Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
01/30/2008 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB284 | |
| HB296 | |
| HB260 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 260 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 284 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 296 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 260
An Act relating to a State Officers Compensation
Commission and establishing how legislators, the
governor, the lieutenant governor, and executive
department heads shall be compensated; providing for an
effective date by repealing the effective dates of
certain sections of ch. 124, SLA 1986; and providing
for an effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DOOGAN, SPONSOR, spoke in support of HB
260, based on the only successful salary commission in the
State of Alaska. The Commission was active in 1977 & 1979,
when citizen members of the Alaska Salary Commission
released reports on how much certain public officials should
be paid. The original Commission had a broader scope than
the one presented in HB 260.
Since 1979, there has not been a comprehensive look at
compensation of members above a certain level. HB 260 would
establish a compensation commission consisting of five
members appointed by the Governor. Former legislators would
be prevented from serving on the commission until they had
been out of office for four years. Members would serve
staggered terms and would be assigned to reconsider
compensation every two years.
Representative Doogan explained that the decisions of the
Commission would become law unless specifically disapproved
by the legislature within 60-days of receipt. The effective
date of the actions would be tied to the legislature
appropriating funds.
2:46:14 PM
Representative Doogan pointed out that in the House State
Affairs (STA) Committee, Representative Coghill voiced
confusion if the vehicle for enacting the findings should be
a resolution or a bill. He pointed out the memo from Legal
Services explaining the decision to place it in bill form.
Vice-Chair Stoltze questioned if the task of the Commission
would be similar to that of the task force recommendation
for passing gambling. Representative Doogan thought if the
issue was left to legislators, there would never be
consideration for fear of constituent disapproval. In the
past, it was determined that a citizen commission could
work.
Vice-Chair Stoltze informed that the Gaming Commission had
attempted to insulate members from the political pressures.
Representative Doogan responded that legislators are never
insulted from political pressures; however, the bill
attempts to provide an "even-handed" look at the process.
It is political at every stage of the process. Co-Chair
Meyer said that the Anchorage Assembly does use a Commission
as proposed and that it works well.
2:50:04 PM
Representative Hawker addressed the philosophical component
of the legislation. Previous testimony indicates that there
had been intent, resulting in action to raise the salaries
of the Legislature. He wondered if the legislature should
be a choice for public service without receiving
compensation, acting more like a volunteer service.
Representative Doogan stated the bill was not proposing a
plan to do anything particular with legislative salaries but
rather proposes creating a commission of citizens to look at
the question in a more even way. There are a number of
ideas the commission could determine such as a system paying
for longevity of members. He emphasized his intent in
sponsoring the legislation is to create a discussion and
reviewing arena.
2:53:06 PM
Representative Hawker understood that the intent of the
legislation was to increase legislative compensation. He
asked if that was true.
Representative Doogan explained that in order to have a
legislature reflecting the population's age balance, the
State would have to offer higher compensation. He pointed
out that legislators in their 50's & 60's are
overrepresented and that those in their 20's & 30's are not
adequately represented. He discussed that if salaries are
increased, there would be a change in the age and make-up of
the legislature.
2:54:55 PM
Representative Hawker commented if that was the intent or if
rather more of an exploratory outcome. Representative Doogan
believed the discussion is about what might happen through
passage of the legislation.
Representative Hawker referred to Page 5, regarding a
recommendation that the Commission "may not" have the effect
of reducing compensation or benefits of someone who is in
office; he asked if that would apply to legislative
salaries. Representative Doogan advised that he had
attempted to keep the Legislature out of the bill as much as
possible.
Representative Hawker referenced Line 17, Page 5, the
"policy of legislature that the commission recommends an
equitable rate for legislators." He asked what "equitable"
meant. Representative Doogan replied the definition was not
attempting to determine compensation. Representative Hawker
suggested it should be equal treatment under the law.
Representative Doogan said yes. Representative Hawker
advised that the language is stating exactly what it is
intended.
2:57:40 PM
In response to a query by Representative Gara,
Representative Doogan expected that if the bill were to pass
that there would be compensation determined by longevity of
legislators.
Co-Chair Meyer clarified if the intent of the Commission was
to look at how other States handle the issue.
Representative Doogan informed that the handout addresses
other state's policies and procedures.
3:00:43 PM
Representative Nelson made clear that to offer no
compensation for the legislative positions would be a
disincentive to people considering whether to run for office
or not. She thought that there would be a disproportionate
number of wealthy and retired people holding office. She
hoped to encourage more variety of candidates to step
forward. She thought that the 90 day session makes it more
appealing, providing more time for other employment. She
mentioned that the legislation to move the capital was also
being put forward as an opportunity for better public
participation while serving in the Legislature. She stated
she did not support that legislation.
Representative Nelson reiterated that it is wrong to have
more rich and retired people doing the work for the State
and that it is better for the legislative body to have more
variety in who serves. Representative Doogan wholeheartedly
agreed. He added that many people are kept from public
office because of their obligations in life versus the
compensation offered.
3:03:03 PM
Representative Thomas commented on his determination to run
for public office and the losses incurred personally because
of the number of special sessions, affecting his livelihood.
He noted that it actually him approximately $70 to $80
thousand dollars per year. He hoped the process would be
better controlled through a public commission.
Co-Chair Meyer agreed that it is out of the hands of the
legislators. He noted in California, legislators are
salaried at $110 thousand dollars per year but that they are
not allowed to hold any other job.
Vice-Chair Stoltze agreed that the ideas presented have been
intriguing. The founders of the Constitution did not
establish criteria for legislator's salaries.
3:08:08 PM
NICKI NEAL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, offered to answer questions of the
Committee.
3:08:41 PM
PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED.
Representative Kelly believed that there is no easy solution
to the issue of a citizen versus professional legislature.
He personally leaned toward a citizen's legislature. He
remembered a previous salary proposal of $94 thousand
dollars per year. He encouraged the natural & healthy
tension remains in place. He believed that moving toward a
higher salary, determines a decision to have a professional
legislature in place. He hoped that whichever decision was
made, it would work well & fluid.
3:13:09 PM
Co-Chair Meyer agreed that the current system is working.
He hoped that when the Commission does looks at other states
of a similar size & issues, they would be able to determine
that Alaska does not offer or need a full time job.
Representative Crawford acknowledged there is no accounting
for who the public chooses to represent them. He agreed
that the compensation issues should be determined from non
legislative persons. He indicated his support for the
legislation.
Representative Hawker voiced confusion on the issue, which
raises philosophical concerns on both sides of the argument.
If the desired outcome is to increase legislative salaries,
the legislation is the way to accomplish that; however,
handing the responsibility off to a public Commission could
provide too much legislative authority to that group. He
recommended it be discussed through the legislative process.
He noted that the recommendations of the Commission could
take the effect of law unless a bill is introduced and
objection made by the Legislature. Representative Doogen
understood that the recommendations would be a bill, which
would have to be disapproved by the Legislature within 60-
days.
Representative Hawker stated that was not clear in the bill.
Representative Doogan agreed. He added that the central
fact is that if the Commission determines a higher salary,
the effective date of that recommendation would be when the
appropriation passes. The dollars would not be available
until an appropriation passes. Ultimately, it is the
Legislature's responsibility to fund it.
Representative Hawker stated it is "complex effectiveness"
and thought that as a Commission, they should make
recommendations so that the elected policy body can make the
decision.
3:18:49 PM
Representative Doogan said that had been discussed. He
believed it puts it back in the hands of the legislature and
then they would determine the need to pass or not pass the
bill.
Representative Nelson commented that the current method used
is that of the federal rate of per diem. Whenever that
amount is increased, the press broadcasts it; however, when
it decreases, it is never publicized. She agreed with
Representative Doogan and doubted if the issue would ever be
addressed up by the Legislature. She remembered when the
per diem actually increased and how that affected the
public's perspective. She maintained that the present pay
rate for legislators is good and that compared to jobs in
most districts, it pays well.
3:22:11 PM
Representative Thomas assumed that the bill intended to keep
a citizen's legislature. Representative Doogan responded
that the idea was not to debate whether it would remain a
citizen's legislature.
Representative Thomas added that if the public does not
think their legislator is doing a good job, they will not
re-elect them.
3:24:06 PM
Co-Chair Meyer noted the back-up materials indicating how
other states determine compensation, pointing out that most
do have a commission. He reiterated that he had been
involved is a similar system when working on the Anchorage
City Council and was comfortable with the approach proposed
in the legislation.
Co-Chair Meyer referenced the fiscal note. Representative
Doogan explained that the request in the amount of $7.5
thousand dollars would cover travel and per diem costs; the
salary is zero.
3:26:50 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to REPORT CS HB 260 (STA) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 260 (STA) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with fiscal note #1 by the Department of
Administration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|