Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/19/1997 01:30 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 114 EMPLOYEES: POLITICAL CONTRIB & ACTIVITIES
LAURA CHASE , legislative staff to Senator Taylor, sponsor of SB
114, gave the following summary of the measure. SB 114 was
prepared in response to numerous constituent contacts regarding
automatic deductions from paychecks by employers for political
purposes. Once the deduction occurs, the employee loses control
over which candidates and issues the money is used to support or
oppose. SB 114 is written to protect the rights of workers to make
annual decisions regarding their involvement in the political
process. The reverse check-off process, as it is now known, was
recently banned by a Michigan statute, and upheld by the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals. SB 114 prohibits employers, or labor
organizations, from giving salary increases with the intent the
increase be donated in support or opposition of a candidate, issue,
recall petition, or for similar purposes. The bill prohibits
discrimination against an employee who fails to make a contribution
intended to influence a political race and requires a public record
be kept of all payroll deductions made for disbursal as political
contributions. SB 114 also requires annual written authorization
by the employee, prior to a deduction for political purposes and
requires that employees be informed, at the time of signing, of the
anti-discrimination provision that applies. SB 114 will enable
employees to continue their employment without feeling intimidated
about whether or not they are making contributions.
Number 220
SENATOR PEARCE asked what sort of information employee PACs must
keep and report under current law. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated it
depends primarily upon the amount of the contribution made by the
employee.
SENATOR ELLIS asked for elaboration on the paperwork requirements
proposed in SB 114. MS. CHASE replied the employer or labor
organization, making the withholding, must maintain a record of
that contribution for three years, and a record of employee
consent.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if the organizations would create their own
forms. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR referred to page 2, line 11, and said the
organization could, but APOC would most likely create a uniform
form.
Number 251
SENATOR ELLIS questioned whether the records would be maintained
for three years and then become public. MS. CHASE referred to page
2, paragraph (c), which requires the record be maintained and made
available to the public for at least three years after the
deduction was made.
SENATOR ELLIS asked how many organizations in Alaska would be
affected. MS. CHASE did not have that information but offered to
provide it at a later date.
SENATOR ELLIS noted some of the back-up material is from The Alexis
de Tocqueville Institution, pertains to teacher unions and compares
contributions of Republicans vs. Democrats, and plays up
partisanship of donations. He asked if that argument is part of
the justification for the bill. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR answered that
material demonstrates that the rank and file did not support the
decisions being made by their leadership, in the manner in which
their contributions were being used. The bill allows rank and
file members to make individual choices about how their funds are
utilized.
Number 284
SENATOR PARNELL noted SB 114 prohibits discrimination against an
officer or employee, in the terms or conditions as specified on
page 2, and asked whether any penalties or causative action would
be available to a complainant. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR answered the remedy
would be a suit for wrongful termination, because it becomes
discrimination per se, if one can establish that was the basis for
termination.
SENATOR PARNELL commented the damages would be lost wages.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR agreed, and said he has not set up specific
legislative parameters. He thought a violation of that section
would subject one to liability under the Civil Rights Act.
SENATOR ELLIS asked whether Senator Taylor considered coordinating
the reporting requirements in SB 114 with the two-year election
cycle. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied the state does not account on a
two-year basis.
Number 307
BROOKE MILES , Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), provided an
overview of APOC's position on SB 114. Section 1(a)(1) is in
current law so the Commission has no objection to its inclusion.
APOC is concerned about Section 2, which prohibits discrimination,
because it takes APOC into an area of law outside of campaign
finance, and into the complex area of employment discrimination.
APOC believes that provision may be better placed under the
authority of a different statute, i.e., EEO or human rights.
Regarding the 12 month time limit for the employee's consent in
Section 1(2)(b), APOC would prefer the language on line 13 be
changed to "one calendar year" to be consistent with the campaign
disclosure statute. Regarding subsection (c) of Section 1(2),
APOC is concerned that requiring information to be made public will
have a chilling effect. Under current law, individuals or
contributors who donate more than $250 file a disclosure statement
independently of candidates and groups. People who donate $100 or
less are not disclosed by name, address, occupation, and employer
on the reports filed by labor groups, PACs, parties or candidates.
SB 114 would create a new area of public information; APOC is
concerned this requirement may discourage individuals from
participating in the political process. APOC believes it should
also keep a copy of the documents required to be kept by the
employer since APOC anticipates that enforcement of this
requirement will be through the complaint process. Last, APOC
would prefer the records be kept for four years rather than three,
to be consistent with other recordkeeping requirements under the
campaign finance disclosure law.
Number 395
SENATOR PARNELL asked if APOC would handle complaints because it
has jurisdiction over everything under AS 15.13. MS. MILES said
that is correct.
SENATOR PARNELL stated APOC typically fines people for violating
campaign finance laws and asked whether a complainant would be able
to collect back wages under SB 114. MS. MILES replied, under
campaign finance reform, a violation of this nature would be
subject to a fine of not more than $50 per day. If a complaint
filed with APOC is not acted on within 180 days, the complainant
could take court action.
SENATOR PARNELL asked if one would have to exhaust his/her
administrative remedy in front of APOC before going to court, or
whether one has a direct action to court. MS. MILES verified one
has a direct action to court only after 180 days has elapsed with
no action taken by APOC.
Number 420
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if that is the rationale in the fiscal note
for funding; three additional complaints in election years, and two
additional complaints in non-election years. MS. MILES said that
is correct and is based on APOC's recent experience with the area
of law governing contributions in another's name. APOC estimated
three cases would be filed in an election year, of which it would
address two and one-half. In the non-election year, APOC would
complete the third case, and an additional two complaints filed
related to municipal or borough elections. Ms. Miles explained the
fiscal note includes funds for contractual work but not for new
positions.
SENATOR PARNELL asked, if SB 114 passes, whether a complainant
could go directly to court. MS. MILES repeated under the new
campaign finance disclosure law, a complainant cannot go directly
to court, but must first file a complaint with APOC.
SENATOR PARNELL asked if APOC has the authority to award back
wages. MS. MILES replied it does not. SENATOR PARNELL questioned
how appeals are treated by APOC. MS. MILES said the complainant
could appeal to Superior Court. SENATOR PARNELL asked if the
appeal would include a complete review of the facts. MS. MILES
answered that would depend on the nature of the appeal.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted the intent was not to give APOC exclusive
jurisdiction over wrongful discharge suits because a peripheral
aspect of that suit required a form be filed with APOC, nor was it
to prevent a party from bringing a civil suit for 180 days. He
noted his desire to get a legal opinion on the ramifications of the
reference to AS 15.13 in SB 114. Chair Taylor asked why APOC
believes that copies of the written authorization forms should be
provided to the PAC receiving the contributions. MS. MILES replied
the PAC should be able to verify employee authorizations. CHAIRMAN
TAYLOR asked if APOC receives that information now. MS. MILES said
APOC does not, but she was not sure whether the PACs do.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked whether a bargaining unit that signs up dues-
paying members for deductions in the contract itself, would have to
report a cumulative total of those deductions to APOC. MS. MILES
responded the group would have to report all of the contributors by
name, address, etc., who contribute more than $100.
Number 487
DON WANIE , Director of the Division of Finance in the Department o
Administration, made the following comments on SB 114. About
10,000 employees are covered under collective bargaining agreements
in the state employee workforce. Through the state payroll system,
dues deductions are processed for those 10,000 employees. A
portion of the dues deductions is used for political purposes and
some unions also have PACS for which deductions are allowed.
Because a portion of the dues deductions may be taken for political
purposes, the Division of Finance would be subject to the annual
renewal requirement and to file 10,000 authorization forms in
employees' records. AS 39.25.080 specifically sets out what public
employee information is public information. Dues deductions are
not included in that statute. Placing those deductions in statute
will set a precedent and open the way for disclosure of much less
desirable information, such as garnishments or levies. He added
the division believes any other public employer in the state, such
as municipalities and private employers with unionized employees,
will be subject to the same reporting requirement. SB 114 will
burden employers with an additional paper-generating process.
Number 534
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated the paperwork required by SB 114 is a
fraction of the paperwork sent out annually to all employees for
the retirement program.
MR. WANIE asked whether the authorization forms would be renewed
each year on the employee's hire date. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted APOC
requested the paperwork be renewed on a calendar year basis. MR.
WANIE agreed the calendar year time frame would be more manageable.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR moved to change the word "three" to "four" on page
2, line 15, to accommodate APOC's request. There being no
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR moved to amend lines 13 and 14 on page 2 to read,
"The written request is valid for no more than one calendar year
from the date of signing by the employee." There being no
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
SENATOR PARNELL requested the committee get further information on
what rights of action complainants would have, and whether SB 114
should be under the jurisdiction of Title 15. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR
stated he would hold the bill until a legal opinion on those
questions is prepared. He asked for further suggestions from the
departments on how to implement SB 114 for less cost.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced SB 114 would be held in committee until
the following week.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|