Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/25/1999 08:09 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 80 - EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE FOR NAT'L GUARD Number 0684 CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HB 80, "An Act relating to a state employment preference for certain members of the Alaska National Guard." Number 0691 [Malfunction - tape jammed]. REPRESENTATIVE CARL MORGAN stressed that he would like HB 80 introduced as is, without amendments. TAPE 99-10, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR JAMES called an at-ease at 8:53 a.m. and called the House State Affairs Standing Committee back to order at 8:54 a.m. Number 0012 BRUCE GAZAWAY, President, Alaska National Guard Enlisted Association, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He reported that the National Guard totally agrees with the three-point preference. Number 0018 BRUCE GABRYS, President, Alaska National Guard Officer's Association testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He stressed that he would also like HB 80 to pass out of committee with the three-point preference. It does recognize the contribution of the National Guard service without diminishing, or placing it on par with the contributions of veterans who served during the time of war, and/or was disabled, or was a prisoner of war. MR. GABRYS noted HB 80 does have the veterans' support at the three-point level. He indicated it would take a considerable amount of work to elevate that to five points. MR. GABRYS said the Department of Administration raised concerns about the applicant's scores. He said he felt the illustration presented is unrealistic in that it proposed a false dilemma. For example, the veteran applicants were over-represented in the model. It also made an assumption that 50 percent of the veterans that were applying, with the ten-point preference, would have meant that they were either disabled or a prisoner of war. MR. GABRYS further explained, of the four veteran applicants listed, two are scored without the preference points with a perfect 100-score, and two scored at 90 points in the example. Under this scenario, the veterans are on the reachable list, with or without any preference points. He said he didn't believe that is representative of the population pool of applicants. MR. GABRYS said the preference points are to assist veterans that are primarily in the range of the 70-85 point level and are reachable and eligible to gain an interview. MR. GABRYS pointed out the scoring of applicants are listed in five-point increments. Unless Workplace Alaska has changed the scoring system, an applicant under the previous system could score an 87-point total, with the additional three-points as proposed by HB 80, would be given a score of 90. This would qualify the applicant eligible for an interview. Previously, without the three-point preference, that applicant would not have been eligible for an interview. MR. GABRYS urged the committee to pass HB 80 with the three-point preference. He remarked, "If there are concerns with Workplace Alaska integration, that would have to be addressed outside of this forum on an administrative basis." Number 0097 REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY offered Amendment 3. Page 2, line 12, delete three and insert five. In an examination to determine the qualification of applicants for the classified service under merit system examination, [three] five points shall be added to the passing grade of a member of the national guard. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON objected. REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY said it would appear to create fewer problems or concerns and allows more flexibility. He indicated he hasn't heard any essential problems with diminishing the service of the veterans versus the National Guard. It makes the system cleaner and more inductive. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON mentioned members of the National Guard object to the amendment, and the committee hasn't heard from the active duty individuals. He said he believes HB 80 is a good incentive and it would serve the purpose at three; if it is moved to five, there is a good chance that it will not pass. CHAIR JAMES disagreed that this would diminish the ability to hire minorities because of the high number of minorities in the National Guard. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kerttula and Smalley voted for the amendment. Representatives James, Ogan, Whitaker, and Hudson voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 2-4. Number 0174 REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY offered Amendment 4, page 3, lines 18-21 Delete: If all job qualifications are equal, a member of the national guard shall be given preference over a person who was not a veteran, prisoner of war, or member of the national guard, and the member of the national guard shall be kept on the job. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected. REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY indicated it creates a large number of people that have bumping rights. A veteran that is disabled, or a prisoner of war, is a small group of people. When you're talking about the bumping preference for approximately 12 percent of the state workforce, you're talking about a tremendous amount of people that impact that process. He noted they still have preferential points in the overall process. CHAIR JAMES pointed out that Fate Putman, Alaska State Employees Association, said that it's all right to leave the sentence in the bill. REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY remarked that he also had the same conversation with Mr. Putman and he said that he believes that it should be deleted. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON mentioned he didn't want this legislation to involve itself in the standard job retention or bumping privilege. He indicated that he agrees with Representative Smalley and referred to line 17 which refers to the elimination of a position: If a position of the classified service is eliminated, employees shall be released in accordance with the rules that give due effect to all factors. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON mentioned the following text would be retained: This subsection may not be interpreted to amend the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said the terms and conditions of the bargaining agreement would signify who would be retained and who wouldn't be. He indicated he would support this amendment. Number 0263 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked Representative Smalley to explain the 12 percent in the context it was given. REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY replied he was using the data that was provided at the previous hearing - approximately 12 percent of the state workforce are veterans. In his opinion, the 12 percent allows bumping to an expanded group of people and opens up that classification. He reiterated that the intent is primary to make sure they get the interview. Those protections are there without that sentence being in there. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA agreed with Representative Smalley. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN indicated he would support the amendment and further stated that this is to get their foot in the door. He said, "Again, I wish we could amend the whole bargaining agreement, the people to go first are the people that aren't doing a good job." REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked Representative Morgan for his comment on the amendment. Number 0302 REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN noted he didn't want the language deleted because the same language is included - on the top - for the veterans. He remarked no one has been unfairly bumped and a system is already in play for the veterans. REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY referred to lines 3-6 and remarked that he believes it's a smaller group of individuals in that process. He further stated, "And, I think down here, the sentence opens it up to a very large group and I think the original intent was just to get them to that process, to get them to the interview. I think those other protections are there without that sentence being in there. And again, it's not to diminish the service, but not to put that large of a category of people in that potential bumping process." CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Gabrys what percentage of guardsmen are also veterans. MR. GABRYS replied, throughout the guard, you're probably in the 20-30 percent bracket of current guardsmen who are in some for a veteran. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked for a further explanation of what has been added to Section 2. CHAIR JAMES reiterated the changes made in the provision. CHAIR JAMES called a brief at-ease at 9:14 a.m. and called them back to order at 9:15 a.m. Number 0377 CHAIR JAMES asked for a roll call vote on Amendment 4. Representatives Ogan, Hudson, Smalley, Whitaker and Kerttula voted in support of it. Representative James voted against it. Therefore Amendment 4 passed by a vote of 5-1. Number 0387 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON moved to report CSHB 80 (STA), with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|