Legislature(2001 - 2002)
2002-08-14 Senate Journal
Full Journal pdf2002-08-14 Senate Journal Page 3854 SB 180 Message dated July 5 and received July 8, stating: Dear President Halford: Under the authority vested in me by art. II, sec. 15, of the Alaska Constitution, I have vetoed the following bill: CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 180(FIN)(efd fld) "An Act implementing pay differentials based on geographic areas for certain state employees and for members of the Alaska State Defense Force; relating to cost-of-living differentials for state aid to municipalities." 2002-08-14 Senate Journal Page 3855 My Administration and previous Administrations have long advocated for an adjustment to the salary differentials for non-covered employees that parallels the differentials that apply to employees covered by collective bargaining. However, this flawed legislation may violate equal protection provisions of the state and federal constitutions and begs litigation against the state for that reason. This bill would adopt a two-tiered geographic pay system for employees not covered by a collective bargaining agreement, treating current and former employees differently than new employees hired after July 1, 2002. Current and former employees first hired before July 1, 2002, would remain at the current geographical salary differential permanently when accepting appointment to a non-covered position. That means even though this legislation establishes a new salary geographic differential that's higher in several areas, such as Kodiak, Bethel and Barrow, a former employee who returns to state service in those areas would be paid under the old formula - and less than a new employee who is hired at the same time, in the same office, under the new formula. Likewise, in those areas where the existing salary differentials are higher than the proposed differentials in this bill, such as Fairbanks, Kenai, Nome and Dillingham, new employees would receive a lower salary differential than employees who were first hired before July 1, 2002. Even employees who had never worked in an area to which a geographic differential applied would receive the benefit of the old salary differential if their initial hire date with the state was before July 1, 2002. Further, because of the legislation's failed special effective date, those new employees hired between July 1, 2002 and the effective date of this legislation would be paid the higher salary differential until the legislation's constitutional 90-day effective date, at which time their salaries would be reduced - thus driving home rather forcefully the effect of two-tiered salary schedules. 2002-08-14 Senate Journal Page 3856 Earlier versions of the legislation simply froze the salaries of those whose current salaries are above the new differential until such time as the employee's salary, through cost-of-living adjustments and merit increases, with application of the new differential equaled or exceeded the amount being paid to the employee. This approach would have accomplished the bill's equitable objectives without creating two on- going salary systems. This would have mirrored the approach taken with employees under collective bargaining when their geographic pay differentials were adjusted in 1985. The intent of restructuring our geographic pay differentials is, and should be, to create a balanced, fair system for our employees that can withstand any court challenges. Our 1985 changes to the differential for collective bargaining units succeeded in this effort. It would be prudent and rational to take the same approach for our non-covered employees rather than this approach which guarantees inequities. For these reasons, I have vetoed the bill. Sincerely, /s/ Tony Knowles Governor