Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/19/2016 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB91 | |
| Presentation: Labor Contracts Review | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 19, 2016
1:39 p.m.
1:39:33 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:39 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Craig Richards, Attorney General, Department of Law;
Lieutenant Kris Sell, Self, Juneau; Senator John Coghill,
Sponsor; Sheldon Fisher, Commissioner, Department of
Administration; Kate Sheehan, Director, Division of
Personnel and Labor Relations; Representative Cathy Tilton,
Representative Dave Talerico; Representative Dan Ortiz;
Representative Geran Tarr; Representative Liz Vasquez;
Representative Ivy Spohnholz; Representative Louise Stutes.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Gregory Razo, Chair, Alaska Criminal Justice Commission,
Anchorage; Brenda Stanfill, Commissioner, Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission.
SUMMARY
CSSSSB 91(FIN) AM
OMNIBUS CRIM LAW & PROCEDURE; CORRECTIONS
CSSSSB 91(FIN) AM was HEARD and HELD in committee
for further consideration.
PRESENTATION: Labor Contracts Review: Department of
Administration
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the meeting agenda.
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 91(FIN) am
"An Act relating to criminal law and procedure;
relating to controlled substances; relating to
immunity from prosecution for the crime of
prostitution; relating to probation; relating to
sentencing; establishing a pretrial services program
with pretrial services officers in the Department of
Corrections; relating to the publication of suspended
entries of judgment on a publicly available Internet
website; relating to permanent fund dividends;
relating to electronic monitoring; relating to
penalties for violations of municipal ordinances;
relating to parole; relating to correctional
restitution centers; relating to community work
service; relating to revocation, termination,
suspension, cancellation, or restoration of a driver's
license; relating to the excise tax on marijuana;
establishing the recidivism reduction fund; relating
to the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission; relating to
the disqualification of persons convicted of specified
drug offenses from participation in the food stamp and
temporary assistance programs; relating to the duties
of the commissioner of corrections; amending Rules 32,
32.1, 38, 41, and 43, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure, and repealing Rules 41(d) and (e), Alaska
Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
1:40:42 PM
CRAIG RICHARDS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
communicated his intent to discuss the Department of Law's
(DOL) support for the legislation and the process the
department had used to develop the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission recommendations used in the bill. He explained
that DOL was responsible for prosecuting all felonies
statewide; it also prosecuted most misdemeanors in the
state although a few of the municipalities including Juneau
and Anchorage had their own prosecutorial elements for
misdemeanors. He believed it gave DOL a unique perspective
on the bill and criminal justice in general, particularly
the application of various provisions within the law
itself. He surmised that the public defender had a similar
role on the other side of some of the issues.
Attorney General Richards furthered that when he had come
into the process he had not looked at the reform effort as
a social justice reform bill, but as a question of
sustainability. He addressed how to have an affordable
criminal justice system in addition to a system where
reductions in sentencing or other criminal measures had the
minimum impact on public safety. He believed one of the
things that worked well about the Alaska Criminal Justice
Commission process was the focus on evidence-based
reasoning to determine what kind of changes could have the
biggest results and impacts on diminishing prison head
counts, reducing the number of hearings at the trial level,
and doing other things to reduce the cost of the system
with a minimum impact on public safety. He believed the
collaborative commission process had worked very well and
had involved numerous parties representing different
aspects of the community and criminal justice including
victims, prosecutors, public defenders, corrections, law
enforcement, and others. He elaborated that Pew had done a
good job facilitating different options and analyzing data
related to reasons for increasing prison growth and costs.
Pew had worked with the commission to come forward with a
number of recommendations across the spectrum of the
system. Ultimately the recommendations had been debated -
heavily at times - by the commission. He relayed that all
of the recommendations had to be unanimously supported by
DOL and the Public Defender Agency, which meant there was a
natural balance in the process.
1:44:28 PM
Attorney General Richards communicated that DOL had
significant input in the process. He provided examples of
items he had been involved in during the process including
inflation proofing for felony threshold levels at $1,000.
He shared that DOL had provided pushback on a number of
items that it believed did not work as well as they could
after the recommendations and final report had been
finished. He continued that all of the recommendations were
ultimately incorporated including reducing the distribution
controlled substances threshold from 5 grams to 2.5 grams.
Additionally, DOL had been the primary author of the
suspended entry of judgement provisions. The department had
also developed some of the underlying ideas on the zero to
30-day presumptive for Class A misdemeanors. He spoke to
DOL's active participation in the process including
wrapping in prosecutors most knowledgeable in their areas
on the different subjects. He shared that he had been at
the National Association of Attorney Generals in recent
months and that Alaska was not unique in going through
justice system reform. He detailed that what the reform
looked like was unique to every state, but there was a
national movement to recognize that there may be less
expensive ways to deliver as good or better criminal
justice in some circumstances. He discussed that he had
spoken with Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens about reform
efforts that had been unsuccessful. Mr. Olens had shared
that all of the efforts had worked - Georgia had not needed
to repeal any of the major initiatives it had undertaken
and the state had excellent success in reducing its prison
population while maintaining a high level of public safety.
He reiterated that DOL supported the legislation and
believed it had been arrived at by a balanced and fair
process that should hopefully improve justice in Alaska and
substantially reduce costs.
1:46:56 PM
Co-Chair Thompson noted that bill sponsor Senator John
Coghill and Representatives Daniel Ortiz, Geran Tarr, and
Cathy Tilton were present in the audience.
Co-Chair Neuman asked for clarification on drug amounts. He
noted that he did not know how much a gram of a substance
was and how much people typically used. He requested to
hear about drug amounts during the conversation.
Attorney General Richards replied that the particular
discussion about 5 to 2.5 grams revolved around heroin. He
detailed that heroin sold in packages for individual use of
about one-tenth of a gram. The department felt that
increasing the limit to 5 grams was too high for
distribution charges; DOL and troopers believed 2.5 grams
was more consistent with the higher end of what really
constituted distribution.
Representative Kawasaki referred to recommendation 9 from
the criminal justice commission that would expand and
streamline the use of discretionary parole and
recommendation 10 that would implement specialty parole for
long-term geriatric inmates; both were included in the
legislation. He was unsure of Section 122 related to
administrative parole for Class B or C felonies. He
detailed that the section specified that first-time Class B
or C felony offenders (excluding sex offences) who had been
in prison for at least 180 days could be released under the
section by the Parole Board without a hearing. There were a
couple of conditions specifying that a person would need to
meet at least one-fourth of their active term and other
mandatory minimums. He spoke to the perspective of a victim
of a Class B or C felony and wondered what Mr. Richards
thought about the particular strategy to shrink prison
sentences.
Attorney General Richards answered that the administration
supported all of the different parole options. He believed
it was key to ensure that the provisions worked
individually and stacked in a logical way. He had not
personally done a "deep dive" on the administrative parole
because it was a newer provision. However, he had discussed
it with others at DOL and the department was supportive of
the provision.
Representative Kawasaki spoke about Class C felonies and
provided a recent example. He detailed that the children of
a woman in Mat-Su had been taken from home due to severe
malnourishment and could have potentially died. He stated
that it would have been a Class B felony if the children
had died. He stated that the woman could have been eligible
for parole after 181 days as long as she had served one-
quarter of her sentence. He pointed out that the bill
language specified that the department shall release a
person on administrative parole without a hearing. He noted
that there were other conditions - a victim could request
that a hearing be held. He found it too simplistic and
wondered if Mr. Richards disagreed.
1:51:48 PM
Attorney General Richards answered that he did not have the
exact language with him. The department was amenable to the
idea of administrative parole, but he had not thoroughly
reviewed the provision.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked how Mr. Richards would answer the
charge that the response of the criminal justice system,
corrections, court system, and the attorney general's
office was to "lock 'em up, throw away the key." He asked
how Mr. Richards responded to the desire in people to get
retribution and put people away by saying the solution was
to let more people out of prison.
Attorney General Richards replied that the criminal justice
system served multiple goals including retribution, reform,
and keeping people off the streets. He stated they were all
different and valid goals. He agreed that victims had the
right to see perpetrators punished, but there had to be a
balance struck between that element, the need to reform, an
affordable and sustainable system, and not to keep people
in jail longer than the state could afford (when the
offenders were the least likely to commit other acts or the
nature of their acts were less serious than others). The
process he had undergone with the commission was to strike
a balance; the participants had worked to find areas where
sentences could be reduced to try to drive system costs
down.
Vice-Chair Saddler had heard from some constituents that
supporting the bill was surrendering to crime and that it
basically redefined crime upward. He asked how Mr. Richards
would respond to the belief.
Attorney General Richards answered that he did not see it
that way. He saw the bill as a practical realization that
the current practice was stricter than what was
sustainable; therefore, the goal was to strike a new
balance. He detailed that it was always a little arbitrary
where the sentencing guidelines were placed. He continued
that in talking about the process of reforming the
guidelines a there was a recognition that a reasonable
range needed to be created. He added that what was
reasonable had changed in Alaska over the years. The bill
took the range back a bit, but he did not believe it was
fundamentally surrendering to crime. He concluded that the
effort was to balance competing interests.
1:54:49 PM
Representative Wilson asked if Mr. Richards was speaking to
the original bill or the current committee substitute (CS).
Attorney General Richards answered that he was not as
familiar with the current CS; he had been very involved in
the original bill. He added that John Skidmore from DOL was
also available to answer questions via teleconference.
Representative Wilson stated that it would be helpful to
receive a write up on whether there were items the
department supported or opposed in the House Judiciary
Committee CS. She stated that one of the largest issues the
committee had seen was related to pretrial. She asked if
the department had analyzed why there seemed to be so many
people in pretrial status. She asked if there were not
enough judges or laws were bogging the process down. She
believed determining why pretrial accounted for one-third
of the prison population would be a significant lift off
the system.
Attorney General Richards replied that Pew had presented
numerous statistics on the reasons for substantial pretrial
growth. He spoke to two of the reasons, which he believed
made sense. He explained that many people were not getting
access to bail - particularly for low level crimes -
because they could not afford it. Additionally, the process
was taking longer. He detailed that some of DOL's policies
made it more difficult to plead (the department had changed
policies to make more discretion go to the local district
attorneys to plead cases). He continued that the longer
process meant more hearings, people staying in jail longer,
and that bail was not as accessible as maybe it should be.
Representative Wilson requested to see which things could
be done in DOL procedures versus items that required a
statute change.
1:57:30 PM
Representative Edgmon stated that the House Bush Caucus had
sent the commission a letter asking that it not forget the
fact that Alaska Native tribes had a role in criminal
justice reform. The caucus believed that in many small
communities around the state circle sentencing and other
local measures could serve as a deterrent to keep younger
Alaska Native males (in the age 19 to 34 category) out of
the system in the long run. He asked Mr. Richards to
address any of the discussions that may have taken place.
Attorney General Richards answered the tribal discussions
had not been that heavy in the criminal justice pieces he
had participated in. The department had been active in
working with tribes on the civil diversion agreement (work
on finalizing the agreement had been underway for about 1.5
years). He explained that the agreement would ultimately
give tribes jurisdiction to handle cases for first-time
non-violent Class A misdemeanors (tribal and non-tribal
members) opting into the tribal system. The agreement would
enable the tribes to step into the roles of the state and
to handle some of the cases. He relayed that he was meeting
with TCC [Tanana Chiefs Conference] in early May where he
anticipated finalizing the agreement. He elaborated that
once tribes had the authority to handle some of the
criminal matters they would have the ability to develop
their own alternative diversion programs that were a little
more practical and could hopefully keep some young people
out of the institutional system.
Representative Edgmon referred to Mr. Richard's earlier
testimony related to a conversation with Georgia Attorney
General Olens and the dual purpose of reducing the prison
population and maintaining public safety. He asked if the
bill would keep Alaska safer.
Attorney General Richards replied that it was not possible
to know the outcome until something was put in place.
Public safety had been at the forefront of everyone's minds
when the department had looked at things to change in the
existing system; it had tried to focus on areas that had
maximum impact on cost reductions and minimum impact on
public safety. Ultimately, he believed the department had
done a good job striking a balance.
Representative Edgmon remarked that members of the criminal
justice commission were an impressive array of
representatives in the criminal justice arena. He believed
the work had been done fairly rapidly when coming together
on 21 major consensus points. He wondered if there were any
areas that seemed more onerous in terms of reaching
consensus.
2:01:23 PM
Attorney General Richards replied that there had been
substantial debate around how to handle suspended entry of
judgement in a way that did not create additional hearings
and that had "teeth to it," but did not drag the process
out. The other area he recalled as contentious was how
Class A misdemeanors were handled and the presumption
around how long a person would spend in jail. Ultimately it
had been drafted much firmer - that there would basically
be no jail time for Class A misdemeanors. A compromise had
been reached that a person could receive zero to 30 days,
but if there were good reasons a first-time Class A
misdemeanor offender could receive a sentence of up to 1
year.
Representative Kawasaki spoke to the geriatric specialty
parole option. He remarked that the bill provision included
an age of 55, which seemed young. He noted that a person
under the age of 55 did not qualify for the parole option.
He asked if it was constitutional and surmised that it
seemed like age discrimination.
Attorney General Richards replied that other jurisdictions
had similar geriatric parole provisions, which had been
held to be constitutional. He noted that the commission had
included a recommendation of age 55 to 65; it had been a
recommendation for the legislature to have an internal
conversation because the commission did not reach consensus
on the appropriate age.
2:03:21 PM
LIEUTENANT KRIS SELL, SELF, JUNEAU, provided information
about her employment background. She was currently a
lieutenant with the Juneau Police Department (JPD) and
served on the Alaska Peace Officers Association. She noted
that she was testifying on her own behalf and had been
asked not to speak on behalf of the groups given a great
deal of contention around the bill. She furthered that she
had served on the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission and
had paid a price in popularity amongst her colleagues for
serving in the role. She relayed her intent to speak about
the journey she had gone through that had brought her to a
consensus position for the commission - it had been a
difficult journey. She had always prided herself on being a
"cop's cop"; she had been the first woman to be on the JPD
SWAT Team, which had been an ancillary duty of hers for
eight years. She stressed that she loved kicking in doors,
putting "bad guys" in jail, and trials where someone was
put in jail for a long time for doing something bad. She
shared that she had lived for the work for her adult life
and earlier; her childhood had been shaped by "tough on
crime" speeches. She recalled watching the speeches on
television as a child. She emphasized her desire to be
tough on crime to prevent criminals from hurting people.
The desire had propelled her into a law enforcement career.
She recalled that when she had become a detective her
mother visited and had said "honey I mean this with love,
but you're scary." As she had begun detective work and
working with children she had softened her look, but not
her feelings about public safety.
Lieutenant Sell continued that she had come into the
criminal justice commission telling her chief - who had
come out against SB 91 - that she was going to make sure
people did not turn the bad guys out of jail. She expounded
that when the consensus agreement had come out her police
chief had been crushingly disappointed with what she had
agreed to. She explained that it had been a long and
painful trip for her, where she had to look at the science.
She elaborated that once a person started to become
educated - no matter how inconvenient it was - it was not
possible to go backwards and start believing things that
they believed before. She had never previously questioned
the bail system; the point of bail was to keep the public
safe, but there was no correlation between someone's risk
of recidivating and not going to court and their access to
money. She had met numerous very bad criminals - sometimes
with a great deal of family enabling - and they had gotten
right back out on the street; while someone without
resources who may be developmentally delayed, did not get
out. As she had been confronted with the science, she began
to rethink some of her experiences.
Lieutenant Sell discussed that when a person was eligible
for parole, the individuals in jail with educated family
resources were put in for parole; while individuals who did
not understand the paperwork and did not have a hand to
hold through the process, did not. She believed it did not
seem fair that parole would be decided by who had
connections and help with paperwork. She continued that the
corrections officers had not been staffed to a level
enabling them to help the prisoners' needs in those areas.
She had started thinking about some of her analysis that
happened as a young street officer. She recalled arresting
the same people four to fifteen times and how she had
thought they were stubborn or not bright because they were
not getting it. She recalled thinking that perhaps the
individuals should be put in jail longer in order for them
to figure it out. She had just assumed it had been the
answer. Now when she considered the cases she believed the
reason the individuals continued to get arrested was more
likely about the fact that the individuals had continued to
be drug addicts or were mentally ill. She continued that
individuals had been arrested over and over until they were
so marginalized they became homeless and violent. She
stressed that the individuals got worse every time they
were released from jail. She spoke to coming out of the
criminal justice commission process and surmised that
perhaps much of the pushback the legislature was receiving
from law enforcement was because she had failed. She
elaborated that she had failed to bring people through the
education that had taken her so long. She furthered that
she had not been able to; it had taken time for her
emotionally.
2:09:18 PM
Lieutenant Sell recalled a heated debate that involved
Quinlan Steiner, Director of the Public Defender Agency.
She relayed that until the commission she had never sat
across the table from a defense attorney. The commission
had been discussing the studies related to how long
probation was effective. She noted that someone was likely
to violate in the early part of their probation when they
were really learning how to be a citizen again - it was the
time a person most needed oversight and support. She
explained that long probations watered down probation for
everyone and made it ineffective. She recalled that they
had been discussing a one-year probation time. She
remembered feeling like she had bent and bent to the
science until she could not bend any farther. She relayed
that she had shoved back and stated that she just did not
like hearing two years for probation. She detailed that Mr.
Steiner had asked what statistic she was trying to capture
by going with a longer probation. She explained that she
just did not like it and it made her stomach hurt. She
furthered that it did not taste good to her to talk about
shortened periods for probation; however, those
conversations had resulted in what she termed the "auction
amendments." She detailed that groups had come forward and
specified that they wanted more time served for specific
items; however, the reasoning was not based on a particular
reason, study, or statistic - it was based on not feeling
good about giving less time. She understood where the
amendments came from because she had personally experienced
doing the same thing in commission meetings. She explained
that she had not liked certain dates even though there was
no science to back up her feelings.
Lieutenant Sell continued that she had not been able to
bring her law enforcement colleagues through. However, she
noted that a few of the younger line officers had
approached her privately to voice their belief that she was
on the right track. She discussed that most JPD officers
realized that almost everyone they arrested was addicted to
something and very possibly was struggling with mental
illness. She pointed to a lot of serious mental illness.
She noted that some of the individuals struggling with
substance abuse and mental illness would never be safe to
be on the streets. She furthered that the only way some
individuals should be dealt with was by a SWAT Team; she
stated that unfortunately, it was a necessary part of the
system. She highlighted that she had slowly developed a new
theory as she had gone through the commission process. She
wondered what would happen if the very first time someone
got into trouble that the system had actually looked at the
individual person (not as a shoplifting case, a felon,
someone with drug possession, and other) to determine what
needed to be addressed. She did not see handling a person's
issues through treatment and supervision as necessarily
being nice to them. She spoke to the importance of
relentlessly confronting people with their problematic
thinking and addictions that cause them to commit crimes.
Lieutenant Sell underscored that it was important to
relentlessly supervise the individuals by using positive
and negative incentives to bring them back into a law
abiding life. She shared her observations that inmates
napped, watched television, played cards; she assumed they
did not speak to each other about very healthy things. She
stressed that the individuals were dangerous people with
problematic thinking who did not get better by napping and
watching television in jail even with longer and longer
sentences. She discussed that part of the tough on crime
theory had rested on was deterrence. She stated that it was
obvious when interviewing people who had committed crimes
that there had not been a lot of thinking going on before
committing a crime - individuals did not do a cost benefit
analysis. She furthered that individuals knew that they
would get away with crimes most often; getting caught only
occurred in the minority of cases. She observed that when
the individuals did get caught it was like they had lost a
hand at a card game - it did not really have anything to do
with them. She surmised that the individuals were probably
committing crimes on a daily basis and when they did get
caught they had no correlation to their behavior.
2:14:00 PM
Lieutenant Sell discussed that one of the theories with a
longer sentence was that people thought that at some point
a person would have an epiphany and decide they no longer
wanted to be a "dirt bag." She countered that those
epiphanies did not happen, not when a person is fueled by
mental illness and addiction. She stated that there were
not those moments of revelation. She explained that it was
necessary to confront the individuals with what they were
doing and to let them practice being citizens. She stated
that somewhere along the line - probably because people had
been trying to get elected on tough on crime platforms -
there had become a belief that treating people and
relentlessly monitoring them was being nice; that it was
being nicer than having them watch television and nap. She
really did not believe it was. She believed it was actually
much more painful for people to face their issues instead
of being given a time out. She believed that currently the
system was just giving people a long and expensive time
out, which was not helpful. She furthered that people were
then released from jail and tended to continue to commit
crimes. She opined that a two-thirds recidivism rate within
three years should indicate that the easiest thing to keep
doing as a criminal was to continue being a criminal. She
reasoned that it was human nature to take the path of least
resistance. She stressed the importance of making the life
of a criminal the hard path and the life of a law abiding
citizen as the easy path. She underscored that it was done
with a relentless level of monitoring and accountability.
She emphasized the importance of investing in the
resources, which was where reinvestment came in. From the
beginning, she had believed that the only way to make the
status quo worse - which was a challenge because it was
pretty bad - was to take all of the cuts from putting
people in jail less and to fail to reinvest the money. She
expounded that failing to reinvest the savings would make
the revolving door spin faster. She stressed the importance
of supervision for individuals as a person from the very
first contact. She believed it was possible to do a better
job. She concluded that there would always be a need for
SWAT Teams, but she believed the element of doing things
better was also critical.
2:16:52 PM
Co-Chair Neuman spoke to the availability of treatment
after arrest as opposed to sentencing. He shared that he
had heard from officers that when individuals felt remorse
after arrest was the time to put them into treatment. He
asked for Lieutenant Sell's experience on the issue.
Lieutenant Sell replied that addicts routinely hated
themselves and they regularly told officers the reason they
commit their crimes was because they could not handle their
addiction. She elaborated that addiction had such a
powerful hold on people that they were not able to merely
pull themselves up by their bootstraps and quit. She
believed that most people did want the offenders to just
quit. However, she relayed that after spending significant
time around addicts, she had observed that their brains
were really rewired. She likened it to an overeating
disorder and telling someone they needed to stop overeating
because they were disappointing everyone. She explained
that the person would still be unable to quit overeating.
She expounded that after a few days overeating would become
such a powerful pull, the person would engage in the
activity no matter how much they hated themselves
afterwards. She realized that there were many people who
wanted help with their addiction; it happened regularly
that individuals would tell officers they needed help, but
law enforcement did not have any place to send them. She
had sat down with many heartbroken families who believed
that if their loved one would just get arrested they may be
helped; however, it did not happen that way. She explained
that the loved one merely got arrested, went to jail for
three days, was released, and continued the same behavior.
Many of the families did not have the money to afford
sending someone to out-of-state treatment at $30,000;
additionally, it may take four times before treatment
actually worked. She questioned how many families could
actually absorb the cost. She explained that everyone was
looking for the criminal justice system to solve the
addiction problem, but it did not have the resources at
present. She relayed that former Department of Corrections
commissioner Ron Taylor had told her that perhaps they
should just cut all of the jails in half and designate half
to addiction treatment. She surmised that it was probably
not enough resources considering that about 80 percent of
the inmates had substance abuse problems or mental illness.
2:20:07 PM
Co-Chair Neuman asked Lieutenant Sell how she felt when
having to arrest the same people continuously. He asked if
she felt that the system was not helping her as a law
enforcement officer. He remarked that the individuals could
be physically dangerous for officers.
Lieutenant Sell replied that she was usually angry at the
individuals for continuing on the same path.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if the situation impacted retention.
Lieutenant Sell answered in the affirmative. She stated
that it was frustrating to keep doing the same things over
and over. She elaborated that sometimes the frustration was
focused on the prosecutor for continuing to let the
individuals out. She reasoned that unless every prisoner
was locked up for 99 years for every crime, the individuals
would eventually get out of jail even if long sentencing
was used. She relayed that it became frustrating and
dangerous work. She explained that her first instinct was
anger, but she had been working as an officer in Juneau for
so long that she had started arresting individuals who had
been abused or mistreated when they were young. She
recalled arresting the parents of these individuals. They
were now adults and she was arresting them for violent
crimes and drug crimes. She wondered if the individuals
ever really had another chance given the significant amount
of things pushing them to end up where they did. She
recalled witnessing young girls allegedly held home for
home schooling, but in actuality they had been kept home to
run an illegal daycare for the mother so the mother could
stay in bed and use drugs all day. She continued that the
kids were not literate and ended up hooking up with drug
dealers and making a living off drugs. She questioned if it
was such an illogical path for someone who had started out
life that way. While she wanted to be angry at the young
woman committing crimes, she kind of understood how she
ended up in the situation. She spoke to a lack of choices
the woman had through life.
2:22:41 PM
Representative Kawasaki appreciated Lieutenant Sell's
comments about other police officers telling her how they
felt; he was also receiving the same calls from his officer
friends. He asked about the drug offence sections of the
bill. He relayed that some of the discussion had been about
the aggregate weight of Schedule 1a, 2a, and 3a drugs. He
did not know if 2.5 grams was a significant or small
amount.
Lieutenant Sell replied that she was most versed in the
heroin trade, which had negatively impacted Juneau. She
explained that one-tenth of a gram was a standard dosage
unit. The heaviest users she had interviewed were males who
used up to 10 doses per day at a total of almost 1 gram.
She noted that males tended to be heavier users than
females. Some of the lighter users may use one-tenth of a
gram per day. The discussion had arisen in the criminal
justice hearing; Mr. Steiner had shared that he had clients
who had done substantially more meth per day and that
weights were different. The commission had tried to
establish what constituted a distribution amount. She
believed part of the problem with getting wrapped around
distribution weights was that users are dealers and dealers
were generally users; there was not an easy way to tell the
individuals apart, including by the weights they carry. She
explained that drug addicts fueled their addiction by
stealing and dealing; they were doing both all of the time.
She detailed that an individual may get drugs to hook up a
couple of friends and the police got some "buys into them"
maybe through an informant. Prosecutors had been able to
clear the books without going to a significant number of
trials by giving plea agreements to many dealers for
possession. She elaborated that there was a lot of pushback
to not classify possession as a misdemeanor because it was
a plea offered to numerous dealers; dealers that police had
wired "buys" into by informants who were being offered
possession. She explained that part of the panic of seeing
possession as a misdemeanor was that it had been such a
plea bargain tool. She expounded that the things sprung up
organically in a system because people were trying to make
things work with the least amount of resources. She stated
that it was necessary to start treating dealers as dealers
instead of clearing the books by offering pleas on
possessions for everything.
Representative Kawasaki was still trying to determine the
weights of drugs and whether the chosen weights worked. He
stated that there were different weights of different
drugs.
Lieutenant Sell replied that the purpose of the weights was
to draw the line somewhere. She noted that it was not an
exact science. She detailed that a male user may actually
be using a full gram per day and someone else may be using
a much lower amount. She reiterated that it was a very
difficult thing to pin down; it almost included picking the
heaviest users with a one to two-day supply in their
possession. She stated that the entire drug experience was
not cooperative with those kind of fences.
2:27:02 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked how Alaska's geography, culture,
and economy made the smart justice techniques more or less
effective.
Lieutenant Sell replied that there were parts of smart
justice that may be more or less effective in rural versus
urban areas and vice versa. She explained that it was the
reason the justice reform was not a one-size-fits-all
solution. She expounded that when the state put the
techniques that had been successful in other areas into
practice in Alaska, they would be different and would be
culturally impacted. She stated there were crazy things
going on in Alaska that the reform would have to adjust to.
She spoke about taking a field trip to Nome where she
discovered that the troopers were spending $28,000 per
month to shuttle prisoners back and forth between Nome and
Kotzebue for different jail stays. She believed it was an
"insane" amount of transportation. She furthered that there
may be things that worked very well for the situation. For
example, putting community-based supervision in place that
actually worked. She added that if community-based
supervision was implemented without the necessary
structure, there would have to be immediate adjustments.
Some of the protective factors included that people could
continue to support their families and to meet their
community obligations. As soon as those ties started
breaking an individual was more likely to not have a reason
to reengage. She provided a scenario of a person who had
come in from a village and was stuck living in an abandoned
car in Anchorage. She explained that those individuals were
dangerous because they did not have anything left to lose;
all of their relationships and roles in community were
gone. The goal was to preserve those relationships and
roles to the extent possible. Part of the issue included
technology that could accommodate video hearings,
electronic monitoring in more rural areas, staff for 24/7
sobriety testing, and other. Alternatively, if the
resources did not exist, people may need to be moved into
more urban areas. In some ways rural communities had the
most to gain from smart justice because residents were
currently losing entire generations of people when they
were incarcerated and moved into the cities. She stressed
that continuing to remove the workforce would kill a
community. Rural communities had a lot to gain by trying to
turn offenders back into productive citizens. She noted
that it would be necessary to see how the structure worked.
She underscored that the justice system changes would be a
living, breathing thing that would have to be monitored and
adjusted in real time; it could not merely be left alone.
2:30:33 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler had often heard people in law
enforcement say that if there was one thing they could do
to reduce the pressure on courts, police, and the jail
system, it would be to reduce substance abuse. He asked if
reinvesting savings (from reducing sentences and parole) in
prevention and substance abuse treatment was the proper use
of the funds.
Lieutenant Sell replied in the affirmative. She stressed
the critical nature of dealing with addiction problems
because an addict would never stop committing crimes. She
elaborated that an addict would never be able to separate
their addiction from the crimes they committed while
impaired or crimes committed to fuel their addiction. She
emphasized that it would not be possible to stop the
criminal behavior until the addiction was stopped. The
person had to have enough negative incentive to come around
to wanting to stop the addiction. She added that sometimes
it took time; it did not always happen on the first
attempt. She referred to victims who talked about the
horrible things that had happened to them by someone who
they may well say should not have been out of jail to begin
with because they had prior crimes. She would want to delve
deeper to explore whether if there had been any meaningful
intervention when a person had started to have criminal
justice problems; it really meant that the victims' names
were just shuffled if there had been no intervention and
the solution had been to merely change the length of
sentencing. Until the underlying factors were addressed
(usually addiction and sometimes mental illness) nothing
else would stop. She would like to see all of the money
saving from reduced sentencing go towards treatment for
substance abuse.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that Representative Gara had joined
the meeting. He added that Representative Lora Reinbold was
present in the audience.
Representative Wilson referred to Lieutenant Sell's earlier
testimony about beginning to see adults commit crimes who
she had seen as children in homes where the parents had
been offenders. She spoke to two different populations and
wondered if there had been discussion about ensuring there
were funds for both groups.
Lieutenant Sell answered that the commission had talked
about the issue of incarcerated parents and abused
children, but it was a huge issue; the commission had
spoken about the correlation. One of the risk factors for
someone becoming incarcerated was having an incarcerated
parent. Based on her knowledge of many of the individuals
the police had put in jail, she suspected they did not
possess any real parenting skills. She explained that if
the individuals were not learning anything about life
skills in prison they would not learn it anywhere; they
would not go seek the skills out. She believed the criminal
justice system was the state's firm grip on the population
it was trying to serve with almost all of its social
services (e.g. Office of Children's Services, job
placement, and other) - the services were in silos but
broadly serviced the same 5 percent of the population. She
reasoned that the state had been trying to deal with
characteristic after characteristic without looking at the
actual person. For example it was meaningful to consider
that a person could have four kids at home that they were
not supporting or had abused, had a substance abuse
problem, were not literate, and could not get a legitimate
job. She explained that there was a lot to be done with the
person and in some ways criminal justice was where the
state got them; the individuals did not have an option,
they had to be there. She reasoned that if the state took
advantage of that correctly, it would be the most valuable
tool.
2:35:41 PM
Representative Wilson had been told by Fairbanks
Correctional Center that they could not make a person go
through treatment. She wondered why not. She contemplated
whether the state needed to mandate treatment in statute.
She asked if it would be more helpful to play treatment
videos for inmates versus regular television. She reasoned
they were a captive audience.
Lieutenant Sell responded that the commission had not
discussed that idea, but it had discussed using positive
and negative incentives. Sometimes just a slate of negative
incentives would not be successful if a person's only power
was to deny taking the action. She explained that most
individuals responded better to a combination of positive
and negative incentives. She relayed that she worked better
for a boss who used both positive and negative incentives.
Someone may refuse to go through treatment, but if the
alternative was to not get credit, people would change
their minds. She stated that people would act in their own
best interest if given enough of an incentive to do so.
Representative Wilson spoke to the lack of treatment
providers. She asked if the commission had talked about how
many more providers the state would need to make most of
the provisions in the bill successful. She mentioned in-
state versus telemedicine options.
Lieutenant Sell answered that the commission had not
determined a number it would take. The discussion had been
more about the recognition that every single addict would
not get better without treatment and that it may take
undergoing treatment multiple times. She explained that
without treatment the state would keep doing the same thing
over and over.
2:38:20 PM
Representative Edgmon thanked Lieutenant Sell for her
testimony. He referred to her comments about a level of
institutionalization around the mindset in the law
enforcement community and broader criminal justice system.
He believed the legislature also had a level of
institutionalization that it needed to work to overcome. He
was uncertain on whether characterizing it as a barrier was
accurate.
Lieutenant Sell affirmed that it was a barrier.
Representative Edgmon continued to speak to overcoming the
institutionalized level of thinking to reach an
understanding shared by Lieutenant Sell and others. He
asked about her view on commercialization of marijuana. He
wondered what it may introduce into the picture.
Lieutenant Sell replied that she did not think the state
needed another legal drug for people to use. She relayed
that when she spoke to high school students about things
like heroin, she was not telling them that every single
person who smoked marijuana would become a heroin addict
because it was not true; however, every heroin addict she
had ever talked with had been a marijuana user in the past.
She discussed that most people did not know what their
addictive tendencies may be. Some people would stop at
alcohol or tobacco; some would have tobacco, alcohol, and
marijuana; and some would experiment higher and never go
there again. She emphasized that people did not know what
their results would be. She questioned whether a person
trying cocaine would know beforehand that it would not
result in addiction. She emphasized that no one knew
beforehand; experimenting with drugs was a gamble. She
reasoned that the more drugs that were available, the more
experimentation seemed to be easy. She remarked that so
many young people on heroin who started with oxycodone and
hydrocodone said that it had all been a game at first. She
believed the more drugs that became legal made them more
prevalent. She added that it was a drug-using society
already. She surmised that about everyone in the room had
probably taken a pill for something during the day. She
stressed that marijuana was a massive disincentivizer. She
stated that someone was going to have to maintain the roads
and stock the grocery shelves in 10 years and she
questioned what increased marijuana use would mean for
those things.
2:42:27 PM
Representative Edgmon stated that growing up many kids
around him had used marijuana. He wondered about how
critical it was that the legislation passed.
Lieutenant Sell asked if the state had another $370 million
to build another prison. She believed it was the answer.
She stressed the importance of doing something more
effective than the status quo. She emphasized that the
state could not continue pouring out more money. She
provided a scenario where a car mechanic failed to fix a
car two out of three times. She asked if a person should
keep using that mechanic. She underscored that the state
could not keep using the mechanic; two out of three
criminals ended up back in the system. She strongly
believed it was necessary to do something different. She
noted that the state did not have the funds to continue
with the status quo. Additionally, it was dangerous for the
public and it was dangerous for law enforcement officers
when people went to prison and did not get better. For the
most part people did not currently get better in the
system.
Co-Chair Thompson shared that he was getting numerous
emails from police chiefs throughout the state who were
concerned about some aspects of the bill. He wondered if
Lieutenant Sell had seen the most recent form of the bill
in comparison to the original version. He wondered if there
were some differences that made the bill worse.
Lieutenant Sell believed the differences in the CS had been
mostly what she termed the "auction amendments," which was
the emotional pushback resulting in an auction to determine
where to land on an issue. She did not believe those
amendments made the bill better, but she did not believe
they were fatal. The commission knew there would be
emotionally driven "carve-outs" in the legislation. When
the commission had submitted its recommendation it
understood that changes would be made in the legislative
process. Some of the changes may make the legislation
better and some may make it worse. She added that in some
cases they would not know for years whether a change made
the system better or worse. She reasoned that no one had a
crystal ball, but the commission had expected push back.
The commission members had also felt the emotional pushback
themselves and had wrestled with it. She believed the bill
was still worth passing.
2:45:53 PM
Representative Gara noted that one could never fault
someone for filing a bill that did not solve every problem.
He was uncertain the bill addressed that it was not
possible to force a person into treatment. He suggested
that motivators would be useful in making it more
compelling for prisoners to participate. He furthered that
law enforcement could use probation and courts could use
therapeutic courts that allowed a person to leave jail if
they participated in a job training, drug treatment, and
parenting program. He detailed that the moment a person
failed to follow through on one of the conditions they were
sent back to jail. He asked if those types of motivators
worked.
Lieutenant Sell believed the state had to do them. She
spoke to the importance of consistent, reliable,
proportional responses to people not doing the things they
had been instructed to do. Currently, there were random,
harsh consequences. For example, if someone violated
probation, it was possible that six months down the road
something really bad could happen and they would end up
back in jail for a very long time. She thought that the
random delayed consequences were not working when trying to
control something as powerful as drug addiction or
compliance with mental health requirements. She stressed
the importance of being consistent. She explained that when
raising a child a parent would want to have constant
oversight, correction, and reward as opposed to delayed
random and severe consequences.
Representative Gara was hopeful that Co-Chair Neuman's
suggestion of additional behavioral health grants to help
people with substance abuse problems would help bend the
curve. He asked if there was a quick and rapid response
component to the bill.
Lt. Sell responded that the issue was folded into the whole
pretrial theory and probation. She remarked that the bill
was already massive and would be even larger if it included
all of the policy particulars. She relayed the importance
of having supervision in pretrial before there was a
conviction; afterwards the same thing would be done in
probation. The reason for shortening probation was to make
the initial probation more effective. She detailed that
people were most likely to fail in probation in the first
year; therefore, the relentless supervision was critical in
the first year. She spoke about the need for immediate
consequences if a person was not attending parenting
classes, staying off substances, or meeting other
obligations.
2:49:47 PM
Representative Gara observed that it was not possible to
force a person into treatment, but it was possible to let
them know the consequences if they chose not go through
treatment.
Lieutenant Sell agreed. She added that it may take a few
times to get a person into treatment. She questioned the
alternative, which was to be criminally driven drug or
alcohol addicts.
Co-Chair Thompson lauded Lieutenant Sell for her comments
on changing behavior and early intervention. He thanked her
for her time and testimony.
2:50:34 PM
GREGORY RAZO, CHAIR, ALASKA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), relayed that he was also
the Alaska Native representative for the group. He
supported the testimony provided by Attorney General
Richards and Lieutenant Sell. He discussed that in his
previous presentation he had highlighted the
recommendations of the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission
individually. He relayed that he would focus on the
commission's process, some of the group's key findings and
recommendations, and the need for reinvestment. He provided
information about his professional background. He shared
that he had been a businessman with Cook Inlet Regional
Inc. for many years, he had previously been an attorney in
Kodiak. He believed his business background had led him to
serve on the commission because it led him to ask a simple
business question of the state's prison system: Is our
current corrections system providing Alaskans with the best
return on their corrections dollars? Are we getting return
on investment? Based on his experience he knew that
Alaska's prison system was not working, which was his
reason for wanting to serve on the commission. He spoke to
the diverse membership on the commission and he had been
surprised that everyone agreed that the current system was
not working to keep communities safe and victims whole. He
explained that the fact that the prison system was not
working was also clear from the data. He detailed that the
commission had reviewed 10 years of Alaska data and
nationwide studies and had the best technical advice as it
had developed its policy recommendations. The commission
had learned that the state's prison system had grown 27
percent in the past ten years, yet the state still had one
of the highest recidivism rates in the country (nearly two
out of three individuals released from prison returned
within three years).
Mr. Razo relayed that after the commission realized that
the status quo was not working it had realized that
addressing what could be done to make the system better was
a much harder question to answer. The commission had pulled
the 10 years of data from the prison and community
corrections system to see what had changed in the prison
system in the past ten years. When the commission looked
closely at who was entering prison and how long they were
staying they had seen many trends arise. He elaborated that
many low-level prisoners were staying in jail pretrial
because they could not come up with cash for bail.
Additionally, the vast majority of inmates were in jail for
non-violent misdemeanors. He relayed that felony offenders
were spending much longer in prison than they did ten years
earlier.
Mr. Razo highlighted that the commission had discovered
that the best pretrial systems detain defendants according
to their risk of re-offense, not based on their ability to
afford $500 or $1,000 bail. The commission saw that for
many low-risk offenders - including many misdemeanants -
cycling in and out of the system that prison was not the
best option and could make a person more likely to commit a
crime upon release. He furthered that the commission had
discovered that while Alaska was sending its felony
offenders to prison for longer and longer periods, those
additional months and years in prison were not bringing
increased public safety to the state. The discoveries had
ultimately led the commission to its recommendations
released to the legislature in December 2015. The
commission had developed 21 consensus recommendations that
would help the state reshape its correctional system, which
included focusing prison beds on serious and violent
offenders, to implement proven supervision strategies to
reduce recidivism, and free up funds to invest in things
that were known to reduce crime. He had witnessed the
problems of addiction in Alaska.
2:56:27 PM
Mr. Razo relayed that he had witnessed addiction problems
on the commission's trips to Nome and Kotzebue.
Additionally, the commission had visited Anvil Mountain
Corrections Center in Nome. He shared that it had hurt his
heart - especially as an Alaska Native man - to visit a
place that was probably 98 percent full of Alaska Native
men where they were watching television, playing cards, and
not doing anything to deal with the problems that brought
them there. He had seen been confronted with the epidemic
when almost every inmate had indicated they were in jail
for an alcohol related offence. The legislation
incorporated the commission's recommendations was projected
to save the state nearly $411 million over the next 10
years. He urged the committee to pass the comprehensive
package included in the bill and to reinvest a significant
portion of the savings into critical and underfunded public
safety services. He communicated that as the state had been
spending an increasing amount on its prisons over the past
10 years, other critical public safety functions had gone
unfunded. He urged the committee to reinvest a significant
portion of the savings into in-prison and community-based
treatment, reentry support services, violence prevention
programming, and victims' services. He emphasized that the
services were the critical supports that would help keep
Alaska's communities safe and its victims whole. He
referred to an earlier question about whether the changes
would impact public safety. He strongly believed they would
impact public safety and would make Alaska a much safer
place. The changes would enable the state to begin to deal
with the things that brought individuals into prison in the
first place.
2:58:22 PM
Representative Wilson asked if the commission had an
opportunity to review the CS. She asked about the changes
in the bill and wondered if they were good, bad, or
neutral.
Mr. Razo agreed with Lieutenant Sell; he had followed the
bill through every committee and had looked at each of the
20-plus amendments that seemed to be made by each
committee. He had spoken out on amendments that he believed
were not supported by the evidence seen by the commission.
He spoke to detrimental sections that he believed should
not be part of law. He believed the CS before the committee
was substantially what the evidence supported and should be
passed.
Representative Wilson asked if Mr. Razo had made the
comments he had made were to the House Judiciary Committee.
She noted it would be helpful to receive the comments in
written form if possible.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if Mr. Razo believed that the
state currently had the treatment and behavioral health
capacity to comply with the bill.
Mr. Razo answered in the negative. He detailed that it
would take some investment to reach the necessary capacity.
He furthered that the state did not have nearly enough
detox beds to deal with individuals coming in with a detox
problem. The state used prisons as a detox center with no
medical supervision, which sometimes resulted in death
because the state was not doing an adequate job of dealing
with detox. He addressed substance abuse treatment and
relayed that the state did not have enough inpatient beds
in any part of the state to deal with the problem. He
shared that the commission had gone on an AMHTA trip to
Nome and had an opportunity to meet community providers. He
stressed that the individuals were very talented, but they
were some of the most under resourced employees he had ever
seen. The individuals did not have the resources to meet
the needs in their villages. He believed the problem
existed statewide.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about the quality of the
assessment tools used by DOC and DPS when assessing an
incoming prisoner or inmate.
3:01:50 PM
Mr. Razo replied that there was minimal risk assessment
currently, which was actually not part of the system in
terms of people coming into the criminal justice system. He
was uncertain whether Vice-Chair Saddler was talking about
individuals coming into prison or when they were arrested
and brought before a judge. He explained that there were
not currently risk-based tools for pretrial. There was
information available to a judge that was based on the
information provided by the state and any argument or
factors provided by the defendant or their attorney. He
relayed that it was a judgement call. Over time, the
judgement had resulted in almost 80 percent of the prison
population being in prison without being convicted of a
crime. Currently DOC was beginning to use risk assessment
tools as people neared their release date. He underscored
that the program needed to begin the moment a person went
into the prison system. He expounded that the individual
should be assessed immediately, given a program, and should
be incentivized for doing the program or penalized for not
doing the program. The risk/reward idea was not currently
present in the state's prison system. He believed the
risk/reward system should follow the person if they came
out of the program. He stated that if individuals were
successful their sentence and probation would be shorter
and they would have a reward for successfully doing the
program and not recidivating.
Vice-Chair Saddler believed that behavior modification
worked most effectively when individuals were more
individuated. He stated that the current system treated
people by an age cohort, charges, ethnicity, or other. He
was hoping the state had adequate tools to determine
people's triggers and how they could be used most
effectively to obtain the desired behavior.
3:04:16 PM
Representative Gara stated that the committee had heard
that Medicaid reforms would bring in the federal funds to
establish many of the behavioral health services the state
did not currently have. He did not want to slow the bill
down because the services were being built up. He spoke to
the pretrial portion of the bill. He stated that there were
two ways to get out of jail - to pay bail or with a third-
party custodian (someone who lived with the offender 24
hours a day). He wondered about the pretrial diversion
change in the bill and asked if it would avoid the problem
of people who could not get the third-party custodian. He
asked if Mr. Razo saw the third-party custodian issue
getting out of control.
Mr. Razo answered that the commission saw the problem
become significant over time. He spoke to the laundry list
of possible conditions a person could have as they went
into their bail review; a person could come out of a review
with around 30 conditions. There was no way the person
could come up with the money or find a third-party
custodian - it created an immense barrier. He added that
generally the individuals were in jail for a non-serious,
non-violent offence. The commission had taken a look at the
problem created by third-party custodians; in the past it
had been an alternative and at present it was almost a
mandatory part of bail for someone to have a third-party
custodian. He explained that it had changed immensely in
the 10 years since he had left the practice of law. He
believed it was unfortunate and had left many people in
jail.
Representative Gara asked if the pretrial diversion would
result in fewer people in jail. Mr. Razo answered in the
affirmative.
Representative Edgmon found it fascinating that the bill
presented a frontier of opportunity. He believed it could
be very successful. He spoke to his experiences in villages
around Bristol Bay and thought of so many kids who became a
part of the system. He asked how the bill impacted rural
and Native Alaskans. He remarked that the Attorney General
Richards had relayed that the commission did not primarily
focus on the subject of Alaska Native Tribes. He asked for
Mr. Razo's thoughts on that frontier of opportunity and
whether it was something the legislature could address in
future policy measures.
3:08:48 PM
Mr. Razo responded that the commission had a very broad
mandate to look at the Alaska criminal justice system. He
detailed that the commission did not start off with justice
reinvestment; it had worked for a number of months in
committees to look at a number of areas the commission may
focus upon as it fulfilled its obligations. As chair of the
rural criminal justice group, he had taken the opportunity
to hold three public hearings on tribes and tribal justice
and to understand the developing and existing systems
especially in Southeast and the Interior and who was
helping to develop tribal justice and what the barriers
were. He noted that there was some interesting public
testimony on the topic from October/November 2014. He spoke
to a disparity between rural and urban Alaska. He believed
the bill would allow for DOC to have some options on how it
dealt with alternatives for release in rural Alaska,
particularly related to pretrial. In rural Alaska,
currently only the schools and health centers had bandwidth
- meaning that electronic monitoring, ankle bracelets, and
other were not available due to a lack of bandwidth. He
hoped that in the future things that worked in urban Alaska
would also work in rural areas (the bill would allow for
that). In the meantime, he believed there was an
opportunity to partner with institutions in villages that
had been successful, in order to help monitor their village
and tribal citizens with community-based justice. The
sentencing recommendations would apply in prison and did
not have much differentiation between rural and urban
Alaska.
Mr. Razo continued that the community supervision after an
individual is released from prison would be a bit different
in rural areas. There were not sufficient probation
officers to accomplish what the bill needed to be done. He
detailed that reinvestment had to encompass hiring
additional probation officers, hopefully because there were
fewer people in jails requiring in-jail supervision. He
communicated that increasing the number of probation
officers in rural Alaska was paramount. He furthered that
many individuals were stranded in Anchorage because there
were not enough probation officers and there was not
sufficient treatment available in rural Alaska. He believed
the build-up of treatment and opportunities in hub
communities would mean individuals would not have to travel
so far away from home for treatment, which would result in
a safer society. He elaborated that when an individual from
rural Alaska was stranded in Anchorage for up to three
years trying to get their treatment they tended to lose
contact with their people and support systems and many
times ended up on the streets. The individuals did their
best to meet their probation conditions, but it was a
difficult situation. He stated that the commission work was
not done and it was subject to investigation requests from
the legislature as it did its job.
3:13:48 PM
Representative Munoz asked about the sentencing guidelines
for sexual offences. She asked why the commission had not
made guideline recommendations in the presumptive ranges
related to sexual offences.
Mr. Razo answered that the commission had found that by
recommending the parole eligibility for sex offenders it
could accomplish a great deal in dealing with the
consequence of the substantial number of sex offenders
coming into prison. He stated that frankly the most serious
sex offences were unclassified and Class A and had been too
"hot buttoned" for the commission to take up given the
commission's operation as a consensus body. In general the
commission had stayed away from Class A and unclassified
sex offences. He furthered that sex offenders was a
difficult topic to discuss even for a group of individuals
as experiences as the commission members. He believed there
had been a conscious decision to accomplish what they
could. He knew the bill was a substantial departure from
how the state was currently doing things in criminal
justice. He believed there had been a concern that [taking
up the serious sexual offences] would be a "bridge too
far."
Representative Munoz asked if it was an area the commission
felt would be worthy of continued consideration (with
legislative direction).
Mr. Razo answered in the affirmative. He stated that in
2006 the legislature had doubled or quadrupled the
sentencing lengths for sexual offenders. The commission had
looked at how sentencing had changed. The commission had
also observed that due to the increases, sex offender
population in prison had grown 38 percent over the past
decade. He believed the state had a continuing obligation
to make recommendations on presumptive sentencing, which
did include the difficult topic of sex offender sentencing.
Co-Chair Thompson asked Mr. Razo to email his comments on
the amendments made to the bill.
3:17:01 PM
BRENDA STANFILL, COMMISSIONER, ALASKA CRIMINAL JUSTICE
COMMISSION (via teleconference), shared that she was
currently the executive director on the Interior Alaska
Center for Non-Violent Living. She had been appointed to
the commission's victim advocacy seat. She stated that
criminal justice was very tough from a victim's standpoint.
She spoke to the significant emotion, hurt, anger involved
when a person's property was stolen, they were sexually
assaulted, their child was hurt in some way through a
vehicle accident, and other; all of the items were
emotionally charged. In order think about the data during
the commission process she had to step back from the
emotionally charged part of herself. The commission process
had been data-driven, during which she had stepped back to
do a significant amount of listening and learning about the
criminal justice system. She had not known an extensive
amount about the criminal justice system when she had begun
on the commission. She had learned what sex offender
treatment entailed and the difference between community and
jail. She had tried to ensure that they were not violating
the constitutional rights of victims, to make sure there
were carve-outs that would happen throughout the
legislative process, and to think through which groups
needed to be engaged and involved.
Ms. Stanfill discussed that during the commission process
they had held two victims' services roundtables (one in
Fairbanks and one in Bethel) and had invited victims'
services providers, victims' advocates, victims, and other.
She relayed that Senator Coghill had participated in the
roundtable in Fairbanks and the Bethel meeting had been
attended by many people. The goal had been to hear the
participants' thoughts on what was going right and wrong.
There had been broad consensus that the current system was
not working for anyone; hearing that had made her more open
to thinking about what the state should do differently. The
commission had taken all of the conversations from the
roundtables and had incorporated them into the reinvestment
section of the bill (i.e. more treatment opportunities,
services for victims, and prevention activities). She was
aware of conversations that had occurred about some of the
things that people believed were missed in the bill. She
countered that the items had not been missed; the
commission had very intensive conversations. She relayed
that the commission did not know every single crime
involved in a Class B misdemeanor, a Class C felony, and
other. The commission understood that there was significant
work that would have to go into ensuring that it did what
it intended to do. She believed it had happened.
Ms. Stanfill furthered that many of the modifications seen
along the way had occurred as a result of Senator Coghill
spending hours in meetings with the Office of Victims'
Rights, the Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault, and different victims' groups in order to
determine anything that had been missed. The commission had
carved out many things and had known it would happen. She
acknowledged that it may have changed the savings, the
commission had determined that the items were necessary in
order for the public to continue to feel safe; it did not
mean to include any kind of crime against a person (as what
it was removing) from being something people were arrested
for. She noted that there had been some changes made on
that level.
Ms. Stanfill believed the current bill was representative
of the changes that victims' services requested. There were
a couple of items included in the bill that she believed
victims' services were a little nervous about. She spoke to
good-time, earned time, and discretionary parole for sex
offenders. She noted that Representative Munoz had asked if
there should be additional study on the topic [of sex
offender sentencing]. She relayed that whenever there was
discussion about the issue of sex offenders - it was such a
traumatic experience for victims and their families - it
was highly emotionally charged and people had a hard time
seeing that sex offenders actually did change in any way.
Before the state was able to change some of those things
without significant pushback from victim advocacy groups,
it was necessary to do the research and studies to
determine whether sex offender treatment was working and if
the capacity existed. She explained that the bill
represented the foundation of what the commission had to do
in order to continue working. She felt strongly that the
bill needed to pass because without it they would be
spending the next year questioning how to move forward. She
pointed to the commission's work on items like suspended
entry of judgement that could get people out of the
criminal justice system before they ever entered and the
removal of a food stamp prohibition that would enable
individuals to get back on their feet. The commission did
not have significant discussion on licensing (work Senator
Coghill had been doing for a long time). She did believe
the bill looked as the commission had intended; there were
some different things that had been added in addition to
what the commission had intended. She believed it was up to
the committee to determine whether the additional items
would remain in place. The commission would like the
committee to consider approving and passing the bill with
the commission recommendations and reinvestment provisions.
3:23:59 PM
Ms. Stanfill spoke to the importance of recognizing savings
that would result from the bill and thinking about things
like restitution, additional treatment, and other things
that would make victims whole. She discussed that jail was
thought of as the "go-to," but it was necessary to think
outside the box, which was scary, particularly from the
victims' side where it could feel like if a person did not
go to jail they were not being punished. She stated that
the bill included big changes and stretch. She was not
always that comfortable, but at the end of the day she
believed the bill was going in the right direction. She
encouraged the committee to really look at the bill. She
added that the commission really needed to have the ability
to continue its work.
3:24:48 PM
Representative Gara spoke about a former client who had a
terrible drinking problem in the 1970s and many DUIs. The
individual was a car mechanic and had built up a 40 or 50-
year license revocation. His profession meant that he had
to test drive cars; therefore, the man frequently got
picked up by the police and put in jail even though he had
been sober for 20 years. He wondered if there was any
provision in the bill to reduce the license suspension to
allow people to work if they had really proven they had
done what they had been asked to do.
Ms. Stanfill responded that the topic was included in the
bill under the licensing provision. She believed Senator
Coghill's office could provide more detail. She elaborated
that currently there was no process to undertake to get a
license back once a lifetime revocation was reached at the
felony level. She furthered that the bill established a
mechanism to enable a person to request a review of the
revocation and that it could be overturned once a person
had shown they had changed and had been without a
conviction for a certain period of time. She noted that the
provision had not come from a commission recommendation,
but the commission was not against the provision.
Representative Gara thought it was important for people to
get their lives back if they earned it.
Co-Chair Thompson invited Senator Coghill to address the
committee.
SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR, relayed that the driver's
license provisions were included in Sections 97, 98, 99,
103, and 106 of the bill. He greatly appreciated the
testimony provided in the current meeting especially by
Lieutenant Sell. He concurred that the current system was
not achieving the needed results in Alaska. He emphasized
the gravity of the drug, alcohol, and behavioral health
issues in Alaska; the individuals did end up in the jail
system. He wanted to have people who had done terrible
things to others locked up. He reasoned that if they were
not fit for society or safe for themselves, they should not
be out in society. The trouble was that 95 percent of the
people in jail were released back into society. He wanted
to hold people accountable, but provide opportunities to
better their lot in life; if people elected not to better
their lives they would go to jail. He believed a large
portion of the state's prison population was related to
mental health issues and a larger portion was related to
substance abuse (ranging from a bar fight to severe
addiction). He reasoned that those things could change, but
may not; however, the current strategy was not changing.
The bill reflected the commission's effort to put forward a
results-based programmatic look at the issue. He believed
the results were wise. He acknowledged that some of the
provisions were controversial; however, the current
strategy was not solving the problem. He would be glad to
point out the issues that concerned him when it was his
turn to discuss the legislation. He communicated that DOL,
public defenders, and police would be available to discuss
how the provisions worked.
Senator Coghill very sympathetic with police who had to
deal with individuals who were becoming increasingly
dangerous day-in and day-out. He understood that the state
liked to have the "felony hammer" as a tool, but it was not
working. He reasoned that the state should have
misdemeanors that did work. The reinvestment portion of the
bill was for government and other purposes. The government
purposes involved pretrial and the way probation and parole
were done. He elaborated that the process would be risk-
based, would use ankle monitoring, and would do things to
hold individuals accountable to get them into programs. Any
reinvestment into society would go into domestic violence
and assault areas and drug and alcohol rehabilitation. The
process would include new concepts that would need to be
examined along the way. He recalled that as a teacher he
had always said "what is not inspected would probably be
rejected." He was asking for the commission to be extended
and given specific things to look at. He stated that Alaska
was on the wrong place on the list in terms of sexual
assault and domestic violence; something had to change. He
observed that the current system was obviously not working;
long-term sentences had not had a positive impact. One of
the goals in the bill was to move the sexual accountability
training into the jails. Currently, many people were
languishing in Juneau, Anchorage, and Fairbanks waiting for
sex offender treatment and could not go home. He reasoned
that if the services could be moved back into the jails
through reinvestment it would mean individuals would come
out at least having the benefit of undergoing treatment,
which would mean they could go to work and possibly back
home.
3:32:44 PM
Senator Coghill continued that every committee had a hot
debate on the issue. He hoped that in the end of the bill
process the legislation would bring positive results to the
state. He believed the bill represented a good template. He
believed there were some management tools and tweaks the
committee could make, but for the most part, the basic
elements of the bill were good and sound. He committed to
working with the committee on the remaining fine points of
the bill. The sponsor and his staff (Jorden Shilling) had
numerous teleconferences with DOL, victims, probation
officers, and other looking out how to hammer out the bill
details. He noted that he had not allowed his staff to make
policy calls, but he had allowed him to get the discussion
going.
3:34:16 PM
Representative Gara remarked that Senator Coghill had taken
on one of the "heavy lifts" during the current session and
that he should be proud. He saw Senator Coghill's office as
the expert on the issue. He relayed that the last thing he
wanted to do was propose something that would tip the bill
in the wrong way. He did not want to put the bill sponsor
in a difficult position; he understood that Senator Coghill
wanted the bill passed and was comfortable with it at
present. He was interested to know which parts of the bill
did not work as well now that it had been rewritten. He
added he understood if Senator Coghill decided that getting
rid of those items would risk the passage of a good piece
of legislation.
Senator Coghill replied that he would be glad to provide
the information at a later time. He stated that there were
8 or 9 things he believed could be worked on. He mentioned
some of the carve outs that had been put in the bill on the
Senate side (e.g. good-time and parole related to sexual
assault offences). He explained that the commission had
provided a broad recommendation and the legislature had
elected to narrow it back significantly, simply because
there was a public condemnation issue and a fear of what
could be done to change an [sex] offender's behavior. He
explained that some of the statistics were not clear across
the nation or in Alaska. There was a good statistical
review from Pew - the organization would follow the results
of the bill if implemented. He explained that as the
organization followed the results the state would be able
to begin compiling a better proven practice and statistical
review. However, if the bill was not passed in the current
year, it would not happen.
Senator Coghill discussed that some items had been put in
by the judiciary committee that he believed were
hitchhiking on the legislation. He would probably speak
negatively about those items, which he believed entered the
political realm and not a practical one. He had worked on
some items with Representative Wilson on third-party
monitoring that he would like to see remain or become
strengthened. For example, he wanted to ensure that good-
time credit for being in programs was maintained. He
explained that it was part of the incentive package that he
believed was so important. He countered the argument that
the provisions were light on crime and believed it was
being accountable. He believed that some of the
accountability measures may have been pulled back too far.
For example, currently a person would much rather finish
their time in jail than go to a treatment program, because
it was easier. He asked whether it was the right thing to
do. He believed it was important to start asking the
questions. He relayed that he could flag the provisions
during the review of a sectional analysis at a later time.
3:38:11 PM
Co-Chair Thompson communicated that the committee would
hear the bill again at a later date. He noted that there
were 23 people online available for questions from DOC,
DOL, DHSS, and other.
Representative Wilson asked DOC to be prepared to report on
how the system currently worked compared to the changes in
the bill.
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that the department would provide
the answers.
CSSSSB 91(FIN) AM was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
3:39:52 PM
RECESSED
5:10:17 PM
RECONVENED
^PRESENTATION: LABOR CONTRACTS REVIEW
5:10:46 PM
Co-Chair Neuman took over as chair. He discussed the agenda
for the remainder of the meeting.
SHELDON FISHER, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
(DOA), provided a PowerPoint presentation titled "Alaska
Department of Administration 2016 Labor Contracts" dated
April 19, 2016 (copy on file). He addressed slide 2 and
provided bargaining framework for the current labor
negotiations. He explained that the scope and the framework
of the negotiations were governed by the Public Employment
Relations Act. The state began negotiations typically in
the fall around October with a goal to conclude by the 60th
day and to provide the terms to the legislature. He
expressed intent to provide information on the status of
wages, hours, and other terms were mandatory bargaining
subjects. He noted that there was some permissive
bargaining the state was allowed to negotiate on if it
chose. He relayed that monetary terms required legislative
approval. He noted that four contracts had been submitted
to the legislature for approval.
Commissioner Fisher believed it was important to recognize
that negotiations were a negotiation; if either side found
the demands too unfavorable, they could largely maintain
status quo by choosing to do doing nothing. He furthered
that once impasse was reached and mediation failed the
employees had a right to strike. He noted that there were
some exceptions to the rule associated with Class 1
employees that related to police and fire, jails and
prisons, and other. However, by in large, employees had the
right to strike and following impasse the state had the
right to implement the last best offer. He added that both
options were harmful to labor-management negotiations and
were generally avoided. There tended to be incremental
change in labor contracts, which was particularly true in a
represented environment, but in his experience it was also
true in a non-represented environment in the private
sector. He explained that because changes in labor
relations were disruptive to the employees, most
organizations tried to make incremental changes when
dealing with adjustments to their labor force.
5:14:17 PM
Commissioner Fisher turned to slide 3 and spoke to
bargaining unit detail. He communicated that the state had
reached agreement with four of the five contracts under
negotiation. Nearly 87 percent of the state's employees
were impacted by the current round of negotiations when
factoring in the non-covered, exempt, and excluded
employees. He detailed that the state had reached agreement
with Labor, Trades, and Crafts (Local 71); the Teachers'
Education Association of Mount Edgecumbe (TEAME); the
Alaska State Employees Association (ASEA or GGU); and the
Confidential Employees Association (CEA). The state was
still under negotiation with the Alaska Public Employees
Association (APEA), which was sometimes referred to as the
supervisors' union. He believed each of the bargaining
units came to the table prepared to make concessions; they
had agreed to no cost of living allowance (COLA) increases
for three years, furloughs, a reduction in benefits and
many beginning to pay for their own healthcare, and work
rule changes. He relayed that the state had given very
little in return to gain those concessions. For FY 17, the
concessions amounted to approximately $6.5 million.
Whereas, the state gave less than $40,000 in concessions in
return. He believed it was fair to say that the agreements
had been reached because the bargaining units came prepared
to accept concessions in recognition of the state's
position [financially]. The state appreciated that
perspective and he believed they had reached a reasonable
set of results for the state and employees. The chart on
slide 3 included the date the agreement terms were provided
to the legislature; the earliest agreement had been
provided in January and the most recent had been provided
on March 22, 2016.
Commissioner Fisher moved to slide 4 related to bargaining
priorities. He relayed that when the state began the
bargaining process it had focused primarily on monetary
terms including cash compensation and benefits. The
department had done a fair amount of analysis and believed
that cash compensation as a whole was below market for
state employees. He explained that it tended to be offset
by the fact that benefits were above market. The state had
made some concessions in the cash component, primarily no
COLA increases and the furlough and had focused
considerable energy around benefits, particularly
healthcare benefits. He shared that over the past decade or
so, healthcare costs tended to grow faster than inflation
and salary cost. He expounded that the state's share of the
burden had continued to grow; therefore, the department was
working to structure arrangements that would reduce costs
overall and more equitably share the cost between the
employer and employee.
5:18:27 PM
Co-Chair Neuman noted that Representative Kawasaki and Co-
Chair Thompson had joined the meeting. He commented that
Representative Louise Stutes was present in the audience.
Commissioner Fisher continued to speak to slide 4. The
negotiations had also involved addressing certain work
rules, some of which were to create consistency between
contracts. He believed the department had previously shared
its desire to leverage the Integrated Resource Information
System (IRIS) application to increasingly automate the way
the state does business. He explained that it was very
difficult when each bargaining unit had a different set of
work rules and practices; therefore, the state had been
working hard to standardize and create consistency among
its contracts, which would allow automation. There had also
been work on creating flexibility in state contracts.
Commissioner Fisher spoke to cash compensation on slide 5.
He reiterated his earlier statement that the state tended
to pay below market in terms of cash compensation. He added
that it was a general statement - there were areas where
cash compensation was below market and other areas where it
was above market. Generally speaking employees below market
were professional employees, which included educated
employees who tended to earn a salary at a higher range. He
communicated that it tended to be the case that the greater
the education, the more below market employees were.
Additionally, the state's newest employees tended to be
below market. He added that the newest employees were Tier
IV and did not enjoy the benefit of a Defined Benefit (DB)
retirement plan and were part of the Defined Contribution
(DC) retirement plan.
Co-Chair Neuman asked for information about employees
falling into the below and above market categories. He
asked for examples.
Commissioner Fisher stated that the employees most below
market were the highly educated professional employees
(i.e. attorneys, skilled employees in the oil and gas
employees, and other) who were highly skilled and in
demand. Generally speaking, newer employees tended to be
below market. He communicated that employees with lesser
skills tended to be above market as did the more tenured
employees. The more tenured employees also enjoyed the
benefits of a DB retirement program.
Representative Gara remarked that there were about 7 pages
of state employees making over $125,000 per year. Many of
the individuals were professionals and had to get paid that
amount of money in order for the state to attract them. He
believed the governor's office had been looking at the
higher salaried employees and wondered if DOA was involved
in that undertaking.
Commissioner Fisher affirmed that Representative Gara's
statement about the number of employees [making over
$125,000 annually] was accurate. He agreed that by in large
they were the higher skilled employees. The department's
analysis suggested that even though they were highly
compensated they were actually compensated below market. He
did not know how the governor may or may not choose to
address the issue.
5:22:47 PM
Commissioner Fisher continued with slide 5. He referred to
a chart on the lower left side titled "Mid-Level
Professional Salary Adjustments (COLA and MERIT) Range 16
GGU Salary Schedules eff July 2004-2015." He noted that he
was on record specifying that the growth curve on the chart
was very steep. However, he believed it was important to
understand that overall cash compensation of state
employees tended to be below market. He noted that by
negotiating to eliminate COLA increases [for three years]
the growth curve flattened out [shown in a chart on the
right]. The chart on the right covered the same timeframe
and showed that if the state had not paid a COLA, the merit
and step increases would have resulted in an increase of
about 40 percent in wages compared to an increase of about
30 percent in CPI [Consumer Price Index]. He discussed that
the state tended to hire below market and let people grow
during their career and the chart on the right felt pretty
typical to what may be seen in many industries. He
reiterated that the growth curve had been flattened by the
elimination of COLAs and had achieved a more gradual and
appropriate salary growth during an employee's tenure.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if the chart on the right of slide
5 accurately represented that there had been no COLA
adjustments in the last 10 years. He asked for
clarification.
Commissioner Fisher replied that the chart on the left
represented what had actually occurred; the chart on the
right represented what would have happened if there had
been no COLA increases. He explained that in the
negotiations the parties had agreed to no COLA increases;
therefore, going forward the state could expect a growth
that was more consistent with the chart on the right.
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to the chart on the right and
asked for verification that without COLA, the merit pay had
increased GGU salaries on average by 11 percent more than
inflation.
Commissioner Fisher answered in the affirmative. However,
he highlighted that the state tended to hire below market.
Vice-Chair Saddler looked at the chart on the left and
observed that with the combination of COLA and merit the
same employee was more than double (36 to 37 percent) more
than CPI and inflation.
Commissioner Fisher replied in the affirmative. He
underscored that even with that kind of growth, state
employees tended to be paid below market.
Representative Munoz referred back to slide 3, which showed
the state had tentative agreements with ASEA, CEA, and
TEAME. She asked what the legislation would do to the
tentative agreements.
Commissioner Fisher clarified that the negotiated
agreements also included LTC. He explained that he was
currently only reporting on the negotiations and was not
commenting on any particular piece of legislation.
Co-Chair Neuman confirmed that the committee was not
presently discussing a piece of legislation.
Representative Edgmon remarked that the committee had
recently heard testimony on HB 249. He recalled that a
former deputy commissioner for DOA had stated that state
pay increases were $70 million (3.5 to 10 percent). He
reasoned that the information did not seem to comport with
the information in the presentation.
5:28:12 PM
Commissioner Fisher believed that what had been reported
was that those types of increases occurred over a three-
year period. He addressed the high end of slightly over 10
percent and explained that merit steps were increased
annually by 3.5 percent during the first five years of
employment; compounded the figure grew to over 10 percent.
He addressed the low end and detailed that after the first
five years an employee received a step increase every other
year; depending on where one fell during the three years,
they may only receive one step increase at 3.25 percent.
Commissioner Fisher continued to address slide 5. He
relayed that in addition to the zero COLA increases for the
next three years, the parties had also agreed to take a
mandatory furlough, which would result in about $1.8
million in savings in FY 17.
Co-Chair Thompson surmised that the legislature would
approve or reject contracts. He asked about the cost to the
state if the contracts were not approved by the
legislature.
Commissioner Fisher replied that if the contracts were not
approved, the state's interpretation would be that the
contracts were rejected and they would return to status
quo; it would cost approximately $6.5 million of additional
expense in FY 17.
Co-Chair Thompson asked about the likelihood of achieving
further concessions if the parties went back to the
negotiating table.
Commissioner Fisher answered that the state had negotiated
aggressively and very hard and he believed they had reached
an agreement that was fair to employees and the state. He
explained that all that needed to occur to maintain the
status quo was for one party to choose to make no movement.
He believed the bargaining units had come to the table in
good faith recognizing the situation the state was in.
Co-Chair Thompson surmised that employees would not be
making contributions to their health insurance and would
not take furlough [if status quo was maintained].
Commissioner Fisher agreed that without the contracts the
state would not achieve the savings. He elaborated that
without the agreements, the state did not have the right to
insist that classified employees take a furlough or
contribute to healthcare. He clarified that healthcare
varied depending on the bargaining unit; some units had a
trust and others were part of AlaskaCare. In each case,
there were healthcare savings associated with the
contracts. He detailed that in some cases the state was
contributing less to the trust and in some cases employees
were contributing.
5:32:12 PM
Representative Gattis asked what zero, zero, zero meant.
She had heard that it meant there were no raises; however,
she countered that there were raises included. She asked if
individuals were getting raises and what it would look like
if they were not getting raises.
Commissioner Fisher answered that when he used the term
"zero, zero, zero," he was referring to the COLA
negotiated. He detailed that it meant there would be not
COLA in the first, second, or third year of the newly
negotiated contracts. He stated that the left chart on
slide 5 included two elements associated with cost
increases: 1) COLA and 2) merit/step increases. He
elaborated that the merit/step increases did continue. He
explained that the legislature does not appropriate funds
for merit and step increases. He elaborated that the
assumption was that someone was retiring and someone was
being hired and that the two offset each other; therefore,
the labor cost remained flat. He expounded that it was not
an incremental expense across the entire state budget, but
it did result in a salary increase to the employee
throughout their life and tenure as a state employee.
Representative Gattis looked at the issue from a private
company perspective. She stated that in some places when
people were laid off in other areas the business put money
back into its bottom line. She reasoned that as a
government, the state had the opportunity to put money back
into its bottom line if it did not give pay raises (merit
or steps). She observed that the state's strategy still
equated to money being paid out even if it was
compartmentalized by the DOA budget.
5:36:01 PM
Commissioner Fisher answered that he did not disagree with
the characterization. He reiterated his earlier statement
that he believed the chart on the left of slide 5 showed a
steep increase. He believed it was important to flatten the
growth; however, if the state wanted a viable workforce,
eventually it would need to increase starting salaries as
ending salaries were decreased in order to create the
necessary balance.
Representative clarified that she was not disagreeing, but
she wanted to get the issue on the table. She understood
that they wanted to keep the state's employees. She
wondered if the state did not pay merit or step increases,
how much money would be saved.
Commissioner Fisher answered that the department was
currently working on the analysis. He estimated that the
savings was somewhere between $20 million to $25 million
per year. He added that it was a bit less in the first year
and a bit more in the outer years.
5:38:41 PM
Representative Munoz asked for the estimated value of the
furloughs and concessions on healthcare.
Commissioner Fisher replied that the presentation included
a chart in its later pages. The furloughs were about $1.8
million and the healthcare was about $4.5 million.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for the total annual payroll for
the employees covered by the current contract negotiations.
Commissioner Fisher asked for clarification.
Vice-Chair Saddler pointed to slide 3 that included
bargaining unit details. He pointed to the 16,661 employees
listed on the slide. Commissioner Fisher answered that it
was about $1.2 billion for all state employees (16,661).
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for verification that the total
annual payroll for the 16,661 employees (shown on slide 3)
was $1.2 billion. Commissioner Fisher answered in the
affirmative. He could follow up with the exact number, but
it was between $1 billion and $1.2 billion.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked what $6 million in give-back
represented in terms of total payroll. He referred to
Commissioner Fisher's testimony that pay was below market.
He asked what market index was used for comparison.
Commissioner Fisher answered that it varied for each job,
but the department had attempted to look at comparable
positions in the Alaskan marketplace and had compared state
employees.
5:41:08 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler spoke to inflation and COLA increases.
He asked for verification that the most efficient and
accurate COLA would identically track the CPI.
Commissioner Fisher asked Vice-Chair Saddler to repeat the
question.
Vice-Chair Saddler restated his question. He assumed a COLA
sought to cancel out the eroding influence of inflation. He
surmised that the perfect COLA would be exactly equal to
the CPI. Commissioner Fisher replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Saddler pointed to the right chart on slide 5.
He asked whether the green and red lines intersect
immediately in the upcoming year if there was no COLA
adjustment.
Commissioner Fisher answered that the red line represented
a merit increase, which had not been intended to be a proxy
for the cost of living. He elaborated that it had been
intended to reflect that as an employee grew in the
organization they were able to contribute more and the
amounts had been set without regard to the CPI. He relayed
that the red line would continue to diverge from the CPI
(green line); it would also depend on the CPI amount. He
furthered that the merit and step had been defined and the
CPI would vary over time.
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to the right chart on slide 5
asked for verification that in the next fiscal year the pay
levels would still be higher than the CPI even with no COLA
increase.
Commissioner Fisher replied in the affirmative.
5:43:54 PM
Representative Wilson discussed her understanding that an
employee received annual 3.25 percent merit increases for
the first five years of employment. She asked for
verification that beginning in year six they received a 3.5
percent increase every two years.
Commissioner Fisher answered that the annual increase was
3.5 percent for the first five years and thereafter it was
3.25 percent every other year.
Representative Wilson asked if the 3.25 percent increase
was provided every other year indefinitely. Commissioner
Fisher answered that the increase continued for the
duration of the employee's tenure as a state employee.
Representative Wilson surmised that without COLA the red
and green lines [representing merit pay and CPI
respectively] would be much closer together when increases
came every other year as opposed to during the first five
years when increases were provided annually.
Commissioner Fisher answered that the chart included the
first 10 years of employment for a state employee. For the
first five years employees got an increase and then
thereafter it started to stair step to every other year; it
was the reason for the smooth and step periods shown in the
red line (slide 5). He agreed that after the first five
years an employee received an increase every other year and
depending on what happened with inflation the employee may
or may not keep up.
Representative Wilson mentioned discussion about the
difference between an employee leaving and another employee
beginning state employment. She stated that there were
certain professions (e.g. attorneys, engineers, and other)
where a new employee may start at the same range as an
outgoing employee, but savings on merit would result. She
spoke to other less skilled jobs where the state may save
funds in the beginning of employment. She asked if there
were other ways to give raises to employees if the merit
increases went away.
Commissioner Fisher answered that in an employee's tenure
there would potentially be an opportunity for promotional
raises as they grew in responsibility and promotions. He
asked department employee Kate Sheehan [Director, Division
of Personnel and Labor Relations] if there were other
mechanisms for special cases [Ms. Sheehan replied in the
negative]. He relayed that there would not be other
opportunities.
Representative Wilson surmised that if a person began at a
range 12 and received increased duties, it would be another
way - depending on the budget - for the employee to receive
a promotion up to a range 13 or 14. She concluded that it
would be separate from the merit pay.
Commissioner Fisher answered in the affirmative.
Representative Gattis asked for verification that merit and
step pays were compounded. Commissioner Fisher replied in
the affirmative.
Representative Kawasaki asked why - from a constitutional
context - the state based its compensation in negotiations
on merit.
Commissioner Fisher replied that the constitution clearly
included the principle that state employment was a merit-
based system; it included the notion that the state hired
and promoted people based on merit and not some other
element. He believed there was a notion that compensation
should also be based on merit. He opined that while the
constitutional overlay existed, there were a number of
different structures that could satisfy the requirement. He
did not believe the current structure was mandated by the
constitution.
Representative Kawasaki believed merit was an important
part of compensation and should remain. He shared Alaska
constitutional Delegate [George] Sundborg's remarks on the
state's civil service system and merit. He cited that
Delegate Sundborg pointed out in the constitutional
convention that the "spoil system" was the alternative and
that state civil servants should keep state jobs from being
distributed as political favors. He furthered that Delegate
Sundborg believed the state should have a system developed
based on competency and a permanent workforce.
5:49:44 PM
Commissioner Fisher did not disagree, but he noted that
there were a variety of ways to think about merit
compensation.
Representative Gara understood that given the state's
fiscal situation, it was not possible to be very generous
with raises at present. He pointed to the chart on the
right of slide 5. He assumed that if the state tried to
find a way to keep employees' wages in line with inflation
that the state would lose valuable employees. He observed
that people would want to try to get ahead in the world at
some point.
Commissioner Fisher answered that it was an interesting
point. He believed it depended a bit on the employee and
the category. He thought there were a fair number of
industries where employees reached a skill level and
remained more or less with inflation from there on out.
There were others who continued to gain skill and
productivity and their salary tended to grow as well. He
believed it depended on the category and type of employee.
It was important to keep in mind that the state was most
vulnerable in losing the employees with the greatest
mobility, skill, and education, because they tended to be
undercompensated at present.
Vice-Chair Saddler spoke about merit pay and asked if there
was any standard around whether merit was an absolute. He
wondered if the state awarded the top 20-plus percent or
everyone who met a certain level of performance.
Commissioner Fisher answered that the administration needed
to improve the system. He explained that under the current
merit system if an employee received an evaluation of "low
acceptable" or "unacceptable" they did not receive a merit
increase. In reality, the state agencies were not very
effective in their performance management of employees and
it tended to be that a very high percentage (over 95
percent) earned their merit and step increases.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if an employee automatically
received a merit increase if the employee did not receive
their evaluation within a certain time around their hire-
date anniversary.
Commissioner Fisher replied in the negative. He explained
that because the state had not done a great job in the
area, some employees had not received a merit increase for
a meaningful period of time.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if the employee would qualify for
retroactive merit increase pay if for example, their merit
increase was six months late.
5:53:47 PM
Commissioner Fisher explained that the first five years
made up the merit period and pay increment increases
occurred in the following years. During the merit period,
Vice-Chair Saddler's first characterization was accurate.
He detailed that an employee received merit increases
automatically unless their supervisor took steps to deny
the increase. Thereafter, the pay increment increases
required a review; employees did not receive the increase
if a review was not provided. He deferred to Ms. Sheehan to
address retroactivity.
KATE SHEEHAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL AND LABOR
RELATIONS, answered that if under Vice-Chair Saddler's
example the employee was given a "mid-acceptable"
evaluation or better, the payment increase would be
retroactive to the date of their pay increment anniversary
date.
5:55:08 PM
Commissioner Fisher moved to slide 6 and spoke to benefits.
He highlighted that historically, roughly half of state
employees in the AlaskaCare participated in the economy
benefit plan. He noted that many state employees were in
health trusts and those employees already contributed to
their healthcare. He elaborated that within the AlaskaCare
plan, the economy plan did not have employee premiums,
tended to have low deductibles, and other advantageous
characteristics. He discussed that healthcare was growing
faster than salary and inflations; for a variety of reasons
the state believed it needed to change the benefit provided
to employees and had negotiated an employee contribution.
Additionally, the state had begun to negotiate more typical
marketplace rates in terms of deductibles and copays. The
state continued the path taken by the previous
administration to negotiating leave caps on accruals.
Co-Chair Neuman had heard comment about a gold-plated plan.
He asked what that was in reference to.
Commissioner Fisher answered that there were three state
plans: economy, standard, and premium. He surmised that the
premium plan was probably gold-plated and explained that it
would be phased out after the current year. He believed it
was fair to say that the state's healthcare plans tended to
be on the generous side compared to the marketplace. The
state was working to move them and leverage some of the
techniques used by others. For example, techniques may
include different steerage components on pharmaceuticals,
different deductible rates, and other. The state was in the
process of building the items out and recognized that the
benefit plan needed to be more standard.
5:58:31 PM
Representative Wilson asked about the benefit of having
some employees in the state's health plan in addition
others in a health trust paid for by the state.
Commissioner Fisher answered that previously certain
bargaining units had asked if they could develop a health
trust and have the state contribute the money it would have
used inside the healthcare and allow employees to develop
their own healthcare trust. He did not know that there was
a huge benefit. He relayed that by in large the health
trusts had been well managed. He believed the experience
was fairly comparable. He added that the health trusts had
required employee contributions earlier than the state. The
trusts had been successful in areas that he believed the
state was learning from. He did not know that it had been
designed to deliver a benefit, it was just an alternative
way of delivering healthcare.
Representative Wilson pointed out that sometimes it was
cheaper for everyone when there were more people in a plan
versus having smaller plans. She remarked on hearing from
school districts in the past couple of years related to
healthcare plans.
Commissioner Fisher answered that sometimes if a group was
too small, the pooling was so small it was hard to spread
the risk. He believed the state had a large enough group in
the trusts and AlaskaCare. Second, there was an opportunity
to negotiate better rates with providers if the group was
larger. He relayed that there was language in the current
budget requesting DOA to look at a healthcare authority,
which would examine the issues.
Representative Wilson asked if the state sent letters out
periodically to see if a person still had dependents and if
they were still married. Commissioner Fisher answered in
the affirmative and relayed that the process was currently
underway. He believed the process should be done more
frequently.
6:01:47 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked about slide 6 related to the
market and wondered if the state was comparing apples to
apples. For example, he wondered if the state was comparing
its employees with comparable private sector employees.
Commissioner Fisher answered in the affirmative. He
elaborated that the department was trying to control for
those differences as much as possible.
Representative Kawasaki asked for verification that the
state was not comparing a person working at Walmart blended
throughout the state versus state employees.
Commissioner Fisher answered in the negative. He explained
that the state was trying to look at the varied category of
employees. For example, a snow plow operator working for
the state versus a snow plow operator working out of the
state. The department looked at category by category.
Representative Kawasaki asked if Commissioner Fisher meant
state service versus private sector employment.
Commissioner Fisher replied in the affirmative.
Representative Kawasaki stated that his healthcare
insurance had been significantly better in a previous job
that it was at present. However, he was glad to hear that
the state's benefits were above market. He shared that he
had numerous friends who wanted to find a job within state
service because of the benefits - particularly healthcare
benefits. He wondered if there was a reason the benefits
were above market. He asked if they helped increase the
number of individuals who wanted to work for the state.
Commissioner Fisher answered that the department believed
its compensation was about equal to market when factoring
in its combination of cash and benefits; cash tended to be
below market, while benefits tended to be above market. He
elaborated that the combination of the two enabled the
state to attract employees. He added that the negotiated
changes put pressure on both sides; it was reducing growth
in cash compensation and starting to diminish the value of
state benefits.
6:04:15 PM
Representative Kawasaki noted that there were many people
who wanted to work for the state specifically because of
health and leave benefits and who were willing to sacrifice
on salary. He asked if it would be harder to recruit new
employees due to the recently negotiated contracts.
Commissioner Fisher replied that there was a short-term and
long-term answer to the question. He spoke to the short-
term and recognized that the market had changed - other
employers had made cutbacks and adjustments. He noted that
the analysis had shown the state more or less at market. In
the short-term he did not anticipate having trouble. He
added that there was always difficulty finding good quality
people, but he did not believe it would be abnormally
challenging. However, longer-term as the market improved,
private sector employers were able to make adjustments more
quickly; therefore, it may become more difficult for the
state in the future.
6:06:01 PM
Representative Gara hoped the department would be careful
when making any changes to benefits. He explained that in
the past the state had a premium dental plan; however, it
was no longer offered. He believed state employees were
currently covered up to $1,000. He relayed a recent
personal experience involving a crown and root canal, which
had cost him 5 percent of his salary two years in a row. He
remarked that he would be happy to pay for a premium dental
plan if it existed. He wondered if in order to attract
state employees, it would make more sense to consider
having state employees contribute a bit more to their plan
rather than taking away a good plan. He did not know what a
fair amount would have been to charge state employees, but
he believed it was crazy for a person to pay 5 percent of
their salary for a tooth.
Commissioner Fisher agreed that the state needed to ensure
it provided a quality product. He noted that the state
really did not have a choice regarding the elimination of
the premium plan. He elaborated that under the Affordable
Care Act and the associated "Cadillac Tax," it was
necessary to phase out the overall premium plan or all
employees would pay a greater penalty. He believed that
compared to the marketplace, the state's standard and
economy plans were still quality, generous plans. He spoke
to Representative Gara's dental experience and relayed that
dental was fully funded by the employee. He believed the
decision had been made at some point to move towards a more
basic plan for dental insurance; it was something the state
could revisit if desired.
Representative Gara referred to a flat rate for dependents.
He relayed that his wife worked and had health insurance.
He asked if his wife was automatically covered under his
plan or if she would pay to be part of his plan.
Commissioner Fisher responded that the state had an
employee-only plan and an employee plus family plan. He
spoke to the flat rate and relayed that some plans had a
number of gradations for the family (i.e. employee plus
spouse, employee plus spouse plus one or more children, and
other). He shared that he personally paid a flat rate for
his entire family and it was not graduated by each
additional dependent. He stated that for a large family it
could be a material benefit. He guessed that Representative
Gara had selected an employee-only plan if his wife was
covered somewhere else.
6:09:34 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler wondered if the governor, lieutenant
governor, or legislators received a special healthcare and
retirement package when entering state employment.
Alternatively, he asked if they received the same benefits
as any other state employee.
Commissioner Fisher answered that the individuals received
the same benefits as any other state employee.
Vice-Chair Saddler had heard that for a brief period in the
past there had been a retirement system that was calculated
for the benefit of elected public officials. He believed
the system had been called EPORS. He asked for details.
Commissioner Fisher replied that there was an EPORS
(Elected Public Officers Retirement System) plan that still
existed but was closed. He offered to follow up with
specifics on the plan.
Co-Chair Neuman noted that had allowed for a broad range of
questions but he wanted members to focus on the current
contracts.
6:11:19 PM
Commissioner Fisher turned to slide 7 titled "Other Topics
Addressed in this Round of Negotiations." He addressed that
there were a number of work rules and other improvements
that had been negotiated. He explained that the items were
not currently associated with a large monetary value, but
they did provide a framework for the state to improve its
efficiencies. He remarked on his earlier testimony about
the department's desire to leverage IRIS in order to
automate numerous processes, and move to a shared service
model. He explained that when different work rules existed
in various bargaining unit agreements, it made it difficult
to create automation. The department had been working with
bargaining units to standardize in a number of important
areas that would provide benefits and increased efficiency.
Commissioner Fisher advanced to slide 8 titled "FY 2017
Savings." The slide illustrated a summary of negotiated
savings across the four contracts. The chart did not
attribute any savings to wages, even though compared to the
historical average there was a material savings associated
with the zero COLA increase. There was about $4.5 million
in FY 17 associated with healthcare changes and $1.8
million attributed to furloughs across the four bargaining
units. The final three columns showed some concessions made
by the state including a geographic differential, advisors,
and legal trust; combined, the items had cost the state
less than $40,000. He believed the bargaining units had
come prepared to make concessions and recognized the
state's [fiscal] situation.
Vice-Chair Saddler stated that the savings were a portion
of a $1.1 billion payroll. He asked if the total included
wages and benefits or wages only. Commissioner Fisher
responded that the number only included wages.
Vice-Chair Saddler remarked that the negotiations included
approximately $6 million in giveback for $1.1 billion in
payroll not including benefits, which he estimated would be
an additional one-third.
Commissioner Fisher explained that the 4 bargaining units
did not encompass $1.4 billion. He observed that Vice-Chair
Saddler's point was that in the overall compensation the
savings were small. He highlighted that the state was also
reducing the number of its employees; there were a number
of things the state was doing in order to deal with cost in
addition to the savings shown on slide 8.
6:14:27 PM
Commissioner Fisher advanced to slide 9 titled "What
Happens when Legislature Rejects Contracts." He explained
that if the contracts were rejected, the parties would
reenter into negotiations and would either reach voluntary
agreement or impasse. He detailed that if the negotiations
resulted in impasse the bargaining units had the right to
strike and the state had the right to implement its last
best offer. Class 1 employees (i.e. police, fire, and
jails) were not allowed to strike and had the right to seek
mandatory and binding arbitration. Any subsequent
arbitration decision or voluntary agreement was submitted
to the legislature for its approval of the monetary terms.
He pointed out that if the legislature decided not to do
anything it would be the equivalent of a rejection,
although it had the downside that the department and unions
did not have guidance about what was unacceptable. He
elaborated that the situation had occurred in the past
where the administration in essence submitted the same
contract.
6:16:04 PM
Representative Kawasaki noted that in Fairbanks there was a
Class 1 union that was not able to strike and had gone to
binding arbitration; the union contract had also included
an "Evergreen" clause, which meant the city would still be
paying (not the new contract costs). He asked if the state
Class 1 employee contracts included an Evergreen clause.
Commissioner Fisher stated that in the time period between
the contract expiration and the finalization of
arbitration, the state was required to maintain status quo,
which meant things continued as if the contract was not
expired during that interim period.
Representative Kawasaki asked for verification that there
had been salary increases during that period of time, which
would be maintained. Commissioner Fisher agreed. He
elaborated that everything would stay the same until the
arbitration decision was awarded and implemented.
Representative Kawasaki asked if the state would be
obligated to pay the entire amount plus back pay and
interest in penalties if the parties went to arbitration
and the state lost.
Commissioner Fisher deferred the question to Ms. Sheehan.
Ms. Sheehan explained that if the parties entered an
interest arbitration and both sides put forth their last
best offers. If the unions were awarded their offer, the
state would still be obligated to submit the agreement to
the legislature; however, the state would be required to
pay any retroactive payments or interest awarded.
6:18:26 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked who the arbitrators were and if
arbitration decisions had tended to favor one side or the
other. Ms. Sheehan responded that there were panels of
arbitrators that set forth how they were selected in the
collective bargaining agreements. Generally not every
grievance arbitrator did interest arbitrations; therefore,
the state tried to pick from the panel and it struck names
to select the arbitrator. Typically, arbitrations had not
been "baseball style"; each side usually got some of what
they wanted and lost some of what they wanted.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about the difference between an
interest arbitrator and a grievance arbitrator. He also
asked about the term "baseball style."
Ms. Sheehan answered that a grievance arbitration would
occur if there was a contract violation, discipline that
was grieved, and the grievous process was undertaken. She
detailed that it was either class action or an individual
employee. An interest arbitration occurred when the terms
of a collective bargaining unit were in front of them and
the interest arbitrator's job was to select the terms of
the new agreement as if the parties voluntarily reached the
agreement themselves. Baseball arbitration occurred when
the arbitrator had to select either the state's or the
union's complete package versus picking items here or
there.
Vice-Chair Saddler surmised that the selecting the
arbitrators was almost like a voir dire process. He
elaborated that Ms. Sheehan had indicated that there were
different panels of arbitrators from which the state could
pick, strike, and challenge.
Ms. Sheehan replied that the department was required to
compile a list of names from the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service. She detailed that each side did
research on the chosen list of names and names were struck
in order to reach a permanent panel. There were 7 or 11
names on a panel depending on the collective bargaining
agreement. She explained that names were struck until they
reached an arbitrator to hear the case.
Representative Munoz spoke to savings in the negotiated
agreements related to furlough and healthcare. She asked if
contracts were not funded whether they would return to the
previous agreements on COLA.
Commissioner Fisher answered that if the contracts were not
funded there would not be a specified COLA. He explained
that there would not be a COLA expense if the contracts
were rejected. However, the healthcare and furlough savings
would be lost.
Representative Munoz addressed that the state's operating
budget had been reduced the previous year by $400 million
and the legislature was looking at a reduction of $280
million in the current year. She had heard it said that
only about 56 positions had been reduced. She believed the
number was significantly higher as a result of not filling
vacant positions. She asked how many actual state workforce
positions had been reduced in the past two years.
Commissioner Fisher agreed that there had been significant
attrition that had not been backfilled when people left
state employment or retired, including the Judiciary. He
detailed that from December 31, 2014 through March 15, 2016
there had been a reduction of about 712 full-time permanent
employees.
Representative Munoz asked if the standard or economy plans
would be subject to the Cadillac Tax.
6:23:22 PM
Commissioner Fisher answered that the department was still
working out the details. He elaborated that it would depend
on some decisions that had yet to be made. He did not
expect the economy plan to be subject to a Cadillac Tax,
but there was some risk that the standard plan would be
subject to the tax.
Representative Munoz asked for detail on the tax rate and
how it would impact state employees. Commissioner Fisher
replied that he would follow up with detail.
Representative Wilson referred to the Teachers' Education
Association of Mount Edgecumbe. She spoke to concessions
made in Fairbanks related to the school district. She
wondered "why did everybody else show negatives and we are
not doing the same thing for Mount Edgecumbe."
Commissioner Fisher answered that the state had begun
negotiating the contract with TEAME over one year ago. He
explained that the state did not seek or receive
concessions in that small group. The state felt that given
where they were at it was appropriate to continue the
existing agreement.
Representative Wilson disagreed. She countered that
teachers in her district were also very important. She
asked if TEAME also received a geographic differential and
of what amount.
Ms. Sheehan answered that TEAME received a 5 percent
geographic differential.
Representative Wilson believed they were sending a negative
message to other districts if the state school did not
receive decreases but other schools had to make
concessions.
Commissioner Fisher replied that during the negotiations
other unions had repeatedly pointed out to the department
that a number of school districts had given COLAs or other
things. He believed the department could provide
information showing that the Mount Edgecumbe teachers were
not overcompensated compared to other teachers around the
state.
6:25:56 PM
Co-Chair Thompson asked for verification that Sitka had a 5
percent geographic pay differential. Ms. Sheehan answered
in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Thompson understood that Juneau also had a 5
percent geographic differential; however, Ketchikan had no
differential for state employees. He believed it seemed
strange. He asked when the geographic differential had last
been addressed and studied.
Ms. Sheehan replied that the last study had been in 2008.
Representative Kawasaki asked if a bill were introduced...
Co-Chair Neuman interjected that he wanted to stick to the
meeting subject on the current contracts. He stated that if
a bill came to finance they would address the bill.
Representative Kawasaki asked whether existing tentative
agreements between the five unions would be invalid if the
legislature were to decide that future contracts would be
funded based on the price of oil.
Commissioner Fisher replied that he did not know he could
answer the question until the department's analysis was
completed.
6:28:14 PM
Representative Wilson remarked that several years earlier
the legislature had discussed leave accrual, which had
ultimately been capped. She referred to a concern that the
leave hours had been worth the amount an employee earned at
the time leave was taken versus the amount it had been
worth at the time of accrual. She asked if that had
changed.
Ms. Sheehan answered that currently non-covered employees
had cash value of leave: leave was cashed out at the rate
it had been earned. General government union (GGU)
employees hired into state service on or after July 1, 2013
also had cash value. For all other state employees leave
was cashed out at the rate they currently earned.
Representative Wilson surmised that the structure had been
changed by including a cutoff date, but some employees were
grandfathered in. Ms. Sheehan responded in the affirmative
pertaining to GGU.
Vice-Chair Saddler remarked that during discussions on oil
contracts there had been discussion about "acts of God" and
things that could not be controlled. He asked if there were
any provisions in the negotiated contracts that would allow
reductions in contracts due to natural disasters (e.g. a
financial crisis due to a break in the pipeline).
Commissioner Fisher answered in the negative. He stated
that the negotiations could be reopened to have the
conversation, but there was no trigger mechanism.
Co-Chair Thompson addressed the agenda for the following
meeting. He recessed the meeting to a call of the chair
[note: the meeting never reconvened].
ADJOURNMENT
6:30:27 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 91 Remarks Gregory Razo_2016-4-19.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |