift may seem innocent, it can get messy even at the local level, so some caution is needed especially if this person is actually an appointed official. 

Most simply gift at below the $150 level but more research may be necessary to be safe for everyone involved.

Although law enforcement routinely moves in the realm of reasonable suspicion (traffic stops, etc.), law enforcement makes lawful arrests based on probable cause – a step up from reasonable suspicion.  But they must remember that their role in the successful prosecution of a matter includes the collection of evidence, testimony, etc. to assist the prosecutor prove the case in court beyond a reasonable doubt – a step up from probable cause (a strict legal term / standard). The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person(s) charged committed the offense(s) they are being accused of committing. The standard of proof in a courtroom is higher than the probable cause required in the field. And this is as it should be. It is a regular occurrence for a prosecutor to decline a matter at arraignment if they determine the case they are given is flawed beyond redemption (lack of probable cause, illegally obtained evidence, etc.), is disproportionate to resources available at the time, or as an acceptable strategy to prevent court-imposed time restrictions working against them (speedy trial rule, Grand Jury or Preliminary Hearing deadlines, etc.).

The police role is to enforce the law and remember that they are the ones that will be providing the prosecutor with the needed lawfully obtained evidence to successfully prosecute the matter. Unless the prosecutor has the completed (or nearly completed) report at arraignment (and they typically only have the charging document with its probable cause statement), they must make a judgment call as whether to continue or dismiss the charge(s). Prosecutors have the “bigger picture” view, and when we can help expand that view by providing them with as much information as possible when it comes to screening cases for prosecution, we should do so.

It can be frustrating, especially if their screening policies run contrary to what we would like to happen when we would like it to occur.