5-135.135 s and ordinance to the anchorage municipal assembly amending anchorage municipal code section one.40.020 to adopt a new or affirm the current corporate seal of the municipality of Anchorage.

So we'll go ahead and start with introductions.

Ms.

Kirker, Jared Gerker, Scott Myers, Anna Brawley.

Christopher Constant.

Is there anyone on the phone?

No one so far.

So we have Slim Pickens for attendance this morning.

Thank you, everybody, for making it.

And we also have from the legislative services, Allie Hartman, we have Sebastian Garber, we have the municipal IT umicer and her staff and the clerk and various other folks and attorneys as usual.

So we have a little slide presentation.

The slides are not printed just because I just managed to get it over to the clerk right now.

But we had an advance to the next slide, please.

So why are we here?

Back in 2018, the assembly adopted AR 2018-226, which established a task force to develop and propose an improved official seal for the municipality of Anchorage.

And that group uh did perform some of its functions, but we quickly moved into earthquake, homeless emergency, COVID pandemic, and the work just ceased essentially.

And so as a closing loop for myself, I uh decided to bring this up and at least conclude the question before the body.

So uh let's move to the next slide, please.

So the the design and design set that have come forward are based on the downtown wayfinding project that's been implemented by the Anchorage Parks Foundation and with the work of Sebastian Garber, who's here with us artist, and we um kind of looked at through that project coming up with ways to better identify our downtown historically.

Visit Anchorage has done some analysis, the cultural tourism element of tourism promotion is something that is identified almost universally within the tourism industries as something that we could do better and do more of.

There's a market for it, and so that kind of underpins some of this conversation as well as the work we've had uh with the native village of the Clima.

So can we move to the next slide?

So we learned residents want a brighter future, and they also resonate with the work that's happening.

So uh the ordinance as drafted, the S version has five options.

Option A and B were options developed um from the work by Mr.

Garber, but by our municipal reprographics department in support of some of the efforts internally.

C is obviously the current and um original municipal seal, although um, as some noted last night, and I meant to include it but didn't get it in here.

The original Anchorage seal interestingly much closer to option E than anything else, and so um I don't have that, but I'll have it circulated later.

I have it at home.

Option D uh is a modified version of A and B, which streamlines some of the quill work, um, and then option but maintains the original seal, and then the final one is kind of a revision of the seal, um, simpler simple modification, the most um minimalist of the designs.

So um also there is one or two more.

If we'll go to the next slide, um, items that came from yesterday's conversation, and I think there are now kind of uh modified versions.

You have the original of A on this handout that you have, and then you have option E, the original and the revised.

Also, you have a revised version of A, which moves the language outside of the ring, and so um either of those options could be moved by amendment when we get to our um discussions and deliberations on Tuesday.

Next slide, please.

So we did a survey.

Now, the survey started to be a very robust and meaningful survey.

Participation was good, and was really surprising was most of the people who responded left a comment, which is unusual.

And so they actually took the time not only to click the button, but to click the button and add some words, and so we have some really good information about what people are thinking.

However, on I think it was Monday at 516 p.m., somebody managed to break into the system and within 50 minutes submitted 2100 results, all for version C of the 2107 or so results because eight of them were actual not for C, they were different.

They looked to be like they were real people of the 2100 responses in 52 minutes.

94.9 of them submitted comments and the comments were duplicate.

So there were only 108 unique texts in that search, and there was a uniform distribution of their zip codes, and they all selected option C.

And so the process was gamed and manipulated.

And so um, but before that, there were a lot of meaningful comments.

And so um maybe we'll go to the next slide, but maybe we'll stop here.

Let's see what the next slide is.

I don't have it with me.

Okay, yeah.

So the actual results, if you take the slide that has been manipulated, the survey, it's like massively for option C, but you can immediately take 2100 out of that because they were fake.

And then they were, and so now, Susie, come forward.

IT director.

They're obviously fake.

Please.

Uh Susie Marshall, Chief Information Technology Officer.

Do you want to tell us kind of how this happened?

Whether it is oh um, well, the uh the choice to use uh Microsoft forms in a um anonymous, I think that's the term mode, um, as far as a survey goes, does not provide any kind of telemetry of where the there's no data that supports any um where these requests come from.

We can't tell who submitted them.

We we can't prove whether they were uh automated, there's none of that.

So we so if the question is put to us, uh, can we prove that this was automated um and gamed, we cannot, but we can't prove it wasn't, right?