Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/14/2002 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 480-STATE EMPLOYEE DEATH/SURVIVOR BENEFITS Number 0352 CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 480, "An Act providing that the death of a state employee killed because of their job status off the job site shall be considered an occupational death for purposes of survivor's pension benefits." Number 0373 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor of HB 480, told the committee that it had come to his attention that benefits are not the same for a person who is hurt or killed on a job-related incident away from the job site versus on the job site. HB 480 would correct that, he said. He pointed out that many employees whose jobs put them at risk for assault are working jobs that require them to be out of their office. He cited investigative work as an example, saying that many of [those workers] engender the wrath of a percentage of the population. Passing HB 480 into law would create a better group of benefits for the survivors, he said. He mentioned that he hoped Guy Bell would explain the difference in those benefits. Number 0515 CHAIR COGHILL asked if there was any objection to adopting the proposed CS, version 22-LS1547\C, Craver, 3/5/02, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version C was adopted. He asked Representative Dyson to explain the difference between the "A Version" [original proposed bill] and Version C. Number 0529 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said the following was a "suggestion of administration": the word "state" was removed from the title to make the bill more applicative to a wider group of people. Number 0625 CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Bell if a bona fide legal action was needed "before this can kick in." As an example, he mentioned signing a "positive death" and asked what legal instrument would be used, or if this would just be an insurance evaluation. Number 0641 GUY BELL, Director, Division of Retirement & Benefits, Department of Administration, told Chair Coghill that he was not an expert in this area, but stated that he assumed a death report, from a medical examiner or the local police, would be used. He indicated [the use of] some type of certification from a legally authorized party stating that the person's death was connected with his/her employment status. Mr. Bell said he polled his staff and found no known occurrence of this issue, to date; however, he admitted that it could be a loophole, but is one that [the proposed bill] would fill. He explained that in order to administer this [the division] would "come up with some sort of procedure and work through it." Number 0727 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON noted that "terrorism" was included in the language of the bill [page 1, line 7, Version C]. She asked, if a person was on a lunch break and was killed by a bombing aimed at a wide variety of people, if that person's death would be considered occupational. MR. BELL answered that if the terrorism act was against public employees and, for instance, it was a public employees' luncheon, then it would be covered. Conversely, if a person is on vacation when a terrorist act occurs, resulting in that person's death, then "that may not apply, I would guess." REPRESENTATIVE DYSON concurred. He reiterated that the proposed legislation was written in order to cover those on the job, but away from their [job's base location]. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON, in response to a question from Representative Wilson, offered the following example: If [an employee of] the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) has just served an "action" on someone and is downtown eating lunch, and that someone is "ticked" about [that action] and hits [the employee] over the head with a pot of chili, then it probably is [job-related]. Number 0880 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS pointed out that the fiscal note for HB 480 still [referred to the original bill title, using the word "state" to describe "employee"]. He asked if [the proposed legislation] would include a borough assessor, a university administrator, and a city councilman, for example, because they are not directly state employees. Number 0907 MR. BELL answered that the proposed CS would cover employees of political subdivisions and university and state. He mentioned the suggestion for removal of the reference to the state. REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS interjected clarification that any person working for the city council, borough assembly, or university [would be included]. Number 0934 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if legislators and their staff would be considered state employees. MR. BELL answered, "From our perspective, yes. From the perspective of the retirement system, legislators are state employees, as long as they don't opt out of PERS [public employees' retirement system] membership, which legislators are allowed to do." Number 0983 CHAIR COGHILL added that that was covered under Title 39. Number 0988 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked for clarification that it would have to be a violent act against the person because they were a state employee, "no other kinds of forms of death would be included in this." MR. BELL said that's correct. He noted that there is an occupational death category outside of these categories for occupational death benefits. One example, he said, would be a person driving from one work site to another, who was fatally hit by a drunk driver, and would be covered. He added that that [example] was not related to the aforementioned situations. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES reiterated, "This was just a violent action against them that causes their death and because they are a state employee." REPRESENTATIVE DYSON clarified that it would be because they are a government employee, and he reiterated that "it's related to their work." Number 1085 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON surmised that the key to this [proposed legislation], as it is worded, is that it would cover anybody who is in the PERS. REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS mentioned [PERS]. AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER said, "Twenty-four hours a day." REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said, "Or TRS [teachers' retirement system]." THE SAME UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER said, "Seven days a week." MR. BELL said, "Not TRS." REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS echoed, "Not TRS." MR. BELL reiterated that this does not apply to TRS. He noted that Title 39 is the public employees' retirement system statute and [Title] 14.25 is the teachers' retirement system statute. He said, "So this only refers to the public employees retirement system." REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked why. Number 1444 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON responded that it was not a conscious [decision], but, with all due respect, he guessed that the amount of anger and reprisals brought about by giving bad grades probably does not compare to what happens to [those employed by] DFYS (Division of Family and Youth Services), CSED, and the [Alaska] State Troopers, for example. Number 1420 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES retorted, "Well, we did have some teachers get it. And, that wouldn't have given them anything? Is that what you're saying? Or was it because they were in the classroom that they were to get it, that [if] they were out in the yard they wouldn't have?" She said she was thinking of a particular shooting that occurred. REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS offered that it had occurred in Bethel, [Alaska]. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES concurred. MR. BELL clarified that that particular occurrence tool place at the school. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked, "But what if it had been out on the street?" MR. BELL said he was not sure. Number 1215 JANET PARKER, Retirement & Benefits Manager, Division of Retirement and Benefits, Department of Administration, clarified that the aforementioned teacher had been on duty. She said that she thinks the teachers [at that school] work an eight-hour day and work before and after school doing paperwork. She continued, as follows: If someone were to come in during those times, definitely. There would potentially be an issue if it was the weekend and a student - I guess it would be a student, or maybe a parent of a student, giving them bad grades - would shoot them on the weekend. But, an investigation would be done, and it would be hard to tell exactly what would happen in that situation. CHAIR COGHILL said he supposed motive, then, would become part of the issue. MS. PARKER concurred. She said: And then that's what we are looking at here: what is the motive? If the motive is I'm being murdered on a weekend, not a workday, because if someone sees me, or it's planned, or has stalked me, or whatever, [and I'm] not at work, then this would cover me ... you know, absolutely, positively. But, there would still be an investigation to find out who did it. CHAIR COGHILL said, "Under PERS, but not under the TRS. And that was kind of the question that we were trying to get to." Number 1290 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that, on that point, she thinks [the legislature] should be all-inclusive if it was going to pass [this proposed legislation]. She said some people may be angrier with CSED and DFYS, for example, but the situation for teachers is "turning pretty nasty." She indicated that people are presently covered on the job site and the resolution would allow for coverage while they are away, but still on the job. Number 1336 MS. PARKER responded, as follows: The hardest thing here is that we haven't seen all the cases. And we have had cases where people have traveled and, in that travel, they have had too much to drink and had a car accident, and that was covered as an occupational death, because they were on state business. MR. BELL suggested that [the division] could look at the language of the proposed CS regarding [the inclusion of] TRS. CHAIR COGHILL told Representative Dyson that he thinks that is something that should be looked at. Furthermore, he expressed interest in examining the legislation in regard to the criminal code, for example; "how we might have to install this in regulation." He stated that the subject being discussed is about perpetrators, intent, and motives, and he said he is uncomfortable addressing that in the House State Affairs Standing Committee, at this point. He concluded, "But before we ... even get to that discussion, I want to talk about the TRS issue." Number 1421 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON mentioned schools closing down in the past two weeks and teachers forced to leave town, because they fear for their lives. In lieu of that, she stated that she believes it's crucial that the legislature include TRS in a bill, such as [HB 480]. She noted that the climate is changing and reiterated that she thinks it would be very important to include [TRS]. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Bell if he thought it was possible to have something drafted by the following Tuesday. MR. BELL said yes. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said if Chair Coghill would allow [HB 480] to be on the agenda the following Tuesday, he would commit to "getting something ready." CHAIR COGHILL said, "We'll do it." REPRESENTATIVE DYSON suggested that the action being discussed before the committee is "utterly different, or separate from" the criminal issues that may be before the committee; this [proposed legislation] is only addressing who will be eligible for an enhanced group of benefits. He indicated that, therefore, he respectfully does not think that the [discussion should focus on the aforementioned criminal aspect]. Number 1502 CHAIR COGHILL clarified that he is not interested in making another committee referral, but is interested in answering the question: "How can this be challenged?" He said, "Under the insurance rule, you know, challenges are abounding." Number 1515 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he suspected that there would be discussion regarding that. He mentioned "people cutting the corners, both ways." He reiterate his focal point: "We're interested in making sure that this suite of benefits is available to people who are assaulted or harmed, as a result of their work, but not on the work site." CHAIR COGHILL announced that [HB 480] would be on the committee agenda Tuesday, [March 19, 2002]. [HB 480 was heard and held.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|