Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 106
03/15/2008 11:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR37 | |
| HB374 | |
| HB261 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 374 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 261 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HJR 37 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 374-REQUIRE NOTICE OF RELOCATION OF STATE JOB 11:11:33 AM VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that the next order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 374, "An Act requiring publication of notice by state agencies when they transfer positions in the classified, partially exempt, or exempt service from one area of the state to another." 11:12:01 AM SUSAN HARGIS, Staff, Representative Andrea Doll, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 374 on behalf of Representative Doll, prime sponsor. She said the bill would require 30-day notification for any state job that is moved to another location in Alaska. The intent of the bill is to increase government transparency. Ms. Hargis said there are a lot of valid reasons for moving positions around the state, but it is helpful for the public, legislators, and other agencies to know where those positions are going to be located. 11:14:44 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 374, Version 25-LS1322\E, Wayne, 3/14/08, as a work draft. 11:15:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes. 11:15:19 AM MS. HARGIS noted that the only change made in Version E was the deletion of the Alaska Railroad from the language, because the Alaska Railroad is a public corporation and its employees are not defined as state employees. Furthermore, the corporation does not utilize the classified, partially exempt, or exempt categories. 11:16:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection, therefore Version E was before the committee as a work draft. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Hargis what the sponsor's position would be if after exempting one corporation, others wanted to be exempted as well. MS. HARGIS responded that no other agencies have made the request. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recommended that the bill sponsor check with the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, "so that they don't derail the bill at the very last minute." He asked for the definition of "transfer", indicating his concern that people might try to avoid the proposed bill's requirement by calling a move a temporary assignment rather than a transfer. He cited the definition from Black's Law Dictionary, which read as follows: transfer, vb. 1. To convey or remove from one place or one person to another; to pass or hand over from one to another, esp. to change over the possession or control of. 11:19:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE DOLL conceded that Representative Gruenberg had an excellent point, and she suggested the bill could be amended to add that definition of "transfer". She explained the reason for using the word "transfer" is to clarify that a new job is not being created. 11:19:24 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is not going "to suggest any definition because it's something that's going to require some thought." He said he thinks the bill sponsor needs to look at ways that, in the worst-case scenario, "people could try to get around this," and tighten the language to prevent that from happening. 11:19:56 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he has a similar concern with the language, "area of state". He asked if the 30-day notice requirement would apply to an office moving from Juneau to Douglas or a legislator moving back to his constituency. He said he thinks there are potential "hang-ups" related to the bill because of the loose definition of "area", and he said he would hate the bill to be interpreted so that a legislator would have to give a 30-day notice just to move from one office to another within the capitol. 11:21:06 AM REPRESENTATIVE DOLL noted that reference to Juneau means the City & Borough of Juneau; therefore, Douglas would be included. She indicated her willingness to tighten the language of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON reiterated that "area" is broad language that needs to be defined more narrowly. 11:22:02 AM MS. HARGIS, in response to a question from Vice Chair Roses, said the Division of Personnel tracks the location of positions currently. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to Representative Doll's remark about the City & Borough of Juneau, suggested guidelines based on city and borough, but noted that much of the state is in unorganized boroughs. 11:24:15 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his understanding that there is currently an online notification system that announces positions open for hire, and those already in state employment are given preference. MS. HARGIS responded that the Division of Personnel has a system to denote where a position is open at any given time. For example, when a position is transferred, it would be listed on the system. She pointed out that sometimes the current holder of a position is transferred with the position, while other times the position is transferred in open status. The bill would encompass both scenarios, she said. She said it is in the public's best interest to assist in figuring out where certain positions and employees in them can be contacted. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he is trying to figure out "how it might work as a system." He stated, "It just seems to me, looking at the fiscal note, that this is going to require more. And so, I'm kind of heading towards the direction of if there's already a system in place - if somebody already put those out - that it can justify that." MS. HARGIS said the Office of the Lieutenant Governor has a 30- day public notice system, "and they said it would not be a problem and it would not be an extra cost, because they're simply posting onto that same system." 11:27:23 AM JACK KREINHEDER, Chief Analyst, Office of the Director, Office of Management & Budget, shared that he has lived in Juneau for 30 years and recognizes Representative Doll's concern regarding the transfer of position out of Juneau. However, he stated that the administration does not support the bill because it views it as micro-managing the executive branch and state agencies. He said the Office of the Governor believes that departments need "the flexibility to replace staff where agency functions and services require those positions" - factors he said will naturally change over time. He noted that historically there have been positions not only transferred out of Juneau, but out of Anchorage and Fairbanks to Juneau as well. He said even though the bill proposes notification, without placing any restriction on the transfers, the Office of the Governor views the proposal as a "slippery slope" and is not comfortable "going down that road of having to provide that kind of notification." REPRESENTATIVE DOLL asked Mr. Kreinheder if he would characterize the objection of the Office of the Governor to HB 374 as resulting from "thinking that there's an intrusion here from the legislature." MR. KREINHEDER replied that that's one concern. He noted that Senator Elton had requested that the Office of the Governor review and essentially provide approval for transfers. He said the Office of the Governor did not support that request. He said the governor does not want to micro-manage even her own departments; she wants to hire good administrators and allow them to do their work. The committee took an at-ease from 11:31:22 AM to 11:33:45 AM. 11:33:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that the Fiscally Responsible Alaskans Needing Knowledge (FRANK) Initiative [of 1994] had wide public support, and the governor has taken a position in favor of open and transparent government. He said the bill sponsor is trying to "expand that concept into an area that people have some interest in." He asked Mr. Kreinheder, "Why in the world would the governor take a position against the position she's already taken, against the public's right to know?" He added, "We're going to find ourselves going down the road they are in Washington, D.C., where Congress is trying to open government, and the executive branch has in the past, under several administrations - both parties - tried to close it." He said that is not popular with the people, is not good public policy, and is "going in the wrong direction." MR. KREINHEDER responded that the administration is happy to provide information requested by the legislature and members of the public regarding transfer positions, and has done so in the past through the Department of Administration. He clarified that the problem the governor has with the bill is related to the issue of advance notification of positions. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the concern is in regard to the 30-day requirement. He said he does not know what the bill sponsor thinks on the matter, but he said [the 30-day requirement] is a detail that ought to be able to be resolved "so we can get on with the process and the policy of the administration." REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said, "No." 11:36:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated his understanding that the state is never in the practice of moving jobs and not announcing that information in the database. 11:36:14 AM MR. KREINHEDER answered that the information is available. He deferred to Ms. Neal for further comment. 11:36:52 AM NICKI NEAL, Director, Division of Personnel & Labor Relations, responded to questions previously posed by the committee. She confirmed that the location of positions is tracked by the division and that information is processed in its system either prior to or concurrent with the transfer position. 11:37:26 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked what practical problems a 30-day requirement may cause. MS. NEAL explained that there are times when positions are transferred while vacant, and recruiting takes place in one location and may be a difficult and lengthy process. She said, "Then they may decide ... it's feasible to have this work done from another location, so that would essentially delay the filling and accomplishment of work, if once that decision was made, a 30-day notice period was required." 11:38:07 AM REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said she thinks two different issues are being discussed. The first scenario Ms. Neal just described, but the second pertains to jobs where it is known well ahead of time that the position is going to be moved from one location to another. She asked Ms. Neal if she agrees. MS. NEAL said that's correct. When a position is filled, there is a period of time in which notices are provided to an employee and the union prior to the position being filled, whereas when the position is vacant, the employee is [offered the job] and moved rather quickly. 11:39:23 AM VICE CHAIR ROSES asked Ms. Neal if passage of the proposed bill would conflict with any current negotiated agreements, in terms of the handling of transfers. MS. NEAL replied that to best of her knowledge, the answer to that question is no. 11:39:46 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL reviewed that the bill lists "classified", "partially exempt", and "exempt" service. He asked, "Who would this not cover with regard to transfer of a position?" MS. NEAL answered, "I'm not aware of anyone that it would not cover in the executive branch." REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked what "the body of possible movements" would be and how many of [these positions] have been moved within the last two years. 11:41:01 AM MS. NEAL said combining classified, partially exempt, and exempt categories, there are approximately 15,000 positions. She said she does not have a count of the number of positions transferred on hand. Ms. Neal referred to a document prepared by Senator Elton based on numbers the Division of Personnel provided, [entitled, "The erosion of state jobs in Juneau," included in the committee packet], in which Senator Elton indicates that 136 positions were transferred out of Juneau in the last 18 months. However, Ms. Neal said there were several positions transferred into Juneau. She said, I don't have that number right, nor do I have the number available right now of positions that were moved between other locations throughout the state." She offered to gather that information for the committee. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested perhaps the question to ask is how many people move to Anchorage from other parts of the state each year? 11:42:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his understanding that "this ... is not limited just to the executive branch; this is all agencies." He questioned whether a line would be crossed in terms of separation of powers by telling the judicial system or instructing the university to announce job transfers. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG addressed Representative Johnson's concern by noting that the House State Affairs Standing Committee sponsored a bill in 2007 that would provide a procedure for the removal of [the University of Alaska's Board of Regents], and that bill still resides in the House Judiciary Standing Committee. He cited AS 14.40.170, which lists the duties and powers of the Board of Regents, as mandated by the legislature, and he said that shows there is a precedent for giving such directives. Representative Gruenberg directed attention to subsection (b), beginning on page 2, line 29, which read as follows: (b) In this section, "state agency" means a department, institution, board, commission, division, authority, public corporation, committee, or other administrative unit of the executive branch of state government, including the University of Alaska, but not including the Alaska Railroad Corporation. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the language in subsection (b) is "internally inconsistent," because he stated his understanding that the University of Alaska is not part of the executive branch. MR. KREINHEDER said he hesitates to respond. Notwithstanding that, he offered his understanding that the university "is within the executive branch, but has certain special provisions that apply to it." In response to a follow-up question from Representative Gruenberg, he said the Alaska Railroad Corporation is "a special case," because it is not subjected to the Executive Budget Act, whereas the majority of state corporations - including the Permanent Fund Corporation and Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) - are. 11:47:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "If this is important enough to do, why isn't the judicial branch included? Because when judges and important judicial employees are transferred around, that has a major effect on communities." He also suggested that in addition to announcing transfers, new and deleted positions be announced. 11:48:04 AM REPRESENTATIVE DOLL related that other areas of the state are increasing the number of their state employees, while Juneau - the capital city - is the only location that has a decrease in state employees. She said she thinks both the FRANK Initiative and the proposed legislation shows that the public wants to know and wants to be involved, rather than being told what is going on after the fact. She said the issue is a philosophical one. She concluded that this is not a "Juneau thing," although important to Juneau; it is a policy issue for state. 11:50:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he also would not want the bill to result in having to report the moving of one office room to another within the same building. 11:51:15 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL concurred. He stated that he does not want the notice to become obstructive to good state government. He talked about ways to define "location". 11:53:28 AM MR. KREINHEDER suggested that if the concern is finding out about transfers that occur from one city or municipality to another, clarifying language could be inserted [on page 2, within lines 20-22]. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that some State of Alaska jobs are located in Seattle, Washington and Washington, D.C. He said he does not think the bill can be carried out without a cost to the state, and thus, he recommended the sponsor reconsider the [zero fiscal notes in the committee packet]. He said he thinks the committee could help the sponsor figure out a definition for "location". 11:55:25 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, regarding the public notices system, asked Ms. Neal how many "unique page views" are possible on a monthly basis and how many of those are "from outside state computers" versus "inside." 11:55:51 AM MS. NEAL responded that the Office of the Lieutenant Governor administers the online public notice system, and she could ask that office for the information. 11:56:04 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON opined that if the bill were truly about informing the public, there would need to be some type of outreach other than "the miniscule number of people that actually access the Alaska online notices systems." Those few people, he surmised, consist of contractors looking for bids and state employees looking to find what positions are open. He said he thinks the bill is about notifying the government, and for that reason he cannot support it. 11:57:57 AM VICE CHAIR ROSES, after ascertaining that there was no one else to testify, closed public testimony. 11:58:12 AM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he is not yet prepared to offer an amendment that would clarify the meaning of "location". He said it may be necessary to "put a term in there and then put a definition that goes with it." He emphasized that a definition is needed. 11:59:28 AM VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that HB 374 was heard and held.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|