Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/13/2005 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB32 | |
| HB54 | |
| HB182 | |
| HB169 | |
| HB54 | |
| HB98 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 182 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 169 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 32 | ||
| + | HB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 13, 2005
1:42 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Chenault called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:42:34 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Reggie Joule
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Vic Kohring; Representative Ralph Samuels;
Dean Guaneli, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law;
Representative Norm Rokeberg; Heather Nobrega, Staff,
Representative Norm Rokeberg; Peggy Ann McConnochie, Alaska
Association of Realtors; Mike Tibbles, Deputy Commissioner,
Office of the Commissioner, Department of Administration;
Chris Christensen, Deputy Administrator, Office of the
Administrative Director, Alaska Court System; Al Adams,
Chairman of the Board, Arctic Power; Barbara Huff Tuckness,
Lobbyist, Teamsters Local 959; Grey Mitchell, Director,
Division of Labor Standards & Safety, Department of Labor &
Workforce Development; Mila Cosgrove, Director, Division of
Personnel, Department of Administration; Pam Varni,
Executive Director, Legislative Affairs Agency; Art Chance,
Direct, Labor Relations, Department of Administration
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Tamara de Lucia, Office of Victims Rights, Anchorage; Linda
Wilson, Deputy Director, Public Defender Agency, John Sedor,
Anchorage; Karin Rogina, Alaska Hospitality Alliance,
Anchorage; Jack Amon, Alaska Hospitality Aliance, Anchorage;
Barbara Ramsey, Chair, Alaska Real Estate Commission,
Anchorage
SUMMARY
HB 32 "An Act making a special appropriation for a grant
to Arctic Power to promote the opening of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas
exploration and development; and providing for an
effective date."
CSHB 83 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a
"do pass" recommendation.
HB 54 "An Act relating to bail review."
CSHB 54 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with three zero
fiscal impact notes: #1 COR, #2 CRT, #3 LAW.
HB 182 "An Act amending the Alaska Wage and Hour Act as
it relates to the employment of a person acting in
a supervisory capacity; providing definitions for
persons employed in administrative, executive, and
professional capacities, for persons working in
the capacity of an outside salesman, and for
persons working in the capacity of a salesman
employed on a straight commission basis."
CSHB 182 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with
a "no recommendation" recommendation and with a
zero fiscal impact note by the Department of Labor
and Workforce Development.
HB 169 "An Act relating to the educational requirements
for certain real estate brokers, associate
brokers, and salespersons with new or suspended
licenses; and allowing real estate brokers to hire
certain experts to review real estate
transactions; and providing for an effective
date."
CSHB 169 (L&C) was heard and HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
HB 98 "An Act relating to the compensation of certain
public officials, officers, and employees not
covered by collective bargaining agreements; and
providing for an effective date."
CSHB 98 (STA) was REPORTED out of Committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with three fiscal
impact notes: #1 GOV, #2 LEG, and new CRT.
HB 27 "An Act relating to an optional exemption from
municipal property taxes on certain residences of
law enforcement officers."
HB 27 was scheduled but not heard.
1:42:50 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 32
"An Act making a special appropriation for a grant to
Arctic Power to promote the opening of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas exploration
and development; and providing for an effective date."
Representative Foster MOVED to ADOPT the work draft to HB 32
labeled 24-LS0230LS\F, Utermohle, 4/12/05. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
1:43:49 PM
Co-Chair Chenault explained two changes in the new CS. The
dollar amount was changed to $50,000 for the participation
of the Native Village of Kaktovik and to $50,000 for the
participation of the City of Kaktovik in support of the
education efforts undertaken by Arctic Power.
Representative Weyhrauch stated support for the bill with
the addition of the new amendment. He requested information
about Jerry Hood's role in this grant.
1:45:15 PM
AL ADAMS, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, ARCTIC POWER, replied that
Mr. Hood is heading up the Washington D.C. office.
Representative Weyhrauch asked if most of Arctic Power's
efforts are aimed at getting support from the House side of
Congress. Mr. Adams responded that is correct. Efforts are
being targeted toward the 435 House members as well as
toward several states. Mr. Adams noted that Representative
Joule and Representative Berkowitz are currently in
Washington D.C. pushing this effort on the House side.
Representative Weyhrauch asked about various Arctic Power
team members' roles and salaries.
1:47:41 PM
Representative Hawker said it is a pleasure to be working
with Mr. Adams. He stated support for the funding.
Representative Foster moved to report CSHB 32 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 83 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation.
1:49:26 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 54
"An Act relating to bail review."
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS, sponsor, explained that the
bill does several things. Currently a defendant may be
granted a bail hearing every 24 hours. This has been taken
advantage of for a number of reasons. To help limit some of
the abuses, HB 54 proposes that the accused must submit, in
writing, that there exists new information for the court's
consideration that was not considered at prior hearings.
Second, the district attorney is given 48 hours notice in
which to notify the victim of the hearing. Finally, there
will be a 48-hour period between calendared bail hearings.
Without HB 54 the first bail is set high, then in court the
bail is reset at a reasonable level for the offense. Every
day the defendant could request a bail hearing, which the
victim has the right to attend.
Representative Samuels explained that the bill was amended
in Judiciary to add that a victim may be introduced to a
jury during the opening statement at a trial or during the
jury selection process. It also changed a minor defendant
law to allow introduction of the victim to the jury. He
opined that it is only fair to put a face on the victim of
the crime.
Co-Chair Chenault set aside HB 54.
1:53:09 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 182
"An Act amending the Alaska Wage and Hour Act as it
relates to the employment of a person acting in a
supervisory capacity; providing definitions for persons
employed in administrative, executive, and professional
capacities, for persons working in the capacity of an
outside salesman, and for persons working in the
capacity of a salesman employed on a straight
commission basis."
Representative Foster moved to adopt the new CS for HB 182
labeled 24-LS0507\P, Carver, 4/6/05. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
1:53:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG, sponsor, explained that the
bill adopts federal rules for the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act by amending the Alaska Wage and Hour Act.
This bill will significantly help small businesses because
it clarifies provisions of the Alaska Wage and Hour Act.
Representative Rokeberg explained that the new amendment
would provide a "bright line" to the effective date of this
law, July 1, 2005.
1:56:38 PM
JOHN SEDOR, ANCHORAGE SOCIETY FOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, (via
teleconference) spoke in support of HB 182. He explained
that the bill would eliminate confusion about how to
determine overtime exemptions.
1:59:47 PM
Representative Weyhrauch pointed out that in order to
understand the various occupations in this bill, Federal
Fair Labor Standards Act regulations have to be understood.
He questioned the relevance of certain classifications. Mr.
Sedor responded that one of the benefits of moving toward
the federal system is that some people in the computer
industry qualify due to the complexity of their jobs. The
state has not moved forward to clarify which jobs are
exempt.
Representative Rokeberg asked Mr. Sedor to comment on the
proposed amendment. Mr. Sedor related that the bill would
delete the 80/20 test and sets forth definitions which are
much more understandable. He gave an example. The primary
duties test is the only test now in the federal system. The
amendment states that claims brought after July 1, 2005,
would be subject to statutory provisions of HB 182, and
claims brought before that date would be subject to
conditions prior to HB 182.
2:07:46 PM
Representative Croft asked if primary duty is defined in the
P version. Mr. Sedor replied it is not defined in any
version, only in federal regulation. He gave an example of
a position that is exempt due to the importance of the job.
Representative Croft rephrased his question to ask if an
employer has to conform to both state and federal laws. Mr.
Sedor replied that those in the private sector do. He
pointed out that the P version only has one system.
Representative Croft inquired why the definitions differ and
why it is not stated that they shall be the same as in
federal law. Mr. Sedor replied that "primary duties" is
only one of several tests. He indicated that the statutes
would be extremely large if all duties were spelled out.
2:13:41 PM
Representative Croft asked if primary duty is one of the
tests below executive, administrative, professional
capacity, and all other definitions are incorporated. Mr.
Sedor replied correct. Representative Croft referred to
page 4, (C) (1), which allows for state private employers
having to follow only one system. Mr. Sedor replied that is
exactly right, and 41 other jurisdictions have adopted that
as well.
2:14:52 PM
Representative Rokeberg drew attention to Section 5 where
definitions in federal law are mentioned. Representative
Croft pointed out that in other areas outside of that
capacity definition, the bill allows for different
definitions by the wording, "if not defined in this title".
Representative Croft asked Mr. Sedor if the amendment states
that claims filed previous to the effective date of the bill
are cut off. Mr. Sedor responded that claims brought after
the date are subject to one statutory requirement, HB 182.
A two-year look-back applies to both time situations.
2:18:29 PM
KARIN ROGINA, ALASKA HOSPITALITY ALLIANCE, ANCHORAGE, (via
teleconference) conveyed full support for HB 182 because it
provides for clear exempt status language. It defines
exempt status, makes it workable, and will prevent
litigation. She gave an example of a hotel worker with an
exempt salary status issue.
2:23:27 PM
JACK AMON, ALASKA HOSPITALITY ALLIANCE, ANCHORAGE, (via
teleconference) testified in support of HB 182. He related
the difficulties of operation under the older system.
Representative Weyhrauch quoted the bill, "an individual
employed in an executive, administrative, or professional
capacity is compensated on a salary or fee basis at a rate
of not less than two times the state minimum wage for the
first 40 hours of employment each week, exclusive of board
or lodging". He opined that most people work more than 40
hours. He asked about the pay after that period of time.
Representative Rokeberg replied that exempt employees would
not receive extra compensation; they would be on salary.
HEATHER NOBREGA, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, clarified
that their salary would be based on a normal 40-hour work
week. Representative Weyhrauch asked if the value of board
and lodging is not included. Ms. Nobrega replied that is
correct. Representative Rokeberg added that because there
is a unique test in Alaska, it is two times the minimum
wage, which is based on the 40-hour week.
2:27:53 PM
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, LOBBYIST, TEAMSTERS UNION 959,
concurred with the sponsor's earlier comments regarding
concerns and definitions. She responded to the comment that
this bill impacts the highest paid workers. In the
supervisory and administrative categories, there are
managers at McDonald's that flip hamburgers and are in an
hourly, paid-with-overtime compensation or are exempt from
overtime and have to be paid at least double time. She
recalled a bill from last session regarding minimum wage.
She provided a history of definition discussions and
maintained that they should be introduced into state law.
The statute serves to provide information to employers and
employees. She suggested that it should all be incorporated
into statute. She voiced concern about the adoption of
regulations and made suggestions about how to deal with
them. She spoke of increasing from double minimum wage to
2.2 percent and reasonable salary compensation.
2:32:43 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if the employee has the option of
exempting himself or herself from overtime. Ms. Tuckness
said that is determined by law.
2:34:27 PM
Co-Chair Chenault closed public testimony.
Representative Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
Page 1, line 6, following "occupations;":
Insert "directing retrospective application of the
provisions of this Act to work performed before the
effective date of this Act for purposes of claims filed
on or after the effective date of this Act, and
disallowing retrospective application for purposes of
claims for that work that are filed before the
effective date of this Act;"
Page 5, following line 30:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 6. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
APPLICATION AS TO WORK PERFORMED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THIS ACT. (a) This Act applies
retrospectively to work performed before the effective
date of this Act for purposes of any claim or
proceeding based on AS 23.10.050 - 23.10.150 (Alaska
Wage and Hour Act) that is filed on or after the
effective date of this Act.
(b) This Act does not apply to work performed before
the effective date of this Act for purposes of any
claim or proceeding based on AS 23.10.050 - 23.10.150
that is filed before the effective date of this Act."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Co-Chair Chenault OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
Representative Rokeberg explained that the amendment creates
a bright line of flexibility. There would be two sets of
rules, before and after the effective date of the bill.
2:36:39 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if this legislation was found in HB
255 last year. Representative Rokeberg replied that it was
somewhat similar. Vice-Chair Stoltze wondered what the
Department of Labor's position is.
2:38:59 PM
GREY MITCHELL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS &
SAFETY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT,
related that the department has had input on this bill. The
department remains neutral on the bill.
Representative Kelly commended the sponsor for bringing this
bill forward. He asked Mr. Mitchell if this bill would cut
down on the cost of administering the hourly vs. salaried
worker situation. Mr. Mitchell agreed that it would.
Representative Kelly opined that it would cut down on fraud.
Co-Chair Chenault REMOVED his OBJECTION to adopt Amendment
1. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:42:46 PM
Co-Chair Chenault announced that HB 27 would not be taken up
today.
Representative Hawker summarized the discussion. He related
that there is a valid parallel to state corporate income tax
regulations in this bill.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHB 182 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 182 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" recommendation and with a zero fiscal impact
note by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development.
2:46:15 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 169
"An Act relating to the educational requirements for
certain real estate brokers, associate brokers, and
salespersons with new or suspended licenses; and
allowing real estate brokers to hire certain experts to
review real estate transactions; and providing for an
effective date."
Representative Rokeberg related that HB 169 provides for 20
hours of post-licensing education for realtors. It also
provides that lawyers may assist brokers in supervising all
transactions.
2:47:20 PM
PEGGY ANN MCCONNOCHIE, ALASKA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS,
explained that 18 states currently require post-licensing
education. This bill would reduce the number of claims to
the real estate commission. She explained that realtor
associations are in favor of this bill. It will provide
additional consumer protection by having well-trained
realtors. The effective date is timely.
Ms. McConnochie explained that the supervision aspect of the
bill is aimed at the larger brokers in the state who
supervise many transactions per month. They need to be away
to make sure that documents are properly filed prior to
closing. This provision allows a broker to hire a real
estate attorney to review transactions and will help to
better serve the public. She reported that this aspect is
missing from HB 29.
Representative Croft commented that the continuing education
portion of the bill is fine. He voiced concerns about
Section 14, the review of transactions. Ms. McConnochie
replied that this section makes it clear that a large broker
can employ an attorney and have no conflict in statute.
Representative Croft asked who the attorney represents. Ms.
McConnochie replied the broker, who is ultimately
responsible for all decisions. Representative Croft worried
that there is a sense that the attorney is looking out for
the buyer's interests when he or she is only looking out for
the broker's interests. Ms. McConnochie replied that there
would not be the opportunity to have that false perception
because the attorneys would never meet the buyers.
Representative Croft maintained that the broker always has
an ability to hire an attorney to look at the documents. He
opined that the attorney is only looking after the broker's
interests. Ms. McConnochie restated the purpose of the
review. There is no implication that the lawyer is partial
to the buyer, seller, landlord, or tenant.
2:53:13 PM
Representative Foster inquired if the post-licensing
education would require a realtor in Nome to buy an airplane
ticket to the class. Ms. McConnochie replied that that
person could take the class by correspondence.
2:54:11 PM
BRAD FLEUTSCH, ALASKA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, stated support
for the continuing education elements of the bill. He noted
that there is a problem with Section 14. There is no
requirement in the bill that the attorney be licensed in
Alaska or have knowledge of real estate law. The Alaska
Real Estate Commission has no ability to supervise such a
position. He explained that the completed file has all of
the forms and legal requirements, and it is the last
responsibility the broker has to the client. He requested
to have Section 14 dropped or fixed.
2:57:08 PM
Representative Hawker recalled that he has often sought a
non-Alaskan lawyer with good results. Mr. Fleutsch stressed
that it is Alaska real estate law that is being reviewed.
Representative Hawker asked if an attorney practicing in
Alaska has to be licensed to practice real estate law. Mr.
Fleutsch suggested amending Section 14 to say "licensed
Alaska attorney". Representative Hawker said that is
inherent in statute. Mr. Fleutsch offered that it should
not be limited to attorneys, but accountants could also be
included. The purpose of this aspect of HB 169 is just to
review the file, which the Real Estate Commission feels is
very important.
Representative Kelly asked if the attorney does anything
that a broker does not do. Mr. Fleutsch replied that he
does not know. Representative Kelly suggested language that
would include an associate broker or an attorney acting as
an associate broker. He shared concerns similar to
Representative Croft's.
Representative Croft suggested that the broker could hire an
accountant or other professionals. He questioned the need
for this part of the bill. He said that Section 14 is
either unnecessary or unclear.
3:02:11 PM
Representative Hawker read from Section 14, "The broker may
pay the attorney or associated broker from a fee,
commission, or other compensation received by the broker in
a real estate transaction payment." He asked if that is
prohibited in statute, as covered in Section 15.
Representative Rokeberg replied that is true. He opined
that this provision is needed in statute for clarification.
Currently under Chapter 8, lawyers can sell real estate. He
pointed out that the Real Estate Commission has no power to
discipline attorneys, and emphasized that the broker is
still responsible for all transactions. There are no
restrictions on a large brokerage house or a commercial real
estate brokerage house to not use an attorney to supervise
the actual documents of a transaction. That needs to be
clear. He emphasized that the bill should be passed in its
current state.
3:06:44 PM
BARBARA RAMSEY, CHAIR, ALASKA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION,
ANCHORAGE, (via teleconference) testified in support of the
legislation, but expressed concern with page 8, lines 19-24.
She recommended the deletion of Section 14. She stressed
that the Commission does not want to regulate attorneys.
3:10:01 PM
Representative Kelly asked if Ms. Ramsey is saying that the
current statute provides that a broker could hire assistant
brokers and retain attorneys to help review these files, and
those costs are permitted to be taken by the broker from
transaction fees.
Ms. Ramsey clarified that an associate broker is already
allowed in regulations - 12AAC.64.125, Section B. She
pointed out that the provision regarding attorneys is not
currently allowed. She opined that they should be paid as a
business expense, as an employee.
3:11:59 PM
Representative Rokeberg spoke in support of retaining
Section 14.
3:13:38 PM
Representative Croft noted concerns by the Real Estate
Commission. He argued that any profession could be hired to
look up documents, but its different when they get a portion
of the fee because then they have an interest in the
transaction. That is why real estate law is so specific
about who gets the fee.
3:14:44 PM
Representative Rokeberg maintained that Amendment 1 would
conform the legislation. There is no intent for a "kick
back".
Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
Page 9, line 26, following "date":
Insert "of secs. 1-11 and 16"
Page 9, line 29, following "date":
Insert "of secs. 1-11 and 16"
Page 10, line 1, following "date":
Insert "of secs. 1-11 and 16"
Co-Chair Chenault OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Ms. Nobrega explained that the amendment would conform the
effective dates to the appropriate sections.
Co-Chair Chenault REMOVED his OBJECTION to adopt Amendment
1. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:17:54 PM
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 2:
Delete section 14, page 8, lines 14 - 25.
Representative Rokeberg noted that some members of the
Commission disagree with the concern over section 14. The
issue is whether the Commission can properly supervise the
lawyers. He did not agree with these concerns. He
maintained that there is no formal position of the
Commission.
3:18:32 PM
Representative Hawker OBJECTED for the purpose of
discussion. He referred to Ms. Ramsey's letter and disputed
her concerns. He concluded that her objections were
irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Representative Kelly questioned if the broker alone is
punished for infractions.
3:22:45 PM
Representative Rokeberg replied that is correct. The broker
is ultimately responsible.
Representative Croft responded that there ought to be some
power over the person that receives the fee. He concluded
that the Commission should have control over the lawyers or
the fee should be removed. He argued that the compensation
should not be based on "their saying yes".
3:25:36 PM
Representative Rokeberg directed the committee to page 8,
line 23, "received by the broker". He explained that the
broker receives the money and then allocates it to the
attorney or associate broker. Direct compensation from
commissions is not being given to the lawyer.
3:26:47 PM
Representative Weyhrauch questioned why Section 14 would be
necessary. The real estate broker may contract with and pay
an attorney to assist the broker in real estate
transactions. He observed applications of malpractice.
3:28:51 PM
Representative Croft pointed out that the attorney's pay
would be dependent on receiving a percentage of the broker's
commission. He reiterated his concerns.
Representative Weyhrauch maintained that attorneys would not
base their pay on a commission. Ms. Nobrega noted that
associate brokers and brokers are also dependent on receipt
of the commission.
Representative Weyhrauch stressed the importance of the
public's trust of attorneys.
3:31:12 PM
Ms. Ramsey agreed with remarks by Representative Croft. She
noted that the Real Estate Commission approved the pursuit
of legislation for post-licensing in March 4,2004. On
February 8, 2005, she received the first draft of HB 169.
She observed that the issue was first discussed on March
thth
15. On the 24 of March she sent a letter addressing
concerns to Representative Rokeberg. On April 4, she spoke
with Representative Rokeberg about her concerns. The state
association did not discuss the issue with the Commission,
the entity that must enforce the provision.
3:34:11 PM
Representative Rokeberg took exception to the objections.
Representative Kelly suggested that the last sentence be
dropped.
3:35:33 PM
Representative Croft WITHDREW Conceptual Amendment 2.
HB 169 was HELD for further consideration.
3:36:54 PM
Representative Ralph Samuels returned to HB 54. He
explained that the bill would clarify whether the judge
could allow the victim to be introduced the to a jury.
TAMARA DE LUCIA, OFFICE OF VICTIMS RIGHTS, ANCHORAGE, (via
teleconference) reviewed new bail provisions in the bill,
which would include participation by the victim.
3:41:15 PM
Ms. De Lucia continued to explain the provision regarding
the introduction of the victim to the jury. She urged
passage of HB 54.
3:42:29 PM
LINDA WILSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, (via teleconference) spoke
about bail hearings. It takes a week to get a slot for bail
hearings for petitions to revoke probation. It is primarily
a problem with city cases. She wondered why a fix was being
created for such a small number of cases. She suggested
requiring a 48-hour notice. The system seems to be working
well right now. She suggested that defense lawyers get
together to solve the problem.
3:47:06 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
Page 1, line 1, following "review;":
Insert "relating to petitions for review by crime
victims where the defendant has received a mitigated
sentence;"
Page 2, following line 13:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 12.55.120 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(e) The victim of the crime for which a defendant
has been convicted and sentenced may file a petition
for review in an appellate court of a sentence that has
been mitigated under AS 12.55.155(d)."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 25:
Delete "Section 4"
Insert "Section 5"
Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
3:47:58 PM
Representative Samuels explained the he wanted to amend
Amendment 1 by eliminating the last word on line 9, through
line 10, and replacing that with "is below the sentencing
range for the crime." He clarified if there are three
aggravating sentences and one mitigating sentences, or five
aggravators and one mitigator, a review could not be asked
for at the appellate court level. If the sentence for a
particular crime is below the range, the victim would have a
right to petition for a review in an appellate court. If
the sentence is above the range, then there must be a jury
trial.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to AMEND Amendment 1. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
DEAN GUANELI, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT
OF LAW, explained that the actual wording of the amendment
speaks about a petition for review in an appellate court.
He asked if it is the committee's intent that this is a
discretionary petition with the court of appeals, rather
than an absolute right to appeal to the court and require it
to issue an opinion.
3:52:45 PM
Mr. Guaneli described a particular case, which was reviewed
by the court of appeals. He questioned if this is the
direction that the amendment should go.
Representative Croft inquired if it would be different if an
appeal was filed. Mr. Guaneli said it would be different
and he would be opposed to that idea. He wondered about the
intent of the amendment to give victims the absolute right
to appeal. Representative Croft asked if anyone has the
right to file a petition for review. Mr. Guaneli responded
that an original application for relief was an unusual
procedure and a full briefing was ordered.
3:54:50 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if a precedent has been set.
3:55:47 PM
Representative Hawker asked if the intention is to change
the language to "file and appeal" to give victims a right
that they cannot currently enjoy. Representative Samuels
argued the point "that they cannot currently enjoy". He
emphasized that he does not want the bill to die because
appeals are too broad. He asked for clarification on the
wording if a period is used after "sentencing".
Mr. Guaneli agreed that change may satisfy his concern about
limiting what already exists under current court rule. He
noted that he would like to look at the standards and think
about it.
3:59:03 PM
Representative Croft inquired how much victims should be
involved in the criminal justice process. He opined that
they ought to be more involved, especially in the
sentencing. They have a right to have an appeal heard when
it is below the range. Representative Samuels concurred.
4:01:10 PM
Representative Weyhrauch referred to Mr. Guaneli's example
and asked if the victim had file a petition for review in
court of appeals. Mr. Guaneli said yes and related details
of the case. Representative Weyhrauch debated the
requirements of the court. Mr. Guaneli agreed with
Representative Weyhrauch' assessment. He acknowledged that
Representative Croft is right in that if the state appeals a
sentence, the sentence cannot be increased. He further
explained the procedure. He noted that victims' interests
may be different.
4:06:14 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze opined that this is may not be a bad
precedent.
Mr. Guaneli related his philosophy on the issue. He opined
that this amendment is not beneficial for the administration
of justice in Alaska.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION to adopt Amendment 1.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
4:09:55 PM
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2:
Page 1, line 1, following "review;":
Insert "relating to the qualifications of certain
members of the Violent Crimes Compensation Board;"
Page 2, following line 13:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 18.67.020(a) is amended to read:
(a) There is the Violent Crimes Compensation
Board in the Department of Administration composed of
three members to be appointed by the governor. One of
the members shall be designated as chair [CHAIRMAN] by
the governor. At least one member must be a medical or
osteopathic physician licensed to practice in this
state or holding a retired status license in this state
and one member must be an attorney licensed to practice
in this state or retired from practice in this state."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 25:
Delete "Section 4"
Insert "Section 5"
Page 2, line 31:
Delete "sec. 5"
Insert "sec. 6"
Page 3, line 4:
Delete "sec. 4"
Insert "sec. 5"
Page 3, line 5:
Delete "sec. 6"
Insert "sec. 7"
Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
Representative Croft explained that the amendment allows a
retired physician to be a member of the Violent Crimes
Compensation Board.
Representative Samuels said it makes sense to add this to
the bill.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION to adopt Amendment 2.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
4:11:19 PM
Representative Croft MOVED to REPORT CSHB 54 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 54 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with three zero fiscal impact notes: #1
COR, #2 CRT, #3 LAW.
4:12:20 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 98
"An Act relating to the compensation of certain public
officials, officers, and employees not covered by
collective bargaining agreements; and providing for an
effective date."
MIKE TIBBLES, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE
COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, explained that
HB 98 matches the statutory schedule for the partially
exempt/exempt employees in the legislative executive and
judicial branches, to the salary schedules recently
negotiated with the supervisory unit. He describe the two-
tier approach that is required to update salary schedules
for state employees. One is through the collective
bargaining process, the second tier for partially
exempt/exempt employees. Because there are two different
approaches, the salary schedules have drifted apart.
Currently they are 5 percent off, and will increase to 9
percent at the end of the recently negotiated contracts.
Mr. Tibbles expressed three concerns. The pay system
requires payment based on "like pay for like work", which
will not meet statutory obligation. He referred to a chart
on page 3 of the packet "Comparison of Statutory, Judicial
and Supervisory Salary Schedules" (copy on file.) The other
two concerns regard upward career progression and
recruitment. He recommended that the legislature adopt the
statutory schedule.
4:16:16 PM
In response to a question from Co-Chair Meyer, Mr. Tibbles
replied that it is common practice to submit legislation to
track the two salary schedules. They are not always
approved in the same year and so there is sometimes catch
up, like there is this year.
In response to a question from Representative Holm, Mr.
Tibbles explained the difference between steps A through
step F.
In response to a question from Representative Kelly, Mr.
Tibbles reiterated the current and projected salary schedule
gap.
4:17:51 PM
Representative Croft asked for the total cost for the next
five years. Mr. Tibbles describe each of the three fiscal
notes. Representative Croft questioned the "free ride" of
organizations that have not negotiated. Mr. Tibbles
responded that the salary schedule applies to individuals
that are exempt from collective bargaining and it meets
statutory obligation. He pointed out problems if parity is
not followed.
4:20:37 PM
Representative Hawker observed that the legislature has
imposed upon itself a 23.5 percent reduction in per diem
pay. He questioned what happened to cost reduction.
MILA COSGROVE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL,
ADMINISTRATION underscored the parity issue of the bill.
She addressed Representative Croft's concern about equity
and negotiation issues. She spoke of an obligation to
insure "like pay for like work", and a duty to treat
management level and "rank and file" fairly.
Representative Kelly asked which comes closest to a
competitive scale. Ms. Cosgrove reported that the state of
Alaska does not have a market driven pay system.
Representative Kelly noted that equal pay for equal work is
not relevant today. He asked how competitiveness is sensed.
4:24:11 PM
Ms. Cosgrove replied that the executive branch is hemmed in
by statute. She explained that the pay is not competitive
with the private sector. She agreed that steps need to be
taken to adjust pay scales. There is an impact on
recruitment. Representative Kelly suggested that the
department should be aware of the market condition in order
to get to a competitive measurement. He stressed another
reason to stay competitive.
4:26:50 PM
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, shared the
background of the court system. He related statistics
surrounding court employees. He discussed high turnover
rates and talked about cost-of-living adjustments resulting
in employees joining a union. He related the history of
judges' salaries in Alaska, including a comparison of the
average annual increases for judges nationally and locally.
Judges do not get annual longevity increases. He spoke of
rural judge differentials. HB 98 would bring salary
adjustments equal to salaries approved by the legislature
for APEA members last year. The bill sends a message to
employees that the legislature does value them as much as
union employees.
4:33:03 PM
He referred to Representative Croft's question about non-
union employees stating that often non-monetary compensation
in union contracts is not matched.
4:37:27 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze recalled that there has been an effort to
match employees' salaries. He noted that judges have an
honorary position.
Mr. Christensen responded that going from number 49 to
number 47 does not seem to be much of an increase. He
contrasted private sector lawyers with public sector lawyers
and judicial pay raises.
4:38:05 PM
PAM VARNI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY,
testified in support of HB 98, for equity reasons. She
recalled the history of the executive and judicial salary
schedules. She described the difference between the
partially exempt and CPIU salary increases as 26.68 percent.
She shared statistics from various states regarding salary
increases. The per diem rate has gone down for legislators,
which is set by Department of Defense.
4:40:44 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked on who's behalf Ms. Varni is
testifying. She replied on the behalf of the agency
employees. Legislative council would also support this.
4:41:48 PM
Representative Hawker observed that the bill puts him in a
very uncomfortable position. Dealing with costs of
retirement plans is a big issue. Alaska's retirement plan
is very generous. He suggested "do no harm until we figure
out how to solve the problem." He debated the other side
of the argument. He stated his opposition to the radical
changes proposed to the PERS and TRS plans. He suggested
that granting a wage increase is hypocritical on his part.
He stated that his concern is not with equity and fairness
to employees.
4:45:27 PM
Co-Chair Meyer suggested proposing a hiring freeze until
PERS and TRS is decided. He emphasized that current
employees need to be treated fairly. He spoke in favor of
passing HB 98.
Vice-Chair Stoltze agreed with Representative Hawker
Representative Holm also agreed with Representative Hawker.
He quoted the high pay level of 28 E. He voiced concern
about COLA, vacation pay, and other compensations. He
requested more information about those costs.
4:47:50 PM
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that union employees have already
received their wages. This bill will bring non-union
employees up to the same level.
4:49:03 PM
Ms. Cosgrove spoke of collective bargaining.
ART CHANCE, DIRECT, LABOR RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, shared information about the executive
branch related to leave, pay, geographical differentials,
and merit steps, all established in statute.
4:51:56 PM
Representative Foster spoke in support of the legislation.
He concluded that denial of the legislation would result in
greater unionization.
Mr. Chance stated that the only employees that could not
collectively bargain are elected and appointed officials.
He noted that he is currently seeking to eliminate labor
relations staff from the current bargaining unit.
4:54:20 PM
Co-Chair Chenault referred to Section 6, salaries for
University of Alaska, and questioned why they are being
treated differently.
Ms. Cosgrove noted that the university pay structure is
completely different from the other branches. Mr. Chance
added that many of their salaries are established through
collective bargaining.
4:55:52 PM
Representative Kelly spoke in support of the legislation.
He observed that public pay has slipped, the legislation
thth
would only raise judges from 49 to 47[place in regards to
pay nationally], and there is a threat of underemployment.
He stressed that the PERS and TRS issue is separate. He
concluded that employees would be lost or organized if this
legislation is not adopted.
4:59:30 PM
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that it is not an union or non-
union issue, but one of fairness and equality.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHB 98 (STA) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 98 (STA) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with three fiscal impact notes: #1 GOV,
#2 LEG, and a new CRT note.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:01 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|