Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/24/2004 03:37 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 352-MANAGERS NOT EMPLOYEES UNDER P.E.R.A.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced SB 352 to be up for consideration.
He read the title and asked Kevin Jardell to come forward and
introduce the bill.
KEVIN JARDELL, assistant commissioner for the Department of
Administration, explained that the intention is to modernize the
Public Employee Relations Act (PERA). The changes would conform
to most states that allow public employees to bargain and would
also conform to federal law, which applies to private industry
unions throughout the U.S. Department of Education.
The impetus for the change stems from confusion and frustration
associated with trying to implement the new administration's
policies, he said. In working through the policies, they were
trying to understand the management they have in the state and
how to utilize that management to implement the administration's
policies.
The first thing they noticed is that there was excessive
micromanagement on the commissioner level. They determined that
lower-level managers should be implementing many of the
policies, but found there were no lower-level managers. Under
current state law, the organization is such that everyone below
the commissioner, including assistant commissioners and deputy
commissioners, is labor under PERA. Upon further investigation,
they found that although assistant and deputy commissioners have
the right to bargain, they haven't exercised that option. That
isn't the pressing problem, he said.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER JARDELL continued to say that the problem
is that there is no line drawn to define managers, management
and labor. They were certain that drawing the line at the
commissioner level was not appropriate, but weren't sure where
it would be appropriate. The focus was to identify the
management team and train them as professionals that would
become a part of policy implementation at the division level.
They looked at state history and learned that this isn't a new
concept. The Cooper, Hammond and Hickel administrations all took
some action on this issue. In 1977 and 1980, the Blue Ribbon
Commission reviewed PERA. In particular they reviewed
confidential employees and the managerial class of employees.
That task force determined that those employees should be
management rather than in organized labor.
A number of previous administrations concluded that they could
solve the problem by removing these people from classified
service and placing them in partially exempt service. This
doesn't solve the problem, he asserted. First, placing employees
in the partially exempt service, doesn't remove their right to
bargain. The other reason it doesn't work is that this
administration doesn't believe that it is in the best interest
of the state to make career-service employees who have risen to
the management level in a division into political appointees.
This administration doesn't want more political appointees at
this level, he insisted.
What this administration wants to do is to develop a career-
service path for management level employees that would be under
the political appointees. That line is at the deputy director
level and it would "provide a lot of continuity between
administrations and a professionalism and a management class
that we currently don't spend the resources to train and put in
because we can't identify them as management."
He pointed to the Division of Retirement and Benefits to provide
example of another problem. One director oversees over 100
employees and when he or she is gone, for any reason, there is
no management representative in the division during the entire
absence. In those instances, organized labor is running the
division. To address that issue, they are trying to identify the
managerial, deputy director level that is acting with
independence in implementing the governor's policies.
He said appointees create and develop policy then the next level
of management implements the policy with discretion. That level
of independent judgment is the root of the definition they
propose to adopt. The employee must have that to be defined as a
management level. Employees that exercise independent judgment
to implement policy are defined as managerial level.
SB 352 adopts the federal standard for confidential employees.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS told Assistant Commissioner Jardell that he
wanted to give him every opportunity to fully present the
administration's point of view, but it might have to be at a
future time. Many people were waiting to testify and it was
getting late in the day.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER JARDELL concluded that the principle of
the bill is "to build a better management scheme for the state
of Alaska, not make new political appointees, but generally
professionalize and train a management class of employee."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS thanked him for working within the
committee's time constraints. He said he would begin to take
testimony in Juneau then move to the various communities to
allow the 35 some people to speak.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS asked the Chair if he wanted members to
hold their questions until the end of the public testimony
period.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS replied Assistant Commissioner Jardell would
return to complete his testimony and answer questions at a
future hearing.
JEFFERY PRATHER, staff manager with children services in Juneau
said he listened to the previous testimony and he was unclear
"who all they're envisioning being a part of this." As someone
who might potentially be management, he cautioned the members to
take care in determining the level that is appropriate to draw
the line. In his office, managers make many sensitive decisions
and "politics can play a role in decisions that are made by
supervisors throughout the state." He maintained there is a
level of comfort having a union to act as a buffer when they
must make decisions that align with state regulation and law,
but are troubling due to other issues.
KEVIN BRENNAN from Kodiak testified via teleconference on his
own behalf. He works for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G). He thought Assistant Commissioner Jardell's explanation
very interesting when compared to the vague language contained
in the bill. In fact, the description of a manager could
conceivably include anyone in the supervisory unit.
"Politicizing public employee positions would diminish our
effectiveness in the state." He asked that the bill be tabled
because it is an attack on PERA and collective bargaining.
LESLIE SIMMONS testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to SB 352. She said she is a front line supervisor
for the solid waste program in the Department of Environmental
Conservation. She implements policy developed by her
commissioner, division director, and program manager. She
provides information to help them in policy development.
Because of her technical expertise, schooling and experience,
she is instrumental in helping the department develop
environmental regulations. "I do my job with the understanding
of the political, social and economic implications. I make
decisions based on sound science, laws and regulations and best
management practices. Not based on shifting political
elections." She urged the committee to table the bill.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS thanked Ms. Simmons and announced that it was
5:00 pm and even though the hearing would continue for a while
longer, his intention was to hear the bill again the following
Tuesday. Everyone that wanted to speak would have an
opportunity.
DEAN WILLIAMS testified via teleconference to say that Assistant
Commissioner Jardell's comments are well understood by
supervisory members. However, he respectfully disagreed with his
analysis of the situation and what he believes to be the
problem. He reasoned that as "you move down into the state
management team, you understand that when a director leaves of
course we're carrying out the governor's and the
administration's programs and plans. We are the career
employees...."
This legislation makes jobs that are not and should not be
political very political indeed. "We respectfully disagree with
the analysis of Assistant Commissioner Jardell and ask the
committee to look very carefully at what is in the legislation
and the severe ramifications that we believe it's going to have
on the supervisory employees and the state as a whole."
STEVE HOFFMAN from Ketchikan testified via teleconference. He
questioned whether the bill was an attempt to better state
government or a first step toward union busting.
OLE LARSON testified via teleconference from the Mat-Su LIO and
said where he works, the commissioner, deputy commissioner,
directors, and special assistants are all political appointees.
He didn't hear about the bill until the previous Friday, he
didn't read about it until yesterday and he couldn't understand
the urgency. "The state employment system isn't broken or out of
control." He said he was opposed to the legislation because it
wouldn't provide any protection to supervisory employees from
the political whims of changing administrations.
He stated that there is just one supervisory layer under him.
"There isn't a long career ladder to begin with and this would
eliminate what career ladder is left." A staff member asked what
"undivided loyalty" means and he believes this is a scary issue.
TAPE 04-10, SIDE A
5:12 pm
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced that he wanted the entire committee
hear all the testimony on this important issue and he intended
to take additional public testimony the following Tuesday.
BRUCE SENKOW testified via teleconference from Fairbanks and
advised that he is the president of the Alaska Public Employees
Association. When he reviewed the bill, he found it to be "wrong
on so many levels." With regard to loyalty, he has never heard
of a supervisor disobeying a direct request from a director or
commissioner if he or she was given clear direction. Next, he
couldn't figure out where the governor's concern about
confidentiality was coming from because "we probably hear more
from commissioners and political appointees than we ever hear
from labor relations staff."
The issue of cost is noteworthy even though the fiscal note
doesn't reflect that. Under collective bargaining, there is
arbitration if you must terminate someone. That is costly. With
this bill, he thought a predetermination hearing would be
necessary followed by a personnel board hearing. After that
lawyers would get involved. "That's going to cost you ten times
more than what an arbitration will cost to find out whether or
not you did what you should have done."
Drawing on years of experience, he asserted that most
supervisors are more fiscally responsible than most political
appointees. "On so many levels, this is the wrong time and the
wrong thing to address. The system isn't broken it doesn't need
to be fixed. I think this needs to be tabled."
SHANNON FLEMING testified that she is the investigation
supervisor for the office of children's services in Juneau. Many
of her sentiments were stated already, but she wanted to comment
on conflicting loyalties.
She professed to no conflicting loyalties now, but suggested
that she very well might if she didn't have union representation
because she helps six social workers make difficult family
related decisions on a daily basis.
GEORGE PAPPAS, an area management biologist for the Department
of Fish and Game, testified via teleconference from Kodiak in
opposition to SB 352.
As a manager of a fully allocated fishery, nearly every decision
that he makes serves some user group and takes away from
another, he said. He questioned whether the next generation of
biologists would be able to base their decisions on sound
biological principles rather than the politically and
economically based process seen in the early 1900s. Without
protection of a union, he was concerned that he could lose his
job for making a publicly unpopular, but biologically sound
decision.
GERRY GUAY testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to the bill. He works for the Department of
Environmental Conservation and is also the chair of the
Southcentral supervisory unit. SB 352 implies the 500 plus
members of the state supervisory workforce need to be controlled
because they aren't supportive of the current political
direction. "The implication that we could be better controlled
is not only a dangerous conclusion, but severely undermines the
fabric of state government and being a public servant."
Our role as supervisors is not to be controlled but to
serve the residents of the state of Alaska
irrespective of the controlling party. We are here to
provide informed advice, technical expertise and to
serve as check and balance when decisions don't make
sense. This is not to suggest that we work against the
political pundit, but instead we make sure that the
desired results are based on informed decisions. I
believe the mere suggestion of political control at my
mid-managerial level should send fear to the hearts of
most Alaskans.
He observed that he interpreted the bill differently than
Assistant Commissioner Jardell and asked how the bill would:
· Improve the loss in productivity in the state system caused
by political turnover every 4 years
· Handle the loss in informed experienced leadership in the 3
to 6 months following each election
· Address the brain-drain as older staff leave or are forced
out
· Counter the loss of staff leaving for bigger money in the
private sector because state employment no longer offers
security
· Counter the loss of dedicated state workers and managers
· Address fewer experienced state workers wanting to become
managers
· Protect supervisory members that are already afraid to
testify at legislative hearings because they are afraid of
political retribution
DORIS TANNER testified via teleconference from the Mat-Su LIO to
represent supervisory members of the Election Board. She opposed
any effort to open the Public Employment Relations Act. She
advised that she had a written statement to read and she would
send the committee a copy for the file. She read:
PERA isn't broken; if anything it isn't strong enough.
This is evident in the continual upheaval and damage
done to vital state programs and service of each and
every administrative change in subjective replacement
Raiding PERA will increase the number of long-term
employees - and these are employees with experience
and history necessary to operate efficient programs
and services - arbitrarily replaced by political
influence. I am here today to tell you about personal
experiences with political appointments in state
government. As you know, each and every administration
brings with it political appointees into key state
positions. We have pretty much learned to live with
that. Those positions, however, bring their own key
people in. These political pawns are generally
inexperienced in the department they are charged to
represent. They bring varying levels of education and
experience and a complete misunderstanding for how the
department, the division, or the program functions.
They lack the history or memory to quickly get up to
speed in the mission of the department they represent.
In short, they bring chaos into a perfectly oiled
machine.
If PERA is raided, this political process will become
the norm occurring daily rather than every four years
that we currently experience.
MS. TANNER noted that one of her employees wrote, "This is the
first time in my life that I have felt afraid to say what I
think in a workplace. This is not like me." That paranoia is
widespread and is holding the state hostage, Ms. Tanner charged.
Finally she asked, "Why is this issue only receiving the notice
of one hearing held one day after its introduction?" She urged
the committee to kill SB 352.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS thanked her for her comments then explained,
for the record, "that we did send this out on Thursday - that it
was posted on Friday. It was not given a bill number until
Monday when it went across the Senate floor." He continued to
say that there would be another hearing to give everyone a
chance to speak to the issue.
He announced he would like to hear from one more person from
Fairbanks so that each community had two people speak to the
issue.
JUNE PENNELL-STEPHENS, APEA member and manager at the Fairbanks
North Star Borough, stated that she was the next on the list.
She made the point, "You make good managers by hiring qualified
people and training them properly, not merely by prohibiting
them from carrying a union card." It is short sighted and
offensive to say that someone can't be a good manager and a good
union member. Her contract gives her the explicit right to
express political opinions, which is not included in the general
personnel policy that covers non-union employees. Without that
guarantee, many public employees would be directly or indirectly
deprived of their right of free speech. She charged that
prohibiting all managers from belonging to any union whatsoever
might well be an infringement on their first amendment right to
the freedom of association. She urged the committee to defeat
the bill.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced that the committee schedule was
full for the coming Thursday meeting, but they would continue
hearing the bill again on Tuesday of the next week. He noted he
hadn't given Assistant Commissioner Jardell an opportunity to
complete his testimony and asked him if he had anything to add.
ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER JARDELL replied he would return and
answer questions at a later time.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS held SB 352 in committee and adjourned the
meeting at 5:30 pm.
#
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|