BREAKING: The settlement agreement in Imbriani v. Quinn-Davidson indicates that the Bronson Administration is limiting the Anchorage Health Department’s COVID-19 vaccine outreach in response to privacy concerns. THREAD:
Background: The Municipality of Anchorage settled a lawsuit challenging the COVID-19 emergency orders in the weeks after Mayor Bronson took over.
The settlement agreement, which has not been made public until now, is... WEIRD.
The agreement does more than resolve the claims for declaratory relief, it's also a "Mutual Release of Claims" which is a really weird thing for a lawsuit focused on constitutional claims challenging the COVID-19 emergency orders.
Most interestingly, the settlement agreement advances the reporting by @adn_zaz that Gov. Dunleavy has ordered a criminal investigation into a COVID-19 data breach by the Municipality and its contractors.
Under the settlement agreement, the Muni agreed to "cease and desist utilizing or disseminating the names, contact information, and/or other personal info that was received from the State of Alaska in the COVID-19 vaccination disclosures."
That's a really WEIRD term to include in the settlement agreement because Imbriani and the plaintiffs barely mentioned the data breach in their complaint. Just 1 paragraph and no specific claim for relief, and definitely no claim for money damages.
It's not clear if the Imbriani plaintiffs actually had their data shared outside the State-Muni agreement or not. Which is why the "Mutual Release of Claims" language is so bizarre. It seems to have been used as a vehicle for the Bronson Admin to limit the Health Department.
The settlement agreement also sheds light on what the Muni was doing in February-April 2021 to get Anchorage residents vaccinated. On February 5, just after this tweet from Acting Mayor Quinn-Davidson, the Muni amended the contract with AM Trace to include vaccine outreach.
The amended contract directed AM Trace to "help with community outreach focused on increasing vaccine acceptance, reducing hesitancy concerns, continued education, and vaccine appointment scheduling assistance to prevent transmission of COVID-19."
It looks like the Anchorage Health Department also shared information, acquired from the State, about individuals in Anchorage who hadn't gotten the vaccine yet. AM Trace made calls specifically to those individuals with information received from the Health Department.
That may have been a criminal violation if the disclosure was outside the State-Anchorage Confidentiality Agreement governing COVID-19 data. Gov. Dunleavy has ordered the Department of Law to investigate, and according to sources, a criminal investigation is ongoing.
Circling back, the settlement agreement makes it clear that the Health Department will no longer use personal information from the State COVID-19 database. "Utilizing" - not just "sharing" - is key. The Health Dept.'s hands are tied, even as vaccine outreach is waning. #aklaw
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
BREAKING: The @FBIAnchorage has charged a Kasilof resident with making unlawful Threatening Interstate Communications for allegedly sending bomb and other death threats to individuals in Vermont. #aklaw
Today the superior court will hear oral arguments in Midtown Citizens Coalition v. Municipality of Anchorage. "MCC" is an unofficial group that opposes the recall of Assembly member Felix Rivera. The question is whether the Muni properly certified the recall petition. #aklaw
Before posting the MCC v. MOA briefs, it's worth noting that the legal arguments made by Rivera's supporters parallel those made by Dunleavy in Recall Dunleavy v. State. Both Rivera and Dunleavy argued that their recall petitions should have been denied by election officials.
So let's play a game called "Who Argued It." Guess which politician, Rivera or Dunleavy, made the following arguments in court:
1. "The grounds for recall stated in the petition are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the petition should have been rejected."
AAG Fox's opening: "APOC is just trying to follow the law."
"[Plaintiffs] haven't tried to distinguish these cases" that hold the campaign contribution limits are unconstitutional.
J. Carney: What if our statute is different [from other statutes that have been ruled unconstitutional by fed courts]?
Fox: AK statute doesn't treat the subject groups differently than statutes in other cases. No difference among the statutes. APOC is bound by fed case law.
Today at 11 am the Alaska Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in APOC v. Patrick, one of the most important cases you've probably never heard of. Harvard Law School Con Law Professor Lawrence Lessig @lessig leads the plaintiffs in a case almost certain to head to SCOTUS #aklaw
2. This case is about whether APOC has discretion to ignore AK's campaign contribution limits for independent expenditure groups. After SCOTUS's 2010 decision in Citizens United, APOC decided AK's law was unconstitutional and unenforceable. Plaintiffs appealed APOC's decision.
3. Senior AAG Laura Fox will argue for APOC. The main point is that AK's statute imposing campaign contribution limits is unconstitutional post-Citizens United and APOC shouldn't be required to enforce it.