Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519
03/26/2019 09:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB77 | |
| HB48 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 48 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 77 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 48
"An Act removing from the exempt service of the state
persons who are employed in a professional capacity to
make a temporary or special inquiry, study, or
examination as authorized by the governor and
including those persons in the partially exempt
service of the state."
9:17:55 AM
LYNN GATTIS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON,
introduced the bill by reading the bill title:
An Act removing from the exempt service of the state
persons who are employed in a professional capacity to
make a temporary or special inquiry, study, or
examination as authorized by the governor and
including those persons in the partially exempt
service of the state.
Ms. Gattis reviewed the sponsor statement (copy on file):
AS 39.25.110(9) was supposed to allow the governor to
appoint someone for some "temporary and special
inquiry". Because they are temporary, exempts do not
get PERS or regular State leave, health insurance or
other State benefits. However, the statute has not
been used in that manner. It has instead been used to
establish positions without the intent of the
positions being temporary, which would then entitle
employees to PERS and all other benefits.
The purpose of HB 48 is to discontinue the historical
practice by the Executive Branch of using AS
39.25.110(9) to unilaterally establish highly paid
executive level temporary exempt positions that have
no salary limits. There are positions established many
years ago using this statute that still exist today.
Some are unbudgeted and do not appear in agency
position counts. Several attempts have been made to
obtain a complete list of these positions and current
salary levels, but these attempts have been
unsuccessful.
HB 48 is intended to eliminate the establishment of
"temporary exempt" positions and instead place these
positions in the partially exempt service. Persons may
be "appointed" to partially exempt positions, however,
they will be subject to salary limits like all other
state employees. HB 48 will force the administration
to be more transparent and allow all employees to be
treated fairly.
9:20:40 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston asked if the statute associated with
the bill [AS 39.25.110(9)] was limited to the executive
branch or could be used in state enterprise units like
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA),
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), or Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC).
REMOND HENDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON,
answered the statute allowed and defined those individuals
covered by partially exempt, exempt, and classified
service. Partially exempt service positions included deputy
and assistant commissioners, directors of major divisions,
attorneys in the Department of Law, the Public Defender's
Office, one executive secretary for each department,
principal executive officers of councils and commissions
(e.g. the Alaska Public Broadcasting Commission and the
Parole Board). The positions Vice-Chair Johnston was
referencing were covered under exempt service (e.g. AIDEA).
Vice-Chair Johnston asked for verification that some of the
state's enterprise units would not be using the loophole in
statute. She surmised it was more of an administration
function.
Mr. Henderson believed anyone could use the statute because
it allowed something to be approved by the governor's
office. There was also recent policy instituted by the
governor's office requiring the governor's approval for not
only those positions established under the statute, but for
positions above a [pay] Range 18 or salary of $150,000 or
more.
9:23:14 AM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked for the number of
positions identified under the previous administration that
fell under the purview of the bill. She asked if they were
looking at salary ranges of $300,000 or more.
Mr. Henderson replied they had not been successful in
identifying the number of positions that existed. The
positions were buried in a large list of hundreds of
positions. He explained the process involved trying to
identify a position control number (PCN) by looking for the
word "temporary." It was very difficult to ascertain the
number of positions created in that manner. He elaborated
that the best source of information was the individual
departments. He reported that when they attempted to get
the information from the departments, the response had
varied. At one point they had been told the information
would be complied by the Department of Law, then they had
been told it would be compiled by the Department of
Administration, and it had ultimately come from the Office
of Management and Budget. He noted they had never received
a complete list of the positions.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard surmised the legislation
would bring the issue to the forefront to identify the
number of positions and the salary ranges. She construed
the bill would fix an existing problem.
Mr. Henderson replied in the affirmative.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked if the bill also
pertained to positions identified in the legislative
branch.
Mr. Henderson replied in the negative. The sponsor's office
had not identified any positions in the legislative branch
that had been created under the statute.
9:25:36 AM
Co-Chair Wilson added that her office had also found the
issue was not limited to listed PCNs. She explained that if
a department had money from other resources, it was able to
use those funds to pay for the individuals. She agreed that
as the budget was developed, the legislature would see the
positions, job descriptions, and how the salary had been
handled.
Vice-Chair Ortiz appreciated the intent of the bill and was
supportive. He asked for further detail on the language in
the sponsor statement stating that the bill would force the
administration to be more transparent and allow all
employees to be treated fairly. He asked for detail on how
employees had not been treated fairly. He wondered if there
was any downside to adopting the bill.
Co-Chair Wilson answered that temporary positions did not
go through the same process as all other state employees.
The deletion of the statute would mean all employees would
go through the same process - the state would have to
consider the job description and how much an individual was
paid and would not be able to randomly determine the
person's salary. She stated the issue was about employees
who went through the [general hiring] process versus
employees who were currently hired via the loophole.
9:27:38 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for verification that the
individuals would be treated more fairly because they would
go through the same hiring process.
Co-Chair Wilson replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if there were any opportunity costs
associated with the bill. Mr. Henderson replied there were
no additional costs to the bill. He reported that the
department had prepared a zero fiscal note for the bill.
Vice-Chair Ortiz clarified he was not talking about
financial cost but opportunity costs. For example, perhaps
past administrations had used the statute to attract more
highly qualified people for a position.
Mr. Henderson answered that he saw the bill as a cost
savings measure.
Vice-Chair Ortiz understood. He clarified he was wondering
if the statute had been used in the past to attract highly
qualified people or talented individuals, which would no
longer be possible if the bill was adopted.
Mr. Henderson replied that the bill would not prevent the
administration from maintaining that practice. The state
would still be allowed to seek those individuals for hire
but would have to provide written justification to pay
individuals above a certain range. He explained that
written justification was not currently required.
9:29:41 AM
Representative Josephson asked how the positions would be
more transparent to the finance committee, legislature, and
public.
Mr. Henderson answered that as the statute was currently
used, individuals could be appointed to the positions
without salary limitations. He explained that the positions
were not subject to a classification pay plan. The bill
would require the individuals to be placed in partially
exempt service where there was a statutory provision that
identified the positions covered under partially exempt
service and the associated salary scales.
Representative Josephson asked if the positions moved to
partially exempt service that it meant the employees may
not receive healthcare or retirement benefits.
Alternatively, he wondered if the individuals would still
be eligible for the benefits.
Mr. Henderson replied that the individuals would be
entitled to healthcare and benefits provided to other
employees.
Representative Carpenter understood the concept of
increased transparency. He asked what would happen if there
was a need for a temporary employee in a timely manner. He
noted the bill's provision that would require hiring a
person through the normal process. He asked if the bill
eliminated the executive branch's ability to bring in a
person with subject matter expertise.
Mr. Henderson replied in the negative. The bill would not
prohibit the administration from hiring someone immediately
that they found qualified for a temporary position.
9:32:21 AM
RUSSEL SAMPSON, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference),
supported the bill. She thanked Co-Chair Wilson for
sponsoring the bill.
Co-Chair Wilson CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Wilson reported amendments were due the following
day by 5:00 p.m.
HB 48 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Wilson discussed the schedule for a meeting the
following day. She reported the next meeting was that
afternoon.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB077 Sectional Analysis ver A 3-19-19.pdf |
HFIN 3/26/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB077 - sponsor statement 3-19-19.pdf |
HFIN 3/26/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB048 ver M Sponsor Statement 3.21.19.pdf |
HFIN 3/26/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 48 |