03/25/1998 03:21 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
March 25, 1998
3:21 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chairman
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Joe Ryan
Representative Gene Kubina
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Tom Brice
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 269(L&C)
"An Act relating to the state plumbing code; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 269(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 319
"An Act relating to an employee's expectation of privacy in
employer premises."
- MOVED CSHB 319(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 438
"An Act establishing an exemption for investment clubs from the
business license requirement."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 400
"An Act combining parts of the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development and parts of the Department of Community and Regional
Affairs by transferring some of their duties to a new Department of
Commerce and Rural Development; transferring some of the duties of
the Department of Commerce and Economic Development and the
Department of Community and Regional Affairs to other existing
agencies; eliminating the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development and the Department of Community and Regional Affairs;
relating to the Department of Commerce and Rural Development;
adjusting the membership of certain multi-member bodies to reflect
the transfer of duties among departments and the elimination of
departments; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 269
SHORT TITLE: PLUMBING CODE
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE BY REQUEST
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/28/98 2335 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/28/98 2335 (S) LABOR & COMMERCE
03/03/98 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/04/98 2733 (S) L&C RPT CS 5DP SAME TITLE
03/04/98 2733 (S) DP:LEMAN, KELLY, MILLER, HOFFMAN,
MACKIE
03/04/98 2733 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (LABOR)
03/05/98 (S) RLS AT 12:25 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/05/98 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/06/98 2769 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/6/98
03/06/98 2770 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/06/98 2770 (S) L&C CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/06/98 2770 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
03/06/98 2770 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 269(L&C)
03/06/98 2771 (S) PASSED Y15 N- E4 A1
03/06/98 2771 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
03/06/98 2775 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/09/98 2561 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/09/98 2561 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE
03/25/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 319
SHORT TITLE: EMPLOYEES: NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) ROKEBERG
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/14/98 2040 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/14/98 2040 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE
01/14/98 2045 (H) ADDITIONAL REFERRAL TO JUD
03/25/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Loren Leman
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 113
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3844
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor's representative for SB 269.
DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 21149
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1149
Telephone: (907) 465-2700
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 269(L&C).
RON WATTS, Building Official
Building Safety Division
Department of Public Works
Municipality of Anchorage
P.O. Box 196650
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650
Telephone: (907) 343-8301
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 269(L&C),
requested amendment.
PETE JURCZAK, Lead Plumbing Inspector
Sitka Office
Mechanical Inspection Section
Division of Labor Standards and Safety
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 2385
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-6380
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 269(L&C).
STEVE SHUTTLEWORTH, Building Official
Building Department
City of Fairbanks
800 Cushman Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 459-6725
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 269(L&C), requested
amendments.
LARRY LONG, Plumbing Inspector
Building Department
City of Fairbanks
800 Cushman Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 459-6720
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 269(L&C), requested
amendments.
SHARON MACKLIN, Lobbyist for
Alaska Professional Design Council
315 Fifth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-9518
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 269(L&C), requested
amendments.
RUSS CHANEY, Executive Director
International Association
for Plumbing and Mechanical Officials
20001 Walnut Drive South
Walnut, California 91789
Telephone: (909) 595-8449
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 269(L&C).
EDWARD SALTZBERG
14733 Oxnard Street
Van Nuys, California 91411
Telephone: (213) 873-4752
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 269(L&C)
representing the Industry Health and
Safety Code Council.
JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Norman Rokeberg
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 319, explained amendments.
SHIRLEY ARMSTRONG, Legislative Assistant
to Chairman Rokeberg
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 319.
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President
for University Relations
University of Alaska
P.O. Box 755200
Fairbanks, Alaska 99775
Telephone: (907) 474-7582
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 319, suggested changes.
SYLVIA SULLIVAN, President
Alaskans for a Just Society
P.O. Box 264
Valdez, Alaska 99686
Telephone: (907) 835-3729
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 319.
MIKE McMULLEN, Personnel Manager
Division of Personnel
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110201
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0201
Telephone: (907) 465-4431
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 319.
PAM LA BOLLE, President
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
217 Second Street, Suite 201
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-2323
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 319.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-37, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:21 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Cowdery,
Hudson, Sanders and Kubina. Representative Ryan arrived at 3:30
p.m. The chairman mentioned committee procedures and testimony
length.
CSSB 269(L&C) - PLUMBING CODE
Number 0181
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's first item of business
was CSSB 269(L&C), "An Act relating to the state plumbing code; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0195
ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Loren Leman,
indicated she wished to allow the Department of Labor and other
witnesses to make their presentations. The sponsor statement read:
SB 269 simplifies the process for adopting the Uniform
Plumbing Code for Commercial, Industrial and Residential
plumbing systems and its related codes dealing with
swimming pools, spas, hot tubs, and solar energy. The
International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical
Officials (IAPMO) is responsible for publishing these
codes. They publish an update every three years. Alaska
is presently working on the 1994 code. A new 1997 code
is forthcoming and legislative action is required before
the new codes may be used by contractors in Alaska.
This legislation adopts the 1997 code and will hereafter,
allow the Department of Labor to automatically adopt
through the regulatory process the latest published
version of the national code as provided by the IAPMO as
the minimum state plumbing code. This is efficient
government. The Department of Labor currently adopts
other codes it is responsible to enforce such as the
electrical, elevator, and boiler/pressure vessel codes in
this manner.
Number 0223
DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Labor (DOL), came forward to testify in support of
CSSB 269(L&C). He said this bill mandated that the most current
edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC); Uniform Swimming Pool,
Spa, and Hot Tub Code; and the Uniform Solar Energy Code, as
published by the International Association of Plumbing and
Mechanical Officials (IAPMO), would automatically be adopted as the
minimum standards for the state. He said this legislation
alleviated the need for legislative action every three years to
adopt a new edition of the family of plumbing codes. He noted the
legislature had taken similar action with regards to electrical
codes, the boiler and pressure vessel codes, and the elevator
codes, He indicated this action was efficient government, and said
language was built in for the exception by regulation if, for some
reason, a portion of the code would be inapplicable to Alaska, so
that the state would not be compelled to comply with something that
simply did not apply in Alaska. Mr. Perkins additionally indicated
there was an amendment in the Senate Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee on page 1, lines 13 and 14, about the minimum plumbing
facilities and the addition of Appendix Chapter 29, table A-29-A,
the minimum plumbing fixtures of the 1997 edition of the Uniform
Building Code. He said the department had no problem with that
amendment.
Number 0363
MR. PERKINS noted there had also been some discussion about
Appendix L which was intentionally left out in the legislation for
a couple of reasons. He stated, "One is that in ... Appendix L of
the ... code regarding engineer plumbing systems, in 'L' 2.2 ... it
talks about that the designer of the system is to provide periodic
inspection to the installation on a schedule found suitable to
administrative authority. It also talks about the water heat ...
exchanger. You may remember, a couple years ago we talked about
the single wall heat exchangers; that is currently in statute ...
we are not changing that at all. This is only to reflect the
latest edition of the ... plumbing code, so we feel that that's
being redundant. In statute we do - the department does ... grant
exceptions from the code if they are requested and there is a
procedure to do that, but in section 3 of the plumbing code it also
talks about the ability to adopt some other type of system. So, it
was intentional that the department did leave out 'section' L. We
would like to keep that out, we don't see the need for it and ...
that concludes my testimony and I'm available to answer questions."
Number 0497
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY said the committee had some letters
from the homebuilders and others which recommended adding the
wording "other nationally recognized codes" for more flexibility in
the future. He asked Mr. Perkins if he had problems with that.
Number 0531
MR. PERKINS replied in the affirmative. He said the UPC was the
current minimum standard, and had been since the early 1970s when
the state of Alaska adopted plumbing codes. He said the other
nationally recognized code being referred to had been written since
1995 and adopted in two states, to his knowledge. Mr. Perkins said
he did not believe that was the code the state of Alaska would like
to adopt at this time. If that code became the superior code for
some reason, he believed it would come back before the legislature
for that discussion. The department had adopted, and wanted to
continue to adopt, the UPC as its minimum standard.
Number 0595
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if the language, "nationally
recognized codes", referred to the code Mr. Perkins was talking
about, or was it a broad or generic reference.
Number 0607
MR. PERKINS replied the code they were referring to was the other
nationally recognized code. The only one he was familiar with was
the International Plumbing Code (IPC). He said it is not done by
consensus as the UPC is. He indicated the IPC is written by a
group of building code officials without professional mechanical
contractors, engineers and the professionals in the plumbing and
mechanical systems, so therefore the department would rely heavily
on the UPC rather than what was been quoted as "the other
nationally recognized code" and would like to stay with the UPC.
Number 0672
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated CSSB 269(L&C) deleted subsection (a) of
the existing plumbing code, AS 18.60.705, and replaced it with this
language; leaving in subsection (b) and (c). He said (b) had to do
with the pipefittings and the percentage of lead in solders, et
cetera; and (c) was the famous single wall heat exchanger issue,
which would remain allowable. Chairman Rokeberg indicated he
understood from his discussions with people that this (indisc.)
mentioned failure to adopt the Appendix L was because subsection
(c) was in the law and would remain in the law.
MR. PERKINS stated the chairman was absolutely correct and had a
pretty good grasp.
Number 0742
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG continued that one of the problems with adopting
Appendix L were some inspection requirements which would result in
undue burden and added cost to local and state building officials.
Number 0753
MR. PERKINS said that was correct. He additionally stated that for
design systems other than materials normally used in the designing
of systems, under section 3 of the 1997 edition of the UPC, they
could come to the administrative authority and ask for
consideration for those kinds of waivers. He indicated that was
set-up in regulation in AS 18.60.710, duties of the department.
Number 0803
REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN apologized for his lateness, noting he had
a bill up in the Senate. He asked Mr. Perkins if the department
was for or against the bill.
MR. PERKINS said the department fully supported CSSB 269(L&C), the
version which came from the Senate.
Number 0853
RON WATTS, Building Official, Building Safety Division, Department
of Public Works, Municipality of Anchorage, testified next via
teleconference from Anchorage. He stated the municipality would go
on record as supporting the bill, but asked the committee to
consider inserting the words "other nationally recognized codes"
into Section 1, paragraph (a) of the bill; and deleting the words
"a later edition of the following publication". He indicated in
explanation that the current language would lock the municipality
and any other home rule jurisdiction into having to adopt the UPC
in the future. It would also prevent, particularly the
municipality and, again, any other home rule charter, from adopting
any of the family of consolidated and coordinated codes coming out
in the year 2000. Also, he said they would think that the state of
Alaska should have the option to adopt any other nationally
recognized codes if it so chose, and not be locked into any
particular code.
Number 0923
MR. WATTS also addressed a couple points brought up by, he said,
"Commissioner Cashen" (DOL). Mr. Watts indicated the code Mr.
Perkins of the DOL was referring to, the IPC, would be a part of
this consolidated family of codes in 2000, and that code was
officially written a couple of years ago by a national committee
made up of the plumbing industry, the mechanical engineering
communities, plumbing and mechanical officials, industry people.
It was patterned very closely after the "national plumbing code"
and the "southern plumbing code" which have been in effect since
1924 and 1930, if he recalls correctly. Mr. Watts said, at any
rate, it had been around for years; it is used in the northeastern
and southern parts of the country. He said they would really like
to make sure the option to adopt another code existed in the future
if it was so chosen, indicating the situation, interest and need
might not come up. However, if it did, they should not be
restricted from that option, which this bill would definitely do as
presently written.
Number 1012
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG congratulated Mr. Watts on his appointment as the
Municipality of Anchorage's building official, noting he has worked
with Mr. Watts for over 20 years. Chairman Rokeberg asked Mr.
Watts how long he had been with the municipality.
MR. WATTS replied almost 25 years.
Number 1040
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the UPC was written by the International
Conference of Building Officials (ICBO).
Number 1058
MR. WATTS replied it was written by the "international association
of mechanical officials."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if that organization was a member of the
ICBO.
MR. WATTS replied it was not. He noted there has been a long
history over this whole issue, commenting that it boiled down to
politics. Mr. Watts explained that the ICBO and "international
association of mechanical officials" were basically joint owners of
the code process up until about three years ago. He indicated the
following groups and codes got together, attempting to consolidate
all the codes nationally: the international and uniform code; the
national codes published by the BOCA group [Building Officials and
Code Administrators (BOCA) International, Incorporated], a
northeastern group; and the southern group, "southern building code
congress" [Southern Building Code Congress International,
Incorporated (SBCCI)]. Mr. Watts said there was pressure from the
architectural, engineering and construction communities for a
consolidated group of codes. So, he said, the effort was
undertaken to do that, and in consequence, ICBO signed up to this
effort and actually asked IAPMO to be a portion of that.
Number 1143
MR. WATTS said negotiations went on for well over a year, not
proceeding satisfactorily, and then there were two lawsuits filed
by the "international association of mechanical officials" against
the "national conference of building officials" because of the
effort in proceeding with the international code. He said what
will be coming out in 2000 will be called the international code,
and so this was the IPC basically versus the UPC. Mr. Watts
stated, "The Uniform Plumbing Code is a very strict code. It is
very rigid in terms of - of the requirements, the materials, the
methods of installation. The International Plumbing Code is being
written in a little more of a - a performance code format, and the
reason for that is that all the national codes and international
codes are going that direction. There's a real pressure push from
industry to allow a little more flexibility in design and
installation of not only plumbing but mechanical, electrical,
building, structural components, all that combined. So the effort
is an attempt to allow a little more flexibility ... into the
design and installation. And that's the direction the codes are
going, and whether I agree with it or not, I don't think that any
one individual or probably any one group is gonna be able to stop
that, because there is a definite push by the industry to go that
direction."
Number 1244
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Watts if he was on the board of
directors or had an affiliation with the ICBO.
MR. WATTS answered in the affirmative.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked how long he had been on the board.
MR. WATTS replied since 1992.
Number 1259
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked what would keep the state from
adopting some other code in the future, or in 2000, if it was
decided that was something that had to be done.
Number 1274
MR. WATTS said nothing, except this language in this bill would
definitely preclude it. He quoted from page 1, lines 5 and 6, of
the bill, "and unless the department adopts by regulation a later
edition of the following publications,". He said it went on to
list those publications and the only plumbing publication was the
UPC. Mr. Watts indicated that was the reason the municipality was
recommending the deletion of the wording "a later edition of the
following publication ["codes" stated on tape]" and the insertion
of "other nationally recognized codes" so the flexibility would
exist. He stated, "It doesn't say that you can't and may not go
ahead and adopt the Uniform Plumbing Code, but at least you do have
the option if something else came along and you so choose to do it.
But that would be left up to, either local jurisdiction and/or to
the state to do that, but you are aware that the state does have a
requirement that says that you can't be any less restrictive -- I
don't think [it] says that you have to adopt the exact code if
you're a home rule charter, but then the question comes: Are there
differences? And I will tell you right now that there's at least
three or four major efforts going in terms of - of comparison,
right down to individual word by word of these two particular
codes. So there's a lot of work going on right now to analyze
that, but the jury's still out, I think, as far saying that one is
absolute totally superior over the other one, and/or the other one
is such a new ... code that it hasn't been tested. And again, as
I said earlier, basically the basis for the International Plumbing
Code comes primarily from the ... national plumbing code and the
southern plumbing code."
Number 1381
PETE JURCZAK, Lead Plumbing Inspector, Sitka Office, Mechanical
Inspection Section, Division of Labor Standards and Safety,
Department of Labor, testified next via teleconference from Sitka.
He said Mr. Perkins asked him to sit in on the hearing and offer
comments. He concurred with the present language in CSSB 269(L&C),
noting he has been a plumbing inspector for the state for 10 years
and has been in the industry for 25 years. He said he thought it
would really be a hindrance to the industry if two different codes
were adopted throughout the state; in other words, having the
different municipalities and the state on different codes. He
indicated that engineering-wise, and also for the industry, the
contractors and the plumbers, it would create a lot of confusion
about the requirements. Secondly, he said, the 1997 UPC published
by IAPMO was an international or national code; it was an
amalgamation of the UPC, the ANSI/A-40 (ph) plumbing code, and the
"national standard plumbing code." He said it has been adopted
throughout the country in many states, it is not a regional code.
Mr. Jurczak noted he was not there to debate the better code, and
he said he did not know that the UPC was more restrictive. From
his experience, he said he thought the UPC had an advantage in that
it definitely was a broader code and covered more areas of the
plumbing industry than the IPC did. He thought that for a plumber
or an engineer to use the IPC, published by ICBO, a contractor,
plumber would be required to carry three or four additional code
books because not all the information that the UPC currently
contains was in the IPC. He stated the UPC was the more user-
friendly plumbing code.
Number 1510
STEVE SHUTTLEWORTH, Building Official, Building Department, City of
Fairbanks, testified next via teleconference from Fairbanks. He
commented on the helpfulness of Chairman Rokeberg's staff. Mr.
Shuttleworth noted a March 11, 1998, letter to the committee
indicating the amended language the city would like to see in SB
269 [From the March 11, 1998 letter: "... We recommend that
Section 1, Paragraph (a) be revised to read as follows: (a) Except
as provided otherwise in this section, and unless the department
adopts by regulation other nationally recognized codes [a later
edition of the following publications] the following publications
are adopted as the minimum plumbing code for the state:"] He said
that, realistically, all they are asking is to have an option. He
said he is not so sure what the best code may be three or four
years from now, stating, "(Indisc.) the industry for 19 years, I
can't predict which would be the best code or the most appropriate
course of action for the state of Alaska."
Number 1567
MR. SHUTTLEWORTH continued, "Mr. Perkins certainly cannot state
unequivocally that that would be the best way to go as well, nobody
can. And because none of us have a crystal ball, it's only prudent
public policy to give yourself an option, and if we put that
amended language in that we requested, it will at least allow us to
engage in a technical discussion and debate with the Department of
Labor at - at a later time period. Technocrat will be able to
speak to technocrat persons, we won't have to belabor the
legislature when you're embroiled in issues such as subsistence,
finance and education bills, etc. But if we're just looking at
this to be politically expedient, we are really doing the wrong
thing. I don't know why we'd want to eliminate an option, I think
it is just a little shortsighted. The other comment that we have
is that if the state is so confident that the Uniform Plumbing Code
is the best, then what are we afraid of by having an option in
there? I think we ought to discuss on the base of merits."
Number 1616
MR. SHUTTLEWORTH continued, "A couple of other comments would be is
that Appendix L really needs to be adopted, it is not redundant.
Section, subsection 2.2 does put a burden on the designers to go
ahead and inspect this work but that doesn't invalidate the entire
appendix. If a ... designer wants to use that and he wants to fly
to Fort Yukon to make sure his approved or his alternate system is
in right, that's his option. If he can't do that then he has to go
back to the body of the plumbing code and perform in a proprietary
fashion, but at least gives them the option. If you eliminate
Appendix L, home rule cities such as Fairbanks, Anchorage, Juneau,
et cetera, that have full-service building departments, we would
not be able to use this. And it doesn't make sense that, for
instance, a professionally-licensed mechanical engineer would be
enjoined from ... practicing his profession. So, realistically, if
we ... just go with recognizing only the UPC as sole source, it's
really analogous to saying that if you're in the state all you can
do is buy Fords, you can't buy Chevys or anything else that -
that's out there. And I think that's where I had a philosophical
problem with, and I've discussed this with the mayor, and the city
concurs that we would just like to have an option and we'll let the
merits of the ... actual codes (indisc.) themselves out."
Number 1680
MR. SHUTTLEWORTH continued, "And the last comment is that the UPC
is - is more stricter. That could be good, that could be bad, but
I do know that the UPC is - is somewhat intolerant of plastic pipe;
they have a long track record of being somewhat adverse to plastic
pipe and I think therein lies some differences fundamental from the
IPC. And it's interesting to note that in your Appendix L that the
UPC does finally address the single wall coils that we debated two
years ago ... and I - I think it just shows that this code is
somewhat ultraconservative in areas that may be detrimental to
plumbing installations in the Bush, as well as home rule cities.
So again, I just ... appreciate to give this another look. As
being an ex-high school baseball coach, I can tell you, I like to
go into a game having an option, and if I'm not given an option,
I'm not too successful, and I don't see why the state legislature
would want to paint themselves in a corner, and I think that's just
not prudent policy ...."
Number 1732
REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA said, "You stated that the city council
and the mayor agreed ... with this statement, yet ..."
MR. SHUTTLEWORTH responded, "I had a meeting personally with Mayor
Hayes and went through the language that we submitted down to you,
and we discussed that at - at some length. And I could not tell
the mayor that I thought the IPC was the best or the UPC was the
best because, as Mr. Watts has articulately stated, that debate is
ongoing right now, and I really don't have a dog in that fight, but
I do know that philosophically he agreed that we do need to have at
least an option. It only makes sense."
Number 1764
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if the city council had passed a
resolution or something similar on this.
MR. SHUTTLEWORTH answered in the negative.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said, "I'm just looking at a letter from you
that sort of says something opposite from - from Mr. Swarner, and
..."
Number 1781
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the committee had a letter from Romar
Swarner, Fairbanks City Council, taking exception to Mr.
Shuttleworth's position, and he asked if Mr. Shuttleworth was aware
of that. Mr. Swarner's letter reads:
You have received a letter from the City of Fairbanks'
Building Official stating the City of Fairbanks does not
support Senate Bill No. 269 in its present form. This
statement is not correct. To the best of my knowledge,
the City of Fairbanks Code Review Commission has not
discussed this issue nor does Mr. Shuttleworth have the
authority to make this statement. The Fairbanks City
Council certainly has not taken any position or action on
this issue and to the contrary of the earlier statement,
would support the present form of this bill.
Giving local municipalities a full range of options, if
and when they become available, is not good public policy
when life/safety issues involve something as important as
the State Plumbing Code. Until such a time as the
unknown is stated and can be reviewed, it is my opinion,
the Uniform Plumbing Code has served the City of
Fairbanks well. [Mr. Swarner provides a contact phone
number for further questions.]
MR. SHUTTLEWORTH answered in the negative, commenting that was not
particularly unusual as well.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if that was what Representative Kubina was
referring to.
Number 1794
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said, "I guess ... I'm just concerned that
someone, without any (indisc.) position taken from the City of
Fairbanks, is representing the City of Fairbanks' position, and
normally, if where somebody's gonna represent it, the city would
send us something in a resolution form or something, rather than
just taking an individual's word for it, that's all."
Number 1820
MR. SHUTTLEWORTH said he cannot send letters out in this format
without approval from his boss, the mayor. He said he works for
the mayor, not the city council; the mayor directs the policy for
the city. He stated, "There may be constituents within the council
that agree and/or disagree, but I take my direction from the mayor
and this letter was not written without that process and without
that thought, and it is not unusual to have some ... difference of
opinion in various council or assemblies' level. We did not, last
time, when we went through HB 224 on the single wall coil, we did
not have to debate the issue or put the issue in resolution form at
that time, so I don't know why this letter would be invalidated
because one city councilman takes exception to it."
Number 1858
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG thanked Mr. Shuttleworth, noting he most vividly
remembered their discussions in 1995 over adoption of the last
plumbing bill, and he said this legislature did not want to see
another one in quite some time.
Number 1871
LARRY LONG, Plumbing Inspector, City of Fairbanks, testified next
via teleconference from Fairbanks. He stated he has been the
plumbing inspector in Fairbanks for 17 years, and has been in the
trade for 30 years. He agreed with Mr. Watts and Mr. Shuttleworth
that not leaving an option open was somewhat blind. Mr. Long said
he had worked with the UPC, been at their conferences, seen how the
system was devised. At the present time, if he were asked, he
would say the UPC was the code he would like to enforce. However,
he indicated he would not like to ignore the fact that there might
be a better plumbing code in the future. Referring to Appendix L,
Mr. Long stated, "I think as diverse and as complicated as our
plumbing systems are, trying to keep 'em working in arctic
conditions, I look forward to and enjoy working with professional
people that come up with innovative designs and can't take the time
to put these in code form, and this Appendix L would leave things
open to innovative designs and improved systems that wouldn't have
to go through the rigorous code adoption processes. I think
Appendix L would be extremely helpful in the Bush communities where
you have unique situations that -- let's face it, the Uniform
Plumbing Code is written and designed by people in Southern
California who wouldn't know an icicle if they saw one. So I think
the adoption of Appendix L is rather important and I think leaving
(indisc.) options open in the future for different codes is
important."
Number 1943
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that was the last of the teleconferenced
testimony.
Number 1957
SHARON MACKLIN, Lobbyist for Alaska Professional Design Council,
came forward to testify in Juneau. She stated the Alaska
Professional Design Council is a coalition of architects,
engineers, landscape architects and land surveyors; representing
approximately 1,400 licensees in the state. She said, "We
definitely support the bill, we think its -- well, it's an issue,
the whole adoption of the plumbing code that's been around for a
long time as most of you know and we feel the Department of Labor
should have the ... ability to adopt the latest plumbing code. As
far as the proposed amendments to allow an - an option for the
department to select another code, we are supporting that. We feel
very strongly that although this new code is not in force, ... the
Department of Labor should have that option and that would be the
right place for the discussion to be held about it. So, we are
supporting that and I ... appreciate your time and effort."
Number 2013
RUSS CHANEY, Executive Director, International Association for
Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, came forward to testify next.
He said the IAPMO was the author of the UPC and was headquartered
in Southern California, approximately 30 miles east of Los Angeles.
He said he would give some background and address some of the
assertions made. Since 1972, as Mr. Perkins has stipulated, the
state of Alaska has adopted the UPC, and to his knowledge there has
been no problem at all with the implementation or the maintenance
of that document. The industry within this state has been, and
continues to be, trained on the provision of the UPC.
Additionally, there are a number of people from the state of Alaska
who participate in the IAPMO's code change process, and he said
that is really the crux of this issue, in so far as adding
additional wording with regard to an alternate plumbing code. Mr.
Chaney said that, as Mr. Watts pointed out, there is a transition
occurring in the building community. Without getting into great
detail, he said as an example, about three years ago there were
seven nationally recognized plumbing codes promulgated in the
United States. In an effort to standardize the provisions of those
codes and make it easier for the users of those codes to comply
with those provisions, two different processes began. One process
was instituted by the membership of the ICBO; the "building and
code administrators international" [Building Officials and Code
Administrators (BOCA) International, Incorporated]; and the
"southern building code congress, incorporated" [Southern Building
Code Congress International, Incorporated (SBCCI)]. Those
organizations are predominantly made up of building officials or
local administrators, and he said that is the organization Mr.
Watts has served as a board member for since 1992.
Number 2098
MR. CHANEY said the other process has seen the development of the
UPC through an industry process. As he said Mr. Jurczak pointed
out, the 1997 UPC is an amalgamation of three previously recognized
codes: the 1994 edition of the UPC; the 1993 edition of the United
States-only ANSI (ph) consensus plumbing code, the A-40 (ph) code;
and the 1996 edition of the "national standard plumbing code,"
which had been recognized by the federal government. Those three
documents went into the provisions of the latest edition of the
UPC, which, Mr. Chaney said, is by far the most technologically
advanced document that has ever been produced in the United States.
The processes that the IAPMO utilizes to develop the contents of
the UPC differ from the process that is utilized to develop this
alternative code, the IPC. He said the IPC is developed by
inspectors, and only inspectors are permitted to vote on the
provisions contained in that code.
Number 2150
MR. CHANEY continued that alternatively, the process used by IAPMO
and its industry allies, the National Association of Plumbing,
Heating, Cooling Contractors (NAPHCC); and the Mechanical
Contractors Association of America (MCAA), is more open. He said
any affected party within the plumbing industry is provided the
opportunity to vote; nobody is denied the opportunity to vote. He
stated, "If we wanted to participate in the development of the
International Plumbing Code, and you are not a working inspector
that happened to belong to one of the three organizations that I
had mentioned earlier, you could not vote. We would simply be
relegated to testifying at code change hearings, and that's as far
as our influence would go. We could not stand up and be heard as
to what our position would be, and that's the philosophical
difference that drove IAPMO and ICBO apart in 1994. IAPMO decided
to go to a pure consensus open process to allow all affected
industries the ability to participate and ICBO decided to join
together with their sister organizations who have traditionally
developed the building code." Mr. Chaney said the UPC is adopted
in more than 30 states, and he is very proud to announce the
government of Vietnam has adopted the UPC as that country's
recognized plumbing code. He noted the UPC is used in at least ten
other countries outside of the United States and is a true
international document. He stated, "It's used as a basis, just as
it's used here in Alaska. They are minimum requirements."
Number 2216
MR. CHANEY address Appendix L, indicating the DOL had inadvertently
created some confusion. He said, "Appendix L, and in particularly,
the single wall heat exchanger coil, resulted from the problems
that were experienced here in Alaska two years ago. We never had
Appendix L in the body of our code and in particular provisions for
the indirect heat exchanger coil. The reason it is there is to
address the issues that were correctly raised by the community here
in Alaska. So what we have done in essence is provide provisions
in Appendix L for the other 49 states as well as the international
countries that adopt our code, and introduce that document now into
Alaska, not realizing that you've already provided for those
provisions in statute. So the Department of Labor made a judgement
to eliminate Appendix L because the - the provisions were already
provided for in the statute that was passed two years ago."
Number 2255
MR. CHANEY said, "Alternatively, the issue has been raised about
engineer design systems, which is another provision that's
contained in Appendix L. ... Section 301.2 [UPC] provides the
criteria that is contained in Appendix L also. So design
professionals, contractors, material manufacturers, government
representatives, whoever it may be, has the opportunity to design
systems consistent with the provisions in Appendix L or the
provisions in section 301.2. It's the same information, it doesn't
deny anybody from deviating from the minimum requirements of our
code. We recognize that as a model code developing organization,
we can't possibly provide all of the criteria that people need
throughout this country. There are geographical differences, there
are climatic differences, there are political differences. We
provide a minimum code, you make judgments locally as to whether or
not the provisions ... of this code is suitable for your use. ...
We're prepared to continue support the adoption and maintenance and
implementation of the Uniform Plumbing Code here in Alaska, ...
we've done it for 26 years without any problems that I'm aware of,
we will continue to support government, the industry, plumbing
inspectors, anyone who needs our assistance. We provide seminars
on a regular basis here and we continue to train anyone that needs
the training."
Number 2320
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS asked Mr. Chaney if he'd ever seen an
icicle.
MR. CHANEY replied he had, stating he was from New Jersey not
Southern California.
Number 2335
EDWARD SALTZBERG came forward to testify next. He said he was a
consulting mechanical engineer and stated, "I'm representing today
the Industry Health and Safety Code Council [IHSCC] group that
undertook, because of their concern about the health and safety of
the public, undertook the code comparison that I think all of you
have been given a copy of."
Number 2352
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG directed the committee members' attention to the
copies in their packets, noting the author was sitting before them.
Number 2359
MR. SALTZBERG said, "I am a registered mechanical engineer ...,
registered in 16 states in the Lower 48. I have ... spent the last
50 years installing plumbing and designing and inspecting plumbing
systems. I am a co-founder of the American Society of Plumbing
Engineers, known as ASPE, and I am a past national president; [I]
currently serve on ASPE's code committee. I'm the past national
education chairman for ASPE and have taught plumbing system design
at UCLA [University of California at Los Angeles] Extension and I'm
also on their national code committee. We've heard some testimony
here today about the relative merits of the Uniform Plumbing Code
and the IPC. You have before you, an impartial review of the two
documents, and many of the statements that were made about the
performance basis of the IPC and the conservative nature of the
Uniform Plumbing Code are absolutely invalid and not true. In some
aspects, the IPC is far more conservative for no reason whatsoever.
For example, it says that you shall have two water services to
every hospital. Period, end of discussion, whether there's a water
main out there ... that's it, it's in the code. So, the
legislature has the right to adopt any document they want, but I,
as a professional engineer and the plumbing community, we've heard
comments that the IPC is a performance document. The profession
doesn't want performance, they want a minimum criteria, they don't
want to have to do a research project every time they design a
plumbing system."
Number 2443
MR. SALTZBERG continued, "The Uniform Plumbing Code provides a
minimum standard for the design of an installation of plumbing.
The IPC does not, and I'd like to give a - a minimal example if I
can, I don't want to get real technical. In the water section
there is no criteria for the sizing that is - is to be installed in
a structure. They do have a section, 604.3, that gives the
requirement for fixtures, and, for example, a - a shower says 3
gallons a minute at 20 pounds pressure, and - and this is in the
body of this document. The next table over, 604.4, lists shower
at 2.5 gallons a minute at 80 pounds pressure. Well, you can't
provide 2 1/2 gallons at 80 pounds pressure and 3 gallons a 20
pounds pressure, the two are incompatible. Then in - in addition,
on 604.5 it says that showers shall have ..." [TESTIMONY
INTERRUPTED BY TAPE CHANGE]
TAPE 98-37, SIDE B
Number 0001
MR. SALTZBERG continued, "... (indisc.) you shall reduce it one
size. You may not be able to, if you reduce it one size you can't
get the flow so you have all of these conflicting, and there is no
basic statement of how to size a water [?], it's in the appendix,
and the appendix conflicts with the body. So, therefore, the
Uniform Plumbing Code has been the accepted national standard as
the minimum document for the health and safety of the public and it
has served Alaska well and it's served about 30 other states
extremely well. And it has got the input of the entire cross
section of the plumbing community: the engineers, the
manufacturers, the contractors, the installers, the building
officials; all of 'em have come together and have come up with the
document. This, the IPC, is done solely by the building officials,
and therefore, I urge that this committee adopt the - the current
language that you have, that the Uniform Plumbing Code be adopted.
The Appendix L is already in the body of the code under alternative
methods and procedures; it allows any professional to come in with
any sort of design for unique installation."
Number 0069
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Saltzberg had had a chance to look
at the Alaska Statute which refers to the single wall heat
exchanger.
MR. SALTZBERG said he was aware that Alaska has it but had not
looked at the language.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he also had a question about lead
pipes, suggesting Mr. Saltzberg might review the statute before
CSSB 269(L&C) passed out of committee.
Number 0093
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN questioned whether it was single wall or
double.
Number 0095
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied it was single. He said they have had
this argument too many times and were not going to have it again.
He indicated this might be the bill's last committee of referral
before it reached the House floor. Chairman Rokeberg stated that
concluded the public testimony on CSSB 269(L&C), asking if the
committee had any discussion.
Number 0125
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON said he was somewhat confused because
the committee had heard from representatives of the City of
Fairbanks as well as professional bodies that it would be good
public policy to give some options. Representative Hudson
indicating he was referring to the suggested addition of the
language, "other nationally recognized codes". He said he liked to
believe that flexibility or options were good when establishing
state law and asked for an explanation, stating, "I really hope
somebody could maybe give me a better understanding of why we
should not have that other (indisc.) -- because it's so technical,
I - I got lost a little bit by the last two ... folks that
testified here.
Number 0163
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said his answer would be, "We have adopted
this code by statute. The only thing that ... this bill is
allowing is the updated version to be put in by regulation. If
somebody wants to bring a different code back, then they can do so,
and we're the ones that would make that decision whether that is.
We decided this one was the one that we wanted, we have adopted it,
and if somebody wants to bring us another code, then we could say,
'Alright, we want to change that one to this one at some time in
the future.' But, I'm afraid to where we go because of the
controversies we get in with these bills, and you know of much of
the debate and arguments. I would not just want to put it out to
the department to then -- who knowing's running the department next
year or the year after, and what kind of -- then changes come that
we would then have to get into the middle of a real donnybrook
because somebody has changed codes and it's caused us problems.
So, my feeling is, allow them to use the updated version, but if
somebody wants to change the code, come back to this committee with
a bill and explain to us why."
Number 0220
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he agreed with Representative Kubina's
analysis. He asked if there were any other comments.
Number 0224
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said, "From what I've seen of building
departments throughout the state and the difficulties that people
have trying to (indisc.) their own (indisc.) into residences or
buildings with the arbitrary nature of city employees, the more
uniformity and the less option for local employees to exercise
their discretion, the more I'm for it. I think that a person
should know going in what it is they have to do and if they do it,
they shouldn't have to put up with a bunch of folks coming down and
reading them chapter and verse." He asked if the chairman wanted
a motion.
Number 0247
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called for a brief at ease [THE TIMES THE
COMMITTEE WENT AT EASE AND CAME BACK TO ORDER WERE NOT NOTED IN THE
TAPE LOG NOTES].
Number 0253
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN made a motion to move CSSB 269(L&C), dated
3/4/98, out of committee with accompanying zero fiscal note and
individual recommendations. There being no objections, CSSB
269(L&C) was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee.
Number 0306
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at ease at 4:18 p.m. The
committee came back to order at 4:20 p.m.
HB 319 - EMPLOYEES: NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY
Number 0311
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
was "An Act relating to an employee's expectation of privacy in
employer premises."
HB 319 read:
* Section 1. AS 23.10 is amended by adding a new section
to article 7 to read:
Sec. 23.10.450. No employee expectation of privacy
in employment site. In the absence of a specific
agreement to the contrary, an employee has no expectation
of privacy with respect to premises and equipment
supplied by the employer, and an employer may have
reasonable access to premises and equipment supplied by
the employer to the employee. In the absence of an
agreement permitting the employee to limit the employer's
access to premises and equipment, an employee shall
permit the employer to have access to the employer's
premises and equipment, including information stored on
a computer or computer network supplied by the employer.
Number 0321
JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman
Rokeberg, came forward to present HB 319. She stated the sponsor
became interested in this area because of the case in Fairbanks
involving the University of Alaska. She said HB 319 basically said
an employee would have no expectation of privacy on an employer's
premise or using an employer's equipment, absent a specific
agreement. This was to encourage employers and employees to set
out parameters for use of an employer's premises and equipment.
Ms. Seitz noted the bill packet contained support letters from the
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce and the Alaska Miners Association.
The sponsor statement read:
House Bill 319 addresses a contemporary issue. With the
advent of modern technology and the use of same in office
places, many employees are using employer's equipment to
access the Internet and send e-mail messages. While some
employers have policies in place that make the employer's
policy on this use plain, many do not. House Bill 319
would make it clear that, absent an agreement to the
contrary, an employee has no expectation of privacy on an
employer's premises.
My 1998 House District 11 survey posed the following
question: Should state law allow an employer the right
to regulate all employee use of employer facilities and
equipment? (i.e., internet, computer games, etc.). An
overwhelming majority (341) favored such a law while a
minority (86) opposed.
A lawsuit involving the University of Alaska at Fairbanks
brought this matter to my attention. An employee should
not have the ability to use an employer's equipment and
then not expect the employer to be able to terminate that
employee for improper use of such equipment.
House Bill 319 does permit the employee and employer to
negotiate an agreement regarding access to premises and
equipment. It is a step towards protecting both the
employer and the employee and helping each party
understand the other party's rights in the areas of
workplace privacy and use of premises and equipment.
I would urge your support of this legislation.
MS. SEITZ asked if the chairman wished her to address the
amendments.
Number 0356
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered in the affirmative, noting the
amendments were marked A.1, A.2 and A.3. He designated amendment
A.1 as Amendment 1, indicating the amendments clarified some issues
in the bill.
Number 0376
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled
0-LS1211\A.1, Cramer, dated 3/20/98, for purposes of discussion.
Amendment 1 read:
Page 1, line 5, following "specific":
Insert "written"
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "an"
Insert "a written"
Number 0389
MS. SEITZ stated Amendment 1 added the language "written" to ensure
those agreements are specific written agreements.
Number 0400
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 1. There
being no objections, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 0409
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, labeled
0-LS1211\A.2, Cramer, dated 3/25/98.
Amendment 2 read:
Page 1, line 4, following "site.":
Insert "(a)"
Page 1, following line 11:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) In this section, "employer" means a
person who has one or more employees and
includes the state, the University of Alaska,
the Alaska Railroad, and political
subdivisions and public corporations of the
state."
MS. SEITZ stated Amendment 2 inserted a definition of "employer" so
there would be no question in that section as to what an employer
was.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed that for clarity it meant private as
well as public entities.
MS. SEITZ answered in the affirmative.
Number 0434
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections to Amendment
2. There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 0438
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to adopt Amendment 3, labeled
0-LS1211\A.3, Cramer, dated 3/25/98.
Amendment 3 read:
Page 1, line 6:
Delete "premises and"
Insert "business premises and business"
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "premises and"
Insert "business premises and business"
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "premises and"
Insert "business premises and business"
Page 1, line 10, following employer's":
Insert "business"
MS. SEITZ stated Amendment 3 added "business", making it clear the
premises were to be the business premises, and the business
equipment of the employer. She said there were some employers who
provided residential lodging for their employees, such as
construction and logging camps, and the ferry system. She
indicated the amendment was intended to make sure those residential
areas were not covered by the legislation.
Number 0464
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections to Amendment
3. There being none, Amendment 3 was adopted.
Number 0478
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN indicated this bill represented no guarantee of
privacy but negotiations would be allowed to be made. He asked if
this would become subject to a collective bargaining negotiation as
condition of employment.
Number 0496
MS. SEITZ replied the state had an agreement for its employees to
sign, noting it was in the bill packet [State Policy Regarding
Personal Use of State Office Technologies, revised October 9,
1996]. She said perhaps Mr. McMullen from the Division of
Personnel could answer the collective bargaining aspect of it
better than she could.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented he certainly could not and the
committee would wait for that, if Representative Ryan did not mind.
Number 0509
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY gave the example of an employee who owned
his own personal computer and asked if this addressed that
situation.
Number 0522
MS. SEITZ replied that she was not an attorney, but said they had
inserted the word "business" in front of "premises and equipment",
to read "employer's business premises and equipment". Ms. Seitz
said she did not know, indicating it might be different relating to
Representative Cowdery's own computer and Mr. McMullen or Ms.
Redman might be able to expound on that since they dealt more with
personnel matters.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if they were talking about a privately-
owned computer in a business premises.
Number 0548
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY answered in the affirmative, noting he had
his own computer in his office as well as state-owned computers,
and he indicated he hope only he would have access to his
personally-owned computer.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that was business equipment and on the
premises.
Number 0561
MS. SEITZ said Ms. Redman was indicating it would not cover a
personally owned computer.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that would be his reading of it.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he hoped so.
Number 0577
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said that brought up a point, noting he was
not sure who their employer would be. He commented they were state
employees in a way and he asked if this gave somebody in the state,
Legislative Council, the right to look on their personal computers
as legislators.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he hoped not.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN expressed his displeasure at that thought.
Number 0594
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he wanted that cleared up and that was
why he spoke of that.
SHIRLEY ARMSTRONG, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman
Rokeberg, directed the chairman's attention to the language,
"business premises and equipment supplied by the employer". She
indicated that did not include personally-owned computers.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked, "What if it's connected at ...
(indisc.) expense?"
Number 0620
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, "Inasmuch as that we're a separate
branch of government we ... can develop our own policy, but without
an express contract to the contrary, there would be -- but who
employs us is the issue, right?"
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA agreed it was a good question.
Number 0636
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN commented they had received a medical package
the previous year he had not been asked if he wanted, noting the
decision had been made for him. He said there were certain
policies on computers and service and whether someone had a
personal one and so forth, noting these policies had been made
without any consultation. Representative Ryan stated he had asked
"leg (indisc.)" to give him an opinion on that. He said, "So there
are a lot of people around here who like to take it upon themselves
to make a lot of decisions that affect everybody else, and
(indisc.) talk about that in caucus, (indisc.) special orders
(indisc.) day, but I think you should be advised that - that
possibility is there. Power abhors a vacuum."
Number 0667
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated he was in favor of the
legislation, referring to letters in the bill packet about past
abuse, if there was the assurance that their personally-owned
equipment was not subject to this. He indicated he had known of
people using municipally-owned equipment for their personal
business when he worked for the Municipality of Anchorage.
Number 0700
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President for University Relations, University
of Alaska, came forward to testify. She said, given the
conversation she had just heard, her testimony would probably would
not be viewed as particularly helpful. She stated the Tuttle case
which had precipitated this action was the case at the University
of Alaska [Fairbanks] where pornographic information was found for
an employee. She noted the material was held on a "Zip" drive
which was the employee's own piece of equipment in the workplace
[Note: a Zip drive is a computer memory drive made by Iomega
Corporation which stores information on removable Zip disks]. Ms.
Redman said, therefore, in order to make the legislation effective
in that instance, it would have to include language which said
"property and information located on or within the business
premises" to cover personal equipment people might have in the
workplace.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA commented, "A lot stronger."
MS. REDMAN agreed.
Number 0753
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that was Representative Kubina's analysis
of a stronger language than the bill maintained.
Number 0759
MS. REDMAN said stronger in some aspects, noting she would
certainly recommend that there be language in there, and she said
she thought "reasonable" probably did not go far enough. She said
the university's suggested there be a statement that any access be
for "good faith managerial purpose", that it be more specific than
just "reasonable". According to the university's attorney, "good
faith managerial purpose" was a phrase with some legal meaning and
it excluded property of an employee which was obviously of a
personal nature. She indicated this would include purses, lunch
boxes or anything people brought into the office and took home in
the evening. Ms. Redman noted, however, if employees chose to
bring their own equipment into the workplace - computers, filing
cabinets, Zip drives, whatever - it would be implied that if the
employees were using this equipment in the workplace, then these
employers should have the same access to this equipment that they
have to equipment provided by the employer to the employee. She
noted this would be the university's contention.
Number 0832
MS. REDMAN said the university was clearly not interested in doing,
nor had any history of doing, unreasonable searches of people's
computers, offices or anything else at the university. However,
she said the university did make it clear to its employees, as she
thought the state did, that no one had a right to believe anything
they were doing in the workplace was private. She said everything
that went on that computer was subject to access by the supervisor.
Ms. Redman indicated the university did not expect its employees to
be using university time, computers, or equipment for personal
business, or for any kind of communication of such a nature that it
couldn't be viewed by anyone else. She added the university made
that very clear to its employees.
Number 0883
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated he thought the bill language, "an
employer may have reasonable access to business premises and
equipment supplied by the employer to the employee", would not
apply to his own computer because it was not equipment supplied by
his employer. He asked if he was correct, noting he could
understand something like a Zip drive used in a state-owned
computer, but was concerned about something like his own computer.
Number 0913
MS. REDMAN replied she thought the way the bill was currently
written that Representative Cowdery was correct. It would not
cover his personal equipment. She indicated the university was
suggesting a way to strengthen the bill and a way to get at the
issue the university was faced with in the Tuttle case. She said
the university would ask the bill be strengthened, as she said
Representative Kubina had mentioned, to include all property and
information located on or within. She indicated this would then
include an employee's personal computer brought into the workplace.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he could not support that.
MS. REDMAN indicated she had somewhat guessed that.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated he thought they could make the
bill clear that something brought in and used in a state-owned
computer was included but a legislator's personal computer brought
into his or her office could be excluded.
Number 0958
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked Ms. Redman to brief him on the lawsuit,
noting he thought he understood what happened but asked what the
courts had said.
Number 0965
MS. REDMAN replied the case was currently on appeal. An employee
had brought in a personal Zip drive and was pulling pornographic
information, which was illegal because it was child pornography,
off the Internet and storing the information on the employee's Zip
disk, using the employee's Zip drive and this information came to
the supervisor's attention. Ms. Redman said the person was
terminated and sued. She noted the first court had been supportive
of the university's position. She stated they knew of only one
other similar case in the country. Ms. Redman said the issue then
revolved around whether the university had a right to search the
employee's personal property, the Zip disk, on which the
information was found. She indicated it was the university's
contention it did have that right because it was in the workplace,
even though it belonged to the employee.
Number 1025
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if the university had a policy at the
time.
MS. REDMAN answered in the negative and stated, "We (indisc.) not
have a policy."
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if the state had a policy now.
MS. REDMAN answered in the negative.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if the university had a policy now.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said the state did have a written contract.
MS. REDMAN indicated she believed Mr. McMullen could probably speak
to that.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked about the university now.
MS. REDMAN replied it did not have one yet either.
Number 1047
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN indicated universities, especially the
University of Alaska, were known as bastions of academic freedom
and he found this intriguing. He stated, "Perhaps it would be good
to ratchet this down and name the university of Alaska could do
this, could go after anything the employee brought in and to make
that particular portion and the rest of us -- one thing I want to
bring to your attention, if you purchase your private computer with
your office funds that you have the LAA [Legislative Affairs
Agency] go buy rather than taking the cash money up front, you're
subject to the ethics law, and the ethics committee and everybody
and his brother can come down [and] find out what's on your
computer. I mean it's a wonderful situation of big brother around
this joint, and it's getting worse every time you turn around. We
have a privacy statute, (indisc.) constitutional provision which
hasn't been tested very much. I think perhaps it's time that we
start (indisc.) let the courts decide just what this really means."
Representative Ryan noted he had his personally-owned computer in
his office, stating, "If you come in there and try to read my e-
mail or look at my history list to where I've been on the Internet,
and I catch you, I guarantee you you're going to require medical
attention."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said that was not what the bill did.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said he knew and was just informing them of his
personal office policy.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Redman how Mr. Tuttle had downloaded
the information onto the Zip drive, questioning if he had used
university equipment and an Internet service provider (ISP)
supplied by the university.
MS. REDMAN said that was correct.
Number 1157
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he thought that was the foundation of
the university's case, commenting he was not so sure that the bill
sponsor or the committee was willing to expand the scope to other
privately-owned equipment. The chairman indicated he was going to
entertain a conceptual amendment to clarify and make absolutely
clear that privately-owned equipment was exempt before the bill
moved out of the committee. Chairman Rokeberg also stated for the
record that he had a legal opinion from legislative counsel
regarding the constitutionality of the bill, particularly with the
amendments the committee had made. He said the legal opinion
indicated the term "reasonableness" needed to be included because
of case law in Alaska citing Jones vs Jennings (ph) in 1990, an
Alaska Supreme Court case.
Number 1203
MS. REDMAN said she had one further question or clarification. She
said she thought, and in discussing the legislation with the
university's attorneys, that the second sentence of the bill, which
began, as amended, "in the absence of a written agreement", seemed
unclear and unnecessary. She said they were not clear what that
added to the legislation and thought it actually seemed to make it
a little more confusing. Ms. Redman noted, "If you're saying if
the intent of the bill is that - that the employer ... has right to
reasonable access to information on the business premise, then the
second sentence seems to say now that the employee must actually
permit the employer to come and look, ... which is -- maybe you
intended it that way, but it does seem to negate the right to have
access to information, so I'm a little unclear as to what the
intent is."
Number 1263
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied the intent was to make sure they had the
ability to go into the computer memory itself, asking, "But you
want to wordsmith that?"
MS. REDMAN said she thought the terms "business premises" and
"business equipment" actually included that last clause; the phrase
"information stored on a computer or computer network" was no
longer necessary with the amendment just adopted regarding
"business premises" and "business equipment".
Number 1288
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA indicated he thought the way it was currently
written just made it clear the ability was there for employers to
negotiate policies different from what the legislation stated,
whether through collective bargaining agreements, individually, or
anything else. He stated, "It's saying if there is no written
agreement, that that also then implies, 'You may have a written
agreement that says something different than this law.'"
Number 1330
MS. REDMAN indicated she would leave it to the committee, stating,
"But it seems ... to be clear that ... an employee, I mean I
certainly wouldn't give an employer an agreement to -- I mean I'm
not gonna sign anything [that] says you can come search anything I
have, nor do I think any employee would. So - so you then end up
in the situation where because you say now that an employee must -
shall permit the employer to have access ..."
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA commented he did not think that was what it
said.
MS. REDMAN stated, "'In the absence of a written agreement
permitting the employee to limit the employer's access,' the
employee must permit it to be ... searched."
Number 1372
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA indicated he agreed with that reading,
stating, "So in a collective bargaining agreement ... so in some
kind of an agreement, the ... employer may agree to limit his own
access because he's agreed to that with the employee."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that was correct.
Number 1387
MS. REDMAN said, "So ... your intention is, ... these are
collective bargaining agreements as opposed to personal or
contractual agreements between an employee and an individual."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered, "No, I think it would apply either way.
That could be a term of it or ... in the absence. Let's see,
(indisc.) in the absence of a written agreement."
Number 1409
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA added, "My point, you may hire someone at the
university and ... the guy's going to have ... equipment. He wants
to make it clear, 'Hey, I'm coming here to work on this research
project and I want to make sure that this stuff is all proprietary
stuff and you don't have any right to stick your nose into it,' and
so you would sign an agreement ... saying so, and this law would
not (indisc.) then prohibit that from happening."
Number 1441
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked Chairman Rokeberg, as the sponsor, if his
intention was that this would be a default provision.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he did not understand the question.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN clarified, "In the absence of anything ..."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "Well (indisc.), that's right ...."
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated that was a default.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN added, "But the door is open, except as ..."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated an affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated, "Good, so it's understood for the
record."
Number 1461
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if this would allow an employer to tap
or monitor the phones of employees.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered in the negative.
MS. REDMAN answered in the negative.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented if it did, he would withdraw it "in a
heartbeat."
Number 1479
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if it would allow an employer to use
monitor cameras, for example.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered in the negative and then indicated he
was not sure.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON added, "'Cause it's giving 'em access to the
information, it doesn't say limitations."
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY added, "Banks and ..."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he thought it would.
MS. REDMAN stated she believed employers currently had those
rights.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed, adding for security purposes or anything
else.
MS. REDMAN said, "For reasonable managerial purposes."
Number 1530
SYLVIA SULLIVAN, President, Alaskans for a Just Society, testified
next via teleconference from Valdez. Ms. Sullivan stated the bill
had apparently been reworked with three amendments since she faxed
her letter to the committee that afternoon. She commented one of
the members, she was unsure which one, had spoken about the
constitutionality of the bill which she said she had indicated in
her letter. She stated, "This may seem like a simple bill to
correct a situation for the university but it certainly has huge
overriding problems with other industries as I had indicated --
with lodges, camps and that sort of thing, where ... the employer
is requiring the employee to have the computer front desk activity
files and stuff in their living quarters. Until this bill is very
limited for the purposes that you want, we will have to oppose the
bill. I also didn't receive from you, Representative Rokeberg, the
drafting attorney's memorandum. Do you have one on this bill?"
Number 1633
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered in the negative and stated that was not
an issue currently before the committee. He asked if that
concluded her testimony.
MS. SULLIVAN indicated she had very recently received the sponsor
statement, noting the intent was what she thought but she thought
the bill did not say that. She commented that was why she felt it
was very important that the drafting attorney, "not any of the
civilians, Janet Seitz or this other lady," be drafting the
legislation for the sponsor without an attorney.
Number 1671
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG thanked Ms. Sullivan and assured her the
legislation had been drafted by counsel. He noted to Mr. McMullen
there had been a question about collective bargaining, and
indicated other comments were welcome.
Number 1695
MIKE McMULLEN, Personnel Manager, Division of Personnel, Department
of Administration, came forward to testify. Mr. McMullen stated he
thought he had been invited to answer questions. He said he
understood Ms. Redman's point on line 9 to be that the last
"permit" seemed to imply the employee still had some option of
permitting or not permitting the employer to have access at that
juncture. Mr. McMullen noted the committee might consider language
like, "employee may not prohibit or interfere with an employer's
access to the premises, equipment, et cetera". He said he thought
the point was that absent an agreement, the employee had no choice;
it was not a question of the employee permitting or not permitting,
and the last "permit" in that line raised the question. Mr.
McMullen indicated he thought he was there to answer the specific
question of what does the state do and what has the state been
doing under the telecommunications policy since it was adopted.
Mr. McMullen noted the labor relations section for the executive
branch was in the Division of Personnel, stating, "We see issues
either at a ... consultation level when departments have an issue
that they're not quite sure how to deal with it, we also see all
the grievances that ... result from ... disciplinary actions
taken." He noted that six cases of people misusing computer
technologies had risen to the level of their attention since the
executive branch policy went into effect. In one case the employee
had resigned when confronted with the information. Three employees
had been terminated, one received a suspension and one was
reprimanded.
Number 1838
MR. McMULLEN continued that in terms of discovering what might be
going on out there, the Information Technology Group (ITG),
formerly the Division of Information Services, monitored the
state's World Wide Web traffic just in terms of managing the
resource. He stated ITG noted when large documents were going
across the system. He commented there was a standard about not
sending large documents during daytime hours even as e-mail because
it bogged the system down for everybody else. Therefore, he noted
when ITG saw large documents going through it periodically checked
those sorts of things for web site connections to inappropriate
sites and passed that information along to the departments to
follow up on. Mr. McMullen commented that potential violations
were being identified and brought to the attention of management in
the general maintenance and managing of the system.
Number 1902
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he had not caught who was monitoring.
MR. MCMULLEN replied it was ITG, the Division of Information
Services.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed it was an in-house ability.
MR. MCMULLEN answered in the affirmative. He said ITG was the
"computer folks" who ran the telecommunications system, data
processing.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if they could snoop and see what was on the
World Wide Web traffic and the e-mail traffic.
Number 1929
MR. MCMULLEN indicated large documents going through came up in
ITG's tracking and ITG would check the receiver and sender. He
noted it basically went down to which account was producing the
volume and also the site which may have been involved.
Number 1953
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked for confirmation that the Department of
Administration was blocking out certain web sites so that people
could not reach those sites.
MR. MCMULLEN said he had not heard that the department had, but it
would not surprise him if the department was doing that.
Number 1967
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he believed the department was, stating
he thought they had been notified the department was identifying
web sites which should be blocked. He commented that seemed like
a never ending job as the World Wide Web continued to change, and
he could not believe they were spending money doing that, but this
was his understanding. He noted this was in the Department of
Administration, asking if that was correct.
MR. MCMULLEN confirmed it was in the Department of Administration.
Number 1997
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if wasn't possible to buy blocking
software, without having a lot of personnel time involved.
Number 2007
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN indicated he wanted to know what pay range
those purveyors of the public moral were employed at.
MR. MCMULLEN confirmed Representative Ryan meant the personnel
monitoring the web traffic. He stated they were probably in the
state's 16 to 19 range.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked Mr. McMullen to show him where these
people were employed in the BRU [Budget Review Unit] component,
indicating he was not pleased with money being spent on "people
sticking their nose in other people's business."
Number 2060
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented he was sure that wasn't the only
thing these people were doing and asked Mr. McMullen to let them
know, possibly in the same process, what else these people were
involved with.
Number 2072
MR. MCMULLEN stated the monitoring was the full traffic monitoring
for the state's system, and any large volume traffic was being
examined, whether illegal use of pornography after hours or someone
sending large documents during the day, bogging the system down for
everyone else. He indicated he would find the BRU.
Number 2100
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said there had been an earlier question about any
relationship between HB 319 and collective bargaining agreements.
He asked if the legislation would impact any of that.
Number 2113
MR. MCMULLEN replied not directly, stating the language allowed for
specific agreements, which he was sure could be either an
individual or a collective agreement. He noted the committee
members had copies of the executive branch's policy each employee
was being required to sign on hire. Mr. McMullen said violation of
that policy subjected an employee to discipline in the same manner
as violation of any other policy. He indicated the employee was
subject to investigation, confrontation; the employee had to
explain his or her side if covered by a grievance process including
collective bargaining processes and the employees had a right to
(indisc.) discipline which resulted from that, and so on. He
stated this was just another sort of behavior the employer dealt
with in the workplace.
Number 2185
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked Mr. McMullen if the bill did him any
good.
MR. MCMULLEN replied he had not seen Amendment 2 which he had been
curious about, noting the bill as originally written did not cover
the state but Amendment 2 might have taken care of that.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed the committee had done that with
Amendment 2.
Number 2206
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked, with the current policy, if the
legislation really did anything.
Number 2216
MR. MCMULLEN said he would defer that to the Department of Law,
stating his impression was that for the state as a public employer,
it probably already had almost everything the bill would give. He
said it all had to do with that expectation of privacy, commenting,
"As public employees in public buildings using public facilities
there's not much that an employee should ever expect to be
private." He indicated things like purses and purchases made
during lunch hour to be taken home after work might be expected to
be private, but not much else.
Number 2264
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA indicated to the chairman he would like to
hear the Department of Law's or Legislative Legal and Research
Services's response to that question, stating, "I mean it may mean
how that is different -- what is this really doing compared to what
they have the right to do? And maybe the question may be also ...
how 'bout with private employers, ... is this law actually doing
something other than what they already have the right to do?"
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said the bill's intention was ensure a statutory
foundation for companies to do this.
Number 2313
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA indicated he asked this because it was his
impression from the university that HB 319 did nothing for the
situation the university had been in which did cause a lawsuit.
Number 2329
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied that was because of the ownership of part
of the equipment used in the "chain," but noted that situation was
still in question. He stated, "Point of fact, there's a huge
employment/employee (indisc.) number of different things, this one
element of it that has to do with ... e-mail messages, ... computer
games, all kinds of other activities; and frankly there's certain
protective rights under, as I understand it, under federal law
under even the Taft-Harkley (ph) Act as far as employee
transmissions of messages, that unless there's an agreements to the
contrary. So, this allows private companies ... and other -- even
governmental subdivisions, to enter into agreements that
specifically spell out those responsibilities. And this is the ...
reoccurring theme of all employment relations law is to have a
written policy so there is a complete and clear understanding
between the employee and employer. The state of Alaska has been
proactive in that and does have that particular contract and policy
set forward. ... I would guess the majority of private businesses
don't and they should. ... This is intended to encourage private
people to do that and to implement those policies. In - in the
absence of a policy they still have the right to avoid the
litigation that ... could be caused by (indisc.). That's the
intention of the bill ...." Chairman Rokeberg stated he would not
take a recommendation from Representative Kubina to hold the
legislation hostilely if he had any serious questions about this.
Number 2478
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA indicated he thought it could be done in the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
[TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY TAPE CHANGE]
TAPE 98-38, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN "... (indisc.) this bill, and it basically says
employer does not mean the Legislative Council for members of the
state legislature. I want that clear so that no one gets
theirselves thinking that they can start setting more policies and
dictating what we're gonna do in our offices."
Number 0047
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any further questions for Mr.
McMullen. There being none, he stated, "So Representative Ryan,
going back to your conceptual amendment, you want to exempt the
legislature from this law."
Number 0053
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said, "No, it says 'employer does not mean the
Legislative Council or members of the state legislature'. I want
that just clear that - that we don't work for them. I personally
consider I work for 14,600 or now 15,000 people and I don't want
someone coming along from 'leg' council putting out new policies
and telling me all of a sudden that (indisc.) not gonna do
something, 'cause I try to avoid a fight if I have to ..."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he also felt his constituents were his
employers. He asked, "If there was a petition from 14,000 of your
constituents would you let 'em?"
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN replied not if he paid for it out of his own
pocket.
Number 0109
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated he had asked for a private phone
line into the Capitol Building when he brought his private computer
to Juneau for the legislative session but they would not allow him
a private line. In lieu of that he was told he could use their
line in there and thought he might be using the line for the
facsimile machine. He said he guessed the cellular phone option
did exist but would be kind of expensive. Representative Cowdery
stated he just thought if he owned his own equipment the mere fact
he used the state's line did not allow the state to go into his
equipment. He said he wanted to make that sure. He indicated he
understood there were real problems in the area addressed and
commented he had had this problem in business with an employee.
Number 0188
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated Ms. La Bolle had just arrived and she
wanted to testify briefly on the bill.
Number 0198
PAM LA BOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, came
forward to testify. She stated she was speaking in support of HB
319, commenting, "It is our feeling that if we own the equipment or
the premises and have any of liability for the use ... of the
equipment or the facility, then we should have access to that."
She said she thought the amendment on written agreements was very
good and mentioned written agreements in response to Representative
Cowdery's concerns, indicating a written agreement might address
legislators' concerns.
Number 0303
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated he had been referring his own
personal equipment, indicating it had not been supplied in any way
by the state. He mentioned bringing in a portable computer, for
example, indicating he felt this was private and hoped this would
not be unacceptable.
Number 0336
MS. LA BOLLE said, in her interpretation, the legislation did not
address equipment owned by the employee or someone other than the
employer. She said she would expect to have access to computer
files and such that were done on the Alaska State Chamber of
Commerce's equipment on the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce's
premises.
Number 0375
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there was anyone else who wished to
testify on HB 319. There being no one, he stated the public
hearing was concluded.
Number 0389
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated he would like to support HB 319 but
hold the legislation over so that he could examine it.
Number 0404
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested the committee could make a conceptual
amendment excluding privately-owned equipment. He indicated there
was also a draft of another conceptual amendment relating to the
legislature. Chairman Rokeberg indicated the bill could then be
moved and worked on in the House Judiciary Standing Committee,
noting he would appreciate any more input. He asked for a
conceptual amendment from the committee excluding privately-owned
personal property.
Number 0440
SHIRLEY ARMSTRONG, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman
Rokeberg, stated, "The bill does not, as written, include personal
equipment because it says your personal equipment is not supplied
by an employer; and then what I just gave Representative Rokeberg
with regard to (indisc.) being an employee of the Legislative
Affairs [Legislative Affairs Agency], you could say in the
definition that ... for purposes of this section a legislator is
not considered an employee of a political subdivision, because you
really aren't."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated,"Which is in the new definition [Amendment
2] and - and to Representative Cowdery's there, and voiced by a
number of us, that's on line 6 ... 'supplied by the employer' ...."
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated he was aware of the language.
Number 0512
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to adopt the conceptual
amendments, and asked to simply have that explanation for the
record transmitted to the next committee of referral. Confirming
the legislative exemption was to be conceptually added to the
definition, he noted he thought that was all they needed.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked about the personal equipment.
MS. ARMSTRONG noted they could check to make sure that it was not
covered.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented he thought it was covered.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed with Representative Hudson, but asked the
will of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON indicated he thought the committee should
move the legislation to the next committee with the current
language and the addition of the definition of legislators.
Number 0569
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY commented he would put a "no rec" on it if
the chairman wished to move the legislation.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated that was okay with him. He asked
Representative Kubina if he had a problem with that.
Number 0577
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked if the amendment exempting the
legislature was going to pass in this committee.
Number 0590
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered in the affirmative. He said the motion
by Representative Hudson before the committee was to adopt a
conceptual amendment, stating, "To the effect that 'for purposes of
this section a legislator is not considered an employee of a
political subdivision' or words to that effect." There being no
objections, the conceptual amendment was adopted.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the bill would be examined and
legislative counsel consulted to ensure that it did not apply to
personal equipment. He noted this would be taken up in the next
committee.
Number 0633
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move HB 319 as amended,
with the attached zero fiscal note, to the next committee of
referral. There being no objections, CSHB 319(L&C) was moved out
of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
Number 0668
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at ease at 5:09 p.m. [NOTE: THE
CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR ADJOURNMENT AT 5:11 P.M. WHILE THE COMMITTEE
WAS AT EASE AND THE COMMITTEE DID NOT COME FORMALLY BACK TO ORDER.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0668
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting at 5:11 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|