Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/21/1995 01:05 PM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 21, 1995
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ivan Ivan, Co-Chair
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Pete Kott
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jerry Mackie
Representative Irene Nicholia
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HB 247: "An Act relating to election of municipal governing
bodies and municipal school boards."
HEARD AND HELD
*HB 248: "An Act relating to application of the Public Employment
Relations Act to municipalities and other political
subdivisions."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 185: "An Act relating to an exemption from municipal property
taxes for certain primary residences; and providing for
an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID KOIVUNIEMI, Acting Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
P.O. Box 110017
Juneau, AK 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-4611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 247
TOM WRIGHT, Committee Aide
House Community and Regional Affairs Committee
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol Building, Room 503
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on teleconference schedule for
HB 247. Gave statement for HB 185.
WILLIE ANDERSON, Field Staff
National Education Association (NEA)
114 Second Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 248
DON VALESKO, Business Manager
Public Employees Local 71
2510 Arctic Boulevard
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: (907) 276-7211
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 248
BRUCE LUDWIG, Business Manager
Alaska Public Employees Association (APEA)
Alaska Federation of Teachers (AFT)
211 Fourth Street, Suite 306
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-2334
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 248
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS, President
National Education Association (NEA)
114 Second Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 248
KARLA FEELEY, Assistant Executive Director
National Education Association (NEA)
114 Second Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 248
CLARENCE BOLDEN, Field Staff
National Education Association (NEA)
114 Second Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 248
ED FLANAGAN, Assistant Commissioner
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 21149
Juneau, AK 99802-1149
Telephone: (907) 465-2700
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 248
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 247
SHORT TITLE: MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/09/95 677 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/09/95 678 (H) CRA, HES, STATE AFFAIRS
03/21/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 248
SHORT TITLE: LOCAL EXEMPTION FROM PERA
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/10/95 701 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/10/95 701 (H) CRA, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/17/95 791 (H) STATE AFFAIRS REPLACED WITH L&C
03/21/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 185
SHORT TITLE: MUNICIPAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) IVAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/20/95 418 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/20/95 418 (H) COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/09/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/09/95 (H) MINUTES(CRA)
03/16/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/16/95 (H) MINUTES(CRA)
03/21/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-9, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIR IVAN IVAN called the House Community and Regional Affairs
Committee meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. He noted the members
present were Representatives Kim Elton, Alan Austerman and Al
Vezey. Members absent were Representatives Jerry Mackie and Irene
Nicholia. The day's agenda included HB 247, HB 248 and time
permitting HB 185.
HCRA - 03/21/95
HB 247 - MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
CO-CHAIR IVAN invited Representative Al Vezey to give the sponsor
statement for HB 247.
Number 027
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY explained the current Title 29 statutes
were enacted in 1972 in response to the 1965 Voter's Rights Act.
He noted there had not been any substantial changes in the statutes
since then. The Voters' Rights Act have been amended on four
occasions and a lot of new laws regarding voter's rights have been
established by the Supreme Court. The purpose of the bill is to
mandate that municipalities elect their governing body out of
districts with no more than one member per district. He said it
basically is the law of the land and just good democracy.
Representative Vezey referred to a 1970s court case where the
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a complaint of a violation
of the Voters Rights Act and Justice Bright dissented from the
Circuit Courts opinion. The Supreme Court then heard the case on
appeal, overturned the Circuit Court and adopted Justice Bright's
decision. The dissenting opinion became the Supreme Court's
opinion ruling in favor of single member districts. Justice Bright
spelled out ten reasons relating to his opinion which were quite
scholarly on the fundamental principals of what democracy is. The
purpose of the bill is to mandate that our municipalities follow
the same procedures of every state in the union, currently required
in terms of its legislature, and its elected officials be elected
from single member districts.
Number 103
CO-CHAIR IVAN noted, for the record, the attendance of
Representative Pete Kott. He welcomed comments or questions from
committee members.
Number 108
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON stated he didn't have a fiscal note even
though he thought the sponsor made reference to one.
Number 112
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that there was one prepared even though
it is a null fiscal note. He said he wasn't aware of any impact
this would have on the state.
Number 119
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said it would have a fiscal implication for
local municipalities, especially this close to the time to the last
reapportionment.
Number 122
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that HB 247's fiscal notes don't
address political subdivisions. It would have no impact on the
state. The cost on local governments would be the cost of enacting
an ordinance. The local governments could decide whether or not to
hire consultants to do this work. This is nothing that couldn't be
done with existing resources. He said the expense would result if
the party became involved in litigation or a Voter Rights Act
violation.
Number 137
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said one of his concerns with the bill is it
mandates the reapportionment process which would incur some cost
but it also provides an open door for potential litigation allowing
citizens to challenge the municipal process. This would also have
a cost to the municipality.
Number 150
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY disagreed with Representative Elton's
characterization. He stated one could put as many resources into
a reapportionment effort that one wanted. This bill doesn't give
citizens any rights that they don't currently have under law.
Rather than going through the expense of having an election to
ratify an reapportionment plan, we would do away with that
election. This statute merely clarifies this is the process, the
remedy is available to all citizens.
Number 171
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if the sponsor was aware of any
situations in which a citizen has gone to court protesting existing
municipal elections and municipal reapportionment of seats on their
local assemblies or councils.
Number 177
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY answered that he knew of only two Supreme
Court decisions involving a representation on county seats and both
outside the state of Alaska.
Number 180
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked whether or not there has been an
expressed need for change by citizens in Alaska or if changes have
been expressed through a court suit.
Number 187
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that he's personally aware of someone
that has considered challenging the electoral system in court. He
stated that he's also aware that there was at least one
municipality where there was an active movement to effect a portion
of a municipality. These are issues that are related to
representation. He stated one of the reasons for moving this
legislation forward is due to the movement to force a change
through some other legal means.
Number 202
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if there was anything that precludes a
municipality from making the change on their own rather than having
it mandated by the state.
Number 211
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied it can be done under existing laws.
It's not illegal to do it but there are some mechanical loops that
have to be gone through.
Number 214
CO-CHAIR ALAN AUSTERMAN asked about Title 29. He wanted to clarify
whether this bill dealt basically with schools and school boards or
if the bill deals with all government bodies.
Number 222
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY answered that it deals with all government
bodies.
Number 224
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN asked how it would affect those communities that
have a difficult time getting someone to run for a service
district.
Number 236
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that this bill didn't address what
would happen if no one ran for an office. Legally, a vacancy would
occur and the statutes, or ordinance, regarding how a vacancy was
filled would take effect.
Number 242
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN pointed out that someone could be appointed who
wasn't necessarily interested in the vacant seat. He referred to
the open school board on Kodiak Island where everyone runs that's
interested. Upon the implementation of districting in Kodiak, for
example, uninterested representation from the villages on the
school board may occur. Co-Chair Austerman had not perceived this
problem.
Number 255
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said service districts weren't an appropriate
analogy because there was no population basis for a service
district but one of common political interest. If you go to a
system that's different from what you currently have, there is a
transition period during which people have difficulty in perceiving
the change.
Number 278
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN noted that districting Kodiak Island would
create additional costs if each village became its own district
because of the necessary cost of flying the representatives into
Kodiak for school board meetings. He stated this bill would have
some financial impact through the separate districts.
Number 294
CO-CHAIR IVAN stated that he had a proposed amendment for HB 247.
He commented on his small communities mentioning one village with
a population of 35 people.
CO-CHAIR IVAN said his amendment would exclude second class cities,
including towns such as Bethel and Kotzebue, and several
communities within his own district. He moved his amendment for
adoption by the committee.
Number 313
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY expressed his appreciation for the work done
by Co-Chair Ivan concerning the amendment. He stated it might not
be an appropriate amendment because a second class city form of
government has no bearing on the size of the municipality. There
is some size barrier with single member districts where it would
not be practical to move toward the process of democracy.
Number 326
CO-CHAIR IVAN agreed to this and stated that he would discuss it
later.
Number 328
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN again referred to the villages on Kodiak Island,
some with a population of 250, and stated that the number wasn't
very different from the population of 35 in Co-Chair Ivan's
district. He questioned determining the districts affected by the
bill, by basis of population, because the makeup of the rural
communities is different from that of the urban areas.
Number 340
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he wasn't sure of the size limit of a
first class city but looking at population wasn't the right
mechanics to address the problem. He agreed to further discuss
this problem.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that he had his own amendment
suggesting referral to a population limit. He stated that it
wasn't in the original bill because he thought the committee
members would want to decide amongst themselves at what level to
impose this requirement for this level of representation.
People's rights, under democracy, can be deminimized by at-large
voting.
Number 368
CO-CHAIR IVAN stated that he would like to work with Representative
Vezey to come up with a compromise concerning the proposed
amendment. He wants to accommodate the small rural areas that
might have problems under HB 247.
Number 377
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY wanted to hear opinions from the other
committee members concerning where the line should be drawn. His
only suggestion was to determine it by population.
Number 383
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated current action would be to take a
philosophical approach and only apply it in certain areas. His
preference, he noted for the record as being facetious, would be at
500,000 because the bill wouldn't mandate to any community. In
his opinion, this bill would be telling communities what to do and
what's good for them. Representative Elton stated he didn't know
of a rational way to apply a number. He would be more compelled to
try to come up with a number if he thought there was a problem the
communities were facing and unable to solve for themselves.
Number 412
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN agreed with Representative Elton's remarks. He
also thought it difficult to come up with a number at which to draw
the line. Co-Chair Austerman stated he wasn't totally in favor of
this bill and questioned how it would affect school districts.
Number 426
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT agreed that this bill was complex. He
suggested that if you looked further into the population base for
some of the incorporated cities, you could come up with a
reasonable number.
Number 435
CO-CHAIR IVAN invited Mr. David Koivuniemi from the Division of
Elections to testify.
Number 438
DAVID KOIVUNIEMI, Acting Director, Division of Elections, Office of
the Lt. Governor, said he was of the opinion this bill would have
a fiscal impact on the Division of Elections. He is concerned
about small communities with very few registered voters. Upon
reduction of districts, a single household could be established as
the voting area for a district.
MR. KOIVUNIEMI mentioned a concern of the Division of Elections
pertaining to Title 15.07.064, under which voter registration is
allowed for small communities that are a single precinct without
having them give a physical resident address. This bill would
require a community be divided into several districts and the
community itself would have to be able to identify actual address
locations. He stated that within the state of Alaska, many rural
areas lack street and/or post office box addresses and physical
location is quite general. Administratively, the registration
system currently in use is the Geographic Information Files (GIF)
and is based on the physical description of a piece of property.
These GIFs determine districts where a voter is registered.
Currently, over 17,000 GIFs exist and with this bill, each GIF
would be opened to determine districts, creating an intensive work
load for the Division of Elections.
Number 504
CO-CHAIR IVAN commented that this problem was similar to that faced
within his community of Akiak. He stated that voter registration
was done based on post office boxes. His community tried to come
up with a central geographical location such as the school where
addresses are listed in reference to distance from the school. He
again asked members if they had comments or questions.
Number 516
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked when a fiscal note could be made
available to committee members.
Number 518
MR. KOIVUNIEMI wasn't sure and he stated that he didn't want to
come up with a fiscal note and say this project would be just like
reapportionment. This bill does have many reapportionment aspects
due to the fact that the GIFs would have to be manipulated. This
adheres even to Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau, where the
Division of Elections would have to set up minor subdivisions for
everyone in the state. Some areas would take three different
additions such as Fairbanks which would include the borough
subdivision, the city subdivision, the subdivisions within the
borough subdivision within the city government and subdivisions
within the school district. Mr. Koivuniemi said to try to come up
with an estimate pertaining to the number of work hours necessary
to make GIF corrections makes it difficult to come up with a fiscal
note for the bill.
Number 537
CO-CHAIR IVAN asked for any other questions or comments from
committee members.
Number 540
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY noted the REAA's are impacted by the bill. In
regard to the concerns expressed by the Division of Elections, he
stated there is a point in trying to calculate how much break down
is going to have to be done in the voter tabulating system. He
stated the GIFs were synonymous to Census Blocks. It's pointless
to break down a census block because you lose any legal basis you
have for trying to subdivide the fundamental building block of
census populations. These blocks vary considerably in size and
it's difficult to justify breaking a census block for any purpose
of calculating the equality in terms of voting.
Number 567
CO-CHAIR IVAN said that he'd withdraw the amendment and work on
merging the population version and his proposal.
Number 571
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN commented that this type of discussion was held
in Kodiak and the discussion didn't amount to anything because if
Kodiak Island Borough was districted, the Island's six villages
with no population base would have only one representative per
district, whereas Kodiak City would have five. The same thing
would happen to school districts where the six villages would have
six representatives, and the five schools in Kodiak City would have
five representatives. Kodiak Island Borough never believed they
would get districting passed by a vote of the people. He asked why
teleconferencing wasn't scheduled for this meeting.
Number 593
TOM WRIGHT, Committee Aide, House Community and Regional Affairs
Committee, Alaska State Legislature, said there were no requests
for teleconferencing in time to get people on line.
Number 596
CO-CHAIR IVAN stated that he would hold this bill over for further
discussion.
Number 598
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY referred to Co-Chair Austerman's comment in
request to how villages would be treated. If it is possible to get
an accuracy of one more person, the Supreme Court just about
mandates that you do. For state legislatures, there is a much
looser standard. This is normally a variation of 8 to 10 percent
and justification has been considered for more. State level has a
considerable variance. A limited number of local reapportionment
cases before the Supreme Court indicate they would look upon an
even wider population variance because of the nature of the small
communities. If you have seven people in the borough assembly, you
have 2000 people per assembly position. You would think they would
have to be combined with another population center to select
someone. He asked if this wouldn't maximize their representation
on the assembly and the representative would be accountable to the
village people, no matter where the representative lived?
Representative Vezey said this was the essence of the value of
single member districts as Judge Bright outlined 20 years ago.
Number 628
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON suggested that the bill sponsor send out a
sectional analysis, as well as a copy of the new drafted committee
substitute for HB 247, to all the communities that would be
affected by this bill to give them the opportunity to respond to
this legislation. He thought it would be important because if the
committee is going to mandate from the state level the way that
something has to be done, those affected should be aware of what
was happening.
Number 641
CO-CHAIR IVAN stated this was his intent also and he didn't want to
pass legislation without involvement from the communities. He
again stated he would hold the bill over until further notice.
HCRA - 03/21/95
HB 248 - LOCAL EXEMPTIONS FROM PERA
CO-CHAIR IVAN invited Representative Al Vezey to give the sponsor
statement for HB 248.
Number 654
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said this bill's purpose is when the Public
Employment Relations Act (PERA) was established, a means was
provided by which municipalities could, by democratic ways, select
to opt out of being in PERA. Approximately 15 communities did not
opt out, and 2 other communities that tried to opt out were
informed by the courts that they no longer had the option of opting
out according to the requirements of PERA. This bill clarifies
that there is a democratic process by which communities can either
opt in or out of PERA. The reason behind the bill is just one of
fundamental fairness because the state of Alaska is currently
imposing a mandate on how municipal management and labor relations,
between municipal employees, will be managed for a small number of
communities in the state. The other communities are totally free
to structure their own system of managing their labor and
management relations.
Number 679
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN asked about the communities that did not opt out
of PERA.
Number 681
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY directed the members to look at the list in
their bill packet and listed the names of the communities still
covered under PERA: Bristol Bay, Fairbanks North Star Borough,
Haines, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Kodiak Island Borough, the City
of Bethel, the City of Cordova, the City of Dillingham, the City of
Fairbanks, the City of Hoonah, Nome, Petersburg, the City of
Seldovia, Unalaska, the City of Whittier and the Thomas Bay Power
Authority. He listed four examples of those that are no longer
under PERA: Juneau, Anchorage, and the Mat-Su and North Pole
boroughs. Most of the population of the state have opted out of
PERA, but the communities that didn't no longer have that option
according to the courts.
Number 694
CO-CHAIR IVAN asked for any other questions or comments from the
committee. He invited Willie Anderson to testify on HB 248.
TAPE 95-9, SIDE B
Number 000
WILLIE ANDERSON, Field Staff, National Education Association (NEA),
stated he wanted to suggest an addition to the sponsor statement.
In 1992, the Alaska State Legislature passed SB 16 which decrees
mandatory participation for every school in the state to be in
PERA. Every community in the state is covered by PERA as it
relates to school districts employees. Every REAA would have to
have an election to opt into PERA and this would have major
disruptions to the districts around the state. It is a policy
statement for the state of Alaska to cover labor relations,
especially as it relates to school district employees where the
state funds 70 percent of most district funding and up to 100
percent of some districts' funding. It is an issue for the state
to make that policy call. NEA opposes this bill for several
reasons. First of all, it causes major disruption to what has
worked in this state in an experimental basis until 1992, and on a
permanent basis from 1992. NEA asks the committee not to pass this
bill and to consider the disruption that would happen in the state
as it relates to having every community vote on whether they are
going to be covered by PERA. Mr. Anderson believed there would be
a fiscal impact to the state and REAAs with those elections. He
stated that this bill was like an unending circle because you could
opt in then out and then back in to PERA.
Number 066
CO-CHAIR IVAN asked if the committee members had any questions for
Mr. Willie Anderson.
Number 068
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN wanted to clarify comments made by Mr. Anderson
concerning his phrase, `major disruption.' Co-Chair Austerman
stated that most communities have elections every year, on an on-
going basis, during which the PERA elections could be included in
the already existing structure.
Number 074
MR. ANDERSON explained the disruption he referred to is that you a
volatile issue would come up in the community that would divide the
community between the those that support the right of PERA against
those who oppose PERA.
Number 092
CO-CHAIR IVAN asked for comments from the committee. He then
invited Mr. Don Valesko to testify.
Number 100
DON VALESKO, Business Manager, Public Employees Local 71, said
Local 71 employs about 2,300 people that work in the public sector
throughout the state of Alaska. Some members work only for the
state of Alaska but some of them do work for the Anchorage School
District, the municipality of Anchorage, the Borough of Haines, the
City of Dillingham and the Mat-Su Borough School District. He
opposed HB 248 because it's regressive and not a progressive piece
of legislation. In the early 1970s, the Alaska State Legislature
enacted PERA. He said he was an employee of the state of Alaska at
that time and believed that he'd moved up in stature from a second
class citizen to a first class citizen of the state. He stated
that this bill would politicize a system of communication that has
been working well for the past few years. They would put the
option to opt out of collective bargaining systems before the
voters but then where would the contracts that the employees have
end up? They have to go through the political arena because they
can no longer talk to their employers. Going back prior to
collective bargaining with the state of Alaska, you had a system of
employees collectively begging the legislature to have the
government decide each of their issues. Then you might get a cycle
of people that are pro-collective bargaining and they put out a
vote for the citizens and encourage the voters to go back to the
system of collective bargaining. A system has been worked out that
allows for communication between the employer, the Administration
and the employees which has worked quite well. Mr. Valesko urged
the committee not to pass the bill.
Number 180
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Valesko for an analysis on what
happened to a collective bargaining process whereby two parties try
to come to a reasonable agreement. He was curious as to what
happened to that process when, in effect, the ultimate hammer may
be the local legislative body pushing for an agreement and getting
none, putting it up for vote by the public.
Number 190
MR. VALESKO responded that it takes away the employees' ability to
communicate effectively with their employers on their concerns. He
stated that employees that find it difficult to speak out now might
find their right to speak out lost in the future. A system becomes
poorer and less effective and repressing.
Number 206
CO-CHAIR IVAN invited Mr. Bruce Ludwig to testify.
Number 211
BRUCE LUDWIG, Business Manager, Alaska Public Employees Association
(APEA), Alaska Federation of Teachers (AFT), opposed HB 248. He
stated that he thought it was bad public policy. Upon entering a
position where you are going to have elections deciding the rights
of employees to bargain collectively, you are going to enter a
situation where contracts are signed for one term and no contracts
for another. The local subdivision would not be able to budget
properly and there are going to be changes for the supervisors to
maintain. APEA/AFT is against HB 248.
Number 228
CO-CHAIR IVAN invited Claudia Douglas from NEA to come forward.
Number 233
CLAUDIA DOUGLAS, President, NEA, said NEA opposes HB 248. Since
the early 1970s, state policy extended the statutory right to
bargain to public employees. School employees have struggled for
over ten years to establish their rights under PERA. The schools
and school employees have developed a successful pattern of
bargaining under PERA for nearly six years.
MS. DOUGLAS also said that bargaining provides public employees a
good participatory way to influence decisions that affect the work
place. At the bargaining table, public employees share in the
decision making process affecting wages and working conditions.
They have become more responsive and better able to exchange ideas
and information on school operations with their administrators.
Successful businesses are moving to management models designed to
involve employees in a meaningful participatory role. Studies have
shown that successful school reform occurs in school districts
where mature bargaining relationships exist.
MS. DOUGLAS stated that if HB 248 were to become law, labor
relations between school districts and school employees would be
disrupted. Good faith bargaining would give way to politics.
Management and school boards would have great latitude to delay and
forestall the bargaining process. Some school districts could
submit the question of continuance, under PERA, to voters annually
or during each round of bargaining. In effect, local governments
could use this bill to become "right to work" employers. School,
municipal, borough or state employees will lose. Inconsistencies
between units and school districts would occur. The bargaining
process would be weakened and, in some instances, destroyed.
She said the bill calls for a vote of the people. Who pays for the
election? Will the election activate adversarial clashes between
the special anti-labor groups with agendas opposed to working
people?
MS. DOUGLAS' last statement was that we live in a republic where
representatives are elected to make decisions for their
constituency in view of the public good. HB 248 proposes a poor
approach to their decision making. The issue of inclusion of
school employees, under PERA, has been debated on the state level.
A majority of the legislature, after weighing carefully the facts
and information, decided it is good policy. In its declaration of
policy, Section 23.40.070, "The legislature finds that joint
decision making is the modern way of administering government."
Number 277
CO-CHAIR IVAN asked Karla Feeley to come forward and testify.
Number 285
KARLA FEELEY, Assistant Executive Director, NEA, directed the
attention of the committee members to the opening section of the
Public Employees Relation's Act. She stated this act was adopted
because the legislature felt it was good public policy. This act
would ensure labor peace and better service to Alaska's customers,
the citizens and students of the state, because it would allow a
voice for those in the front serving customers. Upon reviewing
recent literature pertaining to private sector management, there is
a consensus that companied work best when front line employees are
included in decisions. This is what bargaining does and what
applies to the private sector also applies to the public sector in
this instance. The bargaining law was good public policy when
passed and Ms. Feeley urged the committee members not to adopt HB
248.
Number 303
CO-CHAIR IVAN asked for questions or comments and then invited
Clarence Bolden to testify on HB 248.
Number 307
CLARENCE BOLDEN, Field Staff, NEA, stated his experience in working
with districts not primarily on the roadway system, and that the
communities are accustomed to the calm way negotiations carried out
primarily because of PERA. There is a clear understanding now that
PERA has been in the state for some time on how this process works.
He stated that he fears what would happen if the committee adopted
the bill and that communities' calmness would be destroyed.
Number 321
CO-CHAIR IVAN asked for comments or questions from the committee.
He didn't see any other witnesses signed up to testify on HB 248.
Number 328
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if a member from the Department of Labor
would be willing to answer questions regarding the department's
position on this matter.
Number 336
MR. ED FLANAGAN, Assistant Commissioner, Department of Labor (DOL),
said the department has a position but currently there is no
coordinated administrative position because there hasn't been any
chance for affected departments to get together. The Department of
Labor is opposed to this legislation. He said the DOL sees the
bill as "union busting." This would have the effect of taking
employees that have had collective bargaining rights for 23 years
and removing the security in those rights. PERA fosters and
promotes the welfare of wage-earners around the state of which
public employees are a large portion.
Number 358
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT questioned the department's opposition even
though the developing change should ultimately reduce the work
load.
Number 363
MR. FLANAGAN said it is possible that there would be a period of
very intense increased work load depending on who had the
jurisdiction over the numerous unfair labor practice charges that
would result. These may go straight to the courts rather than to
the agency. The Department of Labor would not have quite so much
work if the government repealed all the statutes.
Number 372
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY questioned Mr. Flanagan's referral to the bill
as a union busting bill. He asked whether the Department of Labor
was in the business of promoting unions.
Number 375
MR. FLANAGAN replied that the department was in the business of
promoting the welfare of the wage-earners in the state. The
department feels that the right to collectively bargain is deserved
by everyone in the free world.
Number 381
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if Mr. Flanagan was aware that the City
and Borough of Juneau is not covered by PERA.
Number 383
MR. FLANAGAN said that he was aware. All those areas not covered
have statutes that are similar to PERA, and incorporated with other
municipalities that bargain, you are faced with the vast majority
of state public employees.
Number 390
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked whether Mr. Flanagan questioned the fact
that the Municipality of Anchorage is free to determine the
structure of how it constructs its labor relations. The
municipality isn't bound to a state statute.
Number 394
MR. FLANAGAN replied that it is not and some believed that was the
intent of the Koslosky Amendment, to allow municipalities to
develop their own system of labor relations. The effect in those
communities that do opt out is that their system of labor relations
means no labor relations. They ignore efforts by the employees to
organize.
Number 401
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY questioned a previous comment made about an
ordinance very similar to PERA.
Number 406
MR. FLANAGAN stated that some of the municipalities that have opted
out have not formed an ordinance similar to PERA, and others have
and it all depended upon the opt out of their municipality.
Number 415
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY referred to the change in the statutes, in
1992, that brought school districts under PERA.
Number 417
MR. FLANAGAN confirmed this and said they were changed and renewed
in 1992. He also said that school teachers were probably
represented by a union and very few school classified employees
were. These latter employees were excluded from any rights that
teachers had until 1988, when they got the full rights. The rights
these classified employees had before did not have finality,
meaning they didn't have a right to strike or binding arbitration.
The rights were really a diminished form of collective bargaining
with no finality to the process.
Number 432
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON commented on the City and Borough of Juneau
and their decision to opt out but they did have a collective
bargaining process which they have opted into with more than one
union. Even though they opted out of PERA, they didn't opt out of
collective bargaining.
Number 440
CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN asked Mr. Flanagan if the Department of Labor
believed that all municipalities and school districts ought to be
part of PERA and have collective bargaining mandated by state law.
Number 446
MR. FLANAGAN stated that it wasn't the issue but in past
legislatures there were efforts to go the other way from the
current legislation and to remove the Koslosky Amendment. The
Department of Labor would support a bill like that but is not
expecting to see one. He said this bill does two things as far as
opting under PERA, any municipality can currently do this and the
city of Fairbanks did so back in 1989.
Number 457
CO-CHAIR IVAN asked for questions or comments from committee
members. He welcomed the testimony from anyone else in the
audience. Then he asked the desire of the committee concerning HB
248.
Number 464
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY suggested that the bill be held until a
teleconference could be scheduled for a future meeting to see if
there was more testimony from the public.
Number 470
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated that there were additional committees of
referral and the next committee referral was the Labor and Commerce
Committee which be the most appropriate committee for HB 248.
Number 276
CO-CHAIR IVAN again questioned the desire of the committee
concerning the bill.
Number 477
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a motion to move HB 248 out of the
Community and Regional Affairs Committee, with individual
recommendations, and the accompanying fiscal note.
Number 479
CO-CHAIR IVAN asked if there were objections.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected.
CO-CHAIR IVAN asked the committee secretary to call a role vote.
A roll call vote was taken and Representatives Austerman, Ivan,
Vezey and Kott voted to move HB 248 out of the committee.
Representative Elton voted against moving the bill out of the
committee. The motion passed on a vote of 4 to 1.
HCRA - 03/21/95
HB 185 - MUNICIPAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS
CO-CHAIR IVAN invited Tom Wright to discuss HB 185 and entertained
a motion to adopt the committee substitute for HB 185.
Number 500
TOM WRIGHT, legislative aide to Representative Ivan, stated that
the committee substitute incorporates two changes that were adopted
at the last committee hearing. He referred to page 1, line 14,
where the words 'after 1) up to $150,000', meaning that as far as
the local funding for schools, that the local school districts
would not be penalized and would keep the status quo. The second
change was on page 3, line 1, concerning the amendment that was
adopted. The wording "approved by the voters" was deleted, so a
municipality may by ordinance exempt from taxation the assessed
value of real property without going before the voters. This can
be achieved by ordinance. In conversation with Steve Van Sant, the
state assessor, Mr. Wright said the property exempted in Section 1
is up to $150,000. This amount isn't added on to the original
$75,000. Property is exempted only up to $150,000.
Number 520
CO-CHAIR IVAN asked if the committee members had any questions.
Number 522
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if it was the intent of the co-chair to
move the bill out of the committee during this meeting.
Number 523
CO-CHAIR IVAN replied that this was his intent. He said that the
committee had spent a lot of time going over the bill and revising
it and he stated that it was time to move the bill on the next
committee. He asked what the wish of the committee was concerning
HB 185.
Number 529
TOM WRIGHT asked the chairman if he was aware of anyone wishing to
testify on HB 185.
Number 531
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT noted that this bill had been heard a number of
times and looked at from many angles and new language to the bill
had been added. He said he was comfortable with the bill in it's
current state as it was the work of a lot of compromise. He moved
and asked unanimous consent to pass HB 185 out of the committee,
with individual recommendations.
Number 540
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected.
Number 542
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON briefly stated that he appreciated the work
gone in to revising and amending HB 185. He said there had been a
movement by all parties, but he had a philosophical objection to
the process and direction of HB 185. His first objection was that
this bill was just piece-mealing an approach referring to one small
portion of people being exempted from property taxes. He also
stated that the bill is not addressing a lot of the other people
that are paying property taxes. He said that this legislature,
acting as an assembly for the unorganized borough, has been kind of
weak. The state has many Alaskans that are exempted from property
taxes but CRA isn't addressing those people. His second objection
concerned exempted senior citizens that are different from many
other Alaskans. These people have paid income taxes and with the
revenue crunch affecting the state, the legislature is turning to
those that have paid their share and leaving alone those that
haven't ever paid income taxes. He is of the opinion that this
bill is sending the wrong message to some of the more responsible
Alaskans across the state. He stated he would belabor the bill
should it make it to the floor.
Number 573
CO-CHAIR IVAN commented that the committee process system is open
as bills move through the various committees with lots of
opportunities to make changes. He stated that it was not his
intent to target the senior citizens but the bill is trying to
reduce some of the mandates that communities have. He said
municipalities can deal with this more because they are more
closely aware of their constituent concerns.
Number 586
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON agreed with Co-Chair Ivan and again expressed
his appreciation over the willingness of the chair and the
committee to work with the different groups to make this bill as
good as possible.
Number 592
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if Representative Elton was in favor or
opposed to HB 185 to which Representative Elton responded that he
was opposed.
Number 595
CO-CHAIR IVAN asked the committee secretary to call the vote in
regards to passing HB 185 out of the committee.
Representatives Ivan, Austerman, Vezey and Kott were in favor of
passing HB 185 out of committee. Representative Elton was opposed.
The bill passed out with a vote of four to one.
CO-CHAIR IVAN reviewed the next meeting's agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIR IVAN adjourned the House Community and Regional Affairs
Committee meeting at 2:28 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|