Legislature(2007 - 2008)BELTZ 211
03/15/2008 04:00 PM Senate LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB297|| SB294 | |
| HB65 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | SB 294 | ||
| = | SB 297 | ||
| = | HB 65 | ||
SB 297-NONUNION PUBLIC EMPLOYEE SALARY & BENEFIT
SB 294-RCA POSITIONS AND SALARIES
4:04:18 PM
CHAIR ELLIS announced SB 297 and SB 294 to be up for
consideration and that a proposed CS combines the two.
DANA OWEN, staff to Senator Ellis, explained the proposed CS
[referred to as CSSB 297(L&C) 25-GS2011\E] consolidates SB 294 ,
which pertained only to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska
(RCA) and SB 297 and some of the changes are fairly significant.
CHAIR ELLIS said version E contains consolidated RCA salaries
into one vehicle so as to have an overarching approach to pay
and benefits.
MR. OWEN added in order to accomplish that the title was
broadened.
CHAIR ELLIS noted that was fine because the bill is in the body
of origin.
MR. OWEN continued saying sections 1-4 had not been changed and
clarified that the reference to the commissioners is to the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission. Section 5 on page 2, line
15, places the executive director of the RCA, which is enacted
in section 12 of the bill, into the exempt service. Section 6 on
page 2, line 17, corrects terminology that exists in RCA
statutes; currently "hearing officers" is used, but "hearing
examiners" is more correct.
CHAIR ELLIS noted that Senator Stevens joined the committee.
4:07:02 PM
MR. OWEN said sections 7-10 on page 2, line 20 - page 3, line
30, are from the original bill and are the new pay schedule and
the three-year raises from 2008-10. One of the sections
establishes a longevity pay system for employees who reach step
F of the pay schedule. Section 11 on page 4, line 14, sets all
RCA commissioner salaries including the chair's at step F, range
30. Under the bill, the chair would no longer have
administrative duties, but further in the bill an executive
director's position is created that would assume those duties.
As a result all commissioners will get the same pay.
CHAIR ELLIS remarked that was reflective of recommendations from
the RCA task force.
4:08:23 PM
MR. OWEN said section 12 on page 4, line 20, establishes the
position of the RCA executive director, clarifies that the
commission hires the executive director and administrative law
judges (judges report to the commission and not to the executive
director). It further sets out the responsibilities, powers and
limitations of the executive director position. Sections 13-14
on page 5, lines 4-18, are conforming amendments that result
from creation of the executive director's position. Sections 15-
16 on page 5, line 19 - page 6, line 3, are not changed from the
original bill.
Section 17 is an amendment from the court system saying that
court employees not covered by a collective bargaining unit
including magistrates, but excluding judges and justices, and
are under the same section 7-9 pay schedule and two-year
increases as the executive branch non-covered employees. In
other words, it brings the judicial branch into the same
structure as the executive branch. Additionally, the court may
adopt the longevity pay increment formula in section 10, but
that is not mandatory.
4:10:19 PM
CHAIR ELLIS asked if language on page 6 addressed the two
concerns of the court system that look back on pay and the
magistrate issue.
MR. OWEN answered yes with one exception; judges were added to
the retroactivity provisions later in the bill. The magistrate
issue is resolved. He continued that sections 18-20 on page 6,
line 22 - page 7, line 14, had no changes from the original
bill. Section 21 has the new retroactivity clause, and that is
the same except that justices and judges were added. Section 22
on page 7, line 23, makes the longevity formula for executive
branch employees (enacted in section 10) contingent upon the
administration formally offering the same benefit to all state
employee bargaining units. Section 23 has the immediate
effective dates for the new pay schedule and judges were brought
into it. The sections of the act covering exempt branch,
judicial and university employees are part of the retroactive
provisions. Section 24 has the effective date of July 1, 2008
for all the other sections.
4:12:13 PM
SENATOR BUNDE asked if the additions means a new fiscal note is
needed.
MR. OWEN replied yes.
4:12:57 PM
TONY PRICE, Commissioner, Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA),
encouraged committee members to review the RCA's presentation to
the task force, because it provide insight as to how the RCA
fulfills its statutory obligations within the recently imposed
statutory timelines. He said the members care about the RCA and
believe it has an impact on every citizen in the state, whether
they turn on a light, heat their house with gas or flush a
toilet.
He said over 1,700 orders were issued by the RCA in 2007 and
those required the review of volumes of filings and testimony.
The reviews found a critical lack of people in technical
advisory positions and the inability to hire people with
knowledge and experience at state pay levels. He advised that
the personnel have to be grown from within the system over an
expensive two-year training process and that would produce only
a minimally productive advisor that the commission could rely on
for advice, but they are still not experts.
MR. PRICE remarked:
So, what is the benefit of addressing the pay and
staffing problems of the RCA separately from those
existing statewide? Can't this wait for a fix that
fixes all these statewide pay problems all at once,
down the road at an undefined future date? Some view
this as a perfect solution. My advice is it's
impossible to achieve. The problem is too big. It's a
Mount McKinley-sized personnel issue. If you want to
climb Mount McKinley, you do it one step at a time,
not in one giant step.
RCA commissioner pay is one step on the state's
journey. The next step is for the unions and
administration to begin immediately to work together
to remedy the compensation and related attraction and
retention of RCA advisory staff during the next fiscal
year. I do not desire to be a commissioner at a broken
RCA unable to retain and hire staff, perform its
duties and meet its statutory deadlines. The
Administration, Senate and House should feel the same
way. An ineffective RCA will lead to rates too high.
Single parents, elderly on fixed income and others
living at the lower margins will be economically
damaged the most. They have few resources to spare....
4:16:38 PM
MR. PRICE explained if regulated utility and pipeline rates are
just 10 percent too high, monopoly utilities and pipelines would
collect an additional $95 million per year. "There are winners
and losers if the RCA is broken. Monopolies are winners and
consumers are losers."
He said he supported SB 294 because he believed compensated
commissioners at range 30 gives the state a chance to attract
and retain highly qualified and experienced candidates. The
creation of an executive director creates continuity of
management and administrative efficiencies. He also encouraged
the legislature to perform the necessary studies to recognize
RCA professional advisory staff as rare and compensate
appropriately. It needs to be done at the completion of the
study, but not later than the beginning of FY 2009.
4:17:59 PM
BRUCE LUDWIG, Business Manager, Alaska Public Employees
Association, said he represents two state bargaining units, the
state supervisors and the confidential employees. They just
completed negotiations on an almost 12-percent raise compounded
over the three years contract. But, he said, that does little to
help the current recruitment and retention problems facing the
state. A number of positions go unfilled every year because the
state can't find people who will accept the salaries and
Alaska's high cost of living. Exacerbating that is the fact that
about 45 percent of state employees will be eligible to retire
within five years.
MR. LUDWIG remarked that Commissioner Kreitzer made some changes
to the personnel system in lowering the qualifications and said
this is not "dumbing it down," but rather giving people an
opportunity to apply for a job. Using that philosophy, you
basically grow your own employees. To do that, you need
experienced mentors. The original bill would only apply to 8
percent of the entire state workforce; adding section 20 makes
it apply to 92 percent.
4:20:45 PM
MR. LUDWIG said the state needs some kind of incentive to get
senior supervisors to stay because the system now tops out at
step N. The only other variable is cost of living increases,
which have not been that forthcoming. Another benefit is that
the state saves money in the PERS system by not having to pay
health benefits for people who retire by keeping them in service
longer.
4:22:34 PM
KEVIN BROOKS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Administration
(DOA), said the department is not opposed to including SB 294 in
with SB 297. His approach was to place the commissioners at a
range 27 without reference to steps; the philosophy being that
steps become a limiting factor over time. Not having them
provides flexibility. Currently department commissioners are
placed by statute anywhere from a range 28 to a range 30 and
this measure would put them at the upper level. On the 27 salary
schedule one can get to the equivalent of a 30F without the step
designation.
4:25:00 PM
CHAIR ELLIS said this was a recommendation of the RCA Task Force
and the bill has a further referral to the Finance Committee.
MR. BROOKS said the pay would be comparable either way. He then
went to section 20 and encouraged the committee to consider that
collective bargaining is best done at the bargaining table, not
in legislation like this. A number of factors led to the offer
that was made and accepted by the SU bargaining unit along with
the package for non-covered employees. Bargaining is a dynamic
process and there were many offers on the table; ultimately one
of them was chosen and ratified.
He said it was important to note that a few years ago the SU
bargaining unit negotiated for service steps to replace
longevity steps. In doing so, they eliminated one of the items
they are trying to accomplish in the bill - the requirement that
someone have continuous service for seven years and an F step
before they can move. This is important as the state hires
people from outside and make promotions because someone could be
placed at an F step and not be eligible for any kind of pay
adjustment for seven years. The SC bargaining unit received that
already several years ago and they don't have the seven-years of
continuous service and F step restriction.
MR. BROOKS again emphasized when there is a price associated
with everything that is on the table and an N step was added for
the SU bargaining unit that doesn't exist for the other
bargaining units. Similarly, he explained, the GGU unit has
negotiated a G step that doesn't exist with other units.
Another example, he said, was the LTC unit that front-loaded
their steps where after six months an individual goes from a
step A to a step B, about a 20 percent raise. Then they don't
see another one for five to seven years. So, he said they are
taking a disparate group of contracts and trying to apply
something standard, but what they offer to one group isn't
necessarily what they would offer to another group.
4:28:20 PM
MR. BROOKS also pointed out that the step provisions in the bill
for non-covered employees will not be reflected in a fiscal
note. The administration decided that state agencies would
absorb those costs ($1.5 million to $2 million/year). So, he
encouraged them to not adopt section 20 and leave collective
bargaining at the table where it belongs.
4:29:37 PM
CHAIR ELLIS said he looks at this as a conversation starter and
all the issues in this bill will be revisited in the Finance
Committee.
SENATOR DAVIS moved to adopt CSSB 297(L&C), version E. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR BUNDE said he agreed that combining the two bills was
basically wise, but he also agreed with the administration that
section 20 handicaps collective bargaining. So he moved to
delete section 20 on page 12, lines 6-14, as conceptual
Amendment 1.
4:32:50 PM
CHAIR ELLIS objected to adopting Amendment 1. A roll call vote
was taken: Senators Bunde and Stevens voted yea; Senators Davis
and Ellis voted nay; therefore Amendment 1 failed to be adopted.
SENATOR Davis moved to report CSSB 297(L&C) version E from
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal notes.
SENATOR BUNDE objected saying this is a commendable effort, but
section 20 needs to be deleted.
SENATOR STEVENS also said he has a big problem with putting
collective bargaining anywhere other than on the table. Anything
else was an attempt to go around the bargaining table to get
something.
4:35:32 PM
CHAIR ELLIS said he didn't want to follow through on the motion
to move the bill if it would fail.
SENATOR STEVENS said he thought it would be wise to hold the
bill. So, the chair said he would hold the motion to pass CSSB
297(L&C).
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|