Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/01/1995 03:08 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR & COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
May 1, 1995
3:08 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Vice Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Gene Kubina
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 288: "An Act relating to procurement preferences for
corporations and partnerships owned by persons
with disabilities."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 249: "An Act authorizing the McGrath Kuskokwim River
Ice Classic."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
CSSB 53(JUD): "An Act relating to regulation of risk retention
or purchasing groups; to preemption of the
regulation of insurance agents and insurance
producers; to the general powers of the director
of the division of insurance; to insurance
examination hearings; to insurer certificates of
authority; to annual and quarterly statements,
taxes, and prohibited acts of insurers; to
reinsurance credit allowed a domestic insurer; to
risk based capital for insurers; to insurer assets
and liabilities; to insurer investments; to
insurance holding companies; to regulation,
licensing, examination, and trade practices of
insurance producers, managing general agents,
third-party administrators, brokers, independent
adjusters, and reinsurance intermediary managers;
to surplus lines insurance; to criminal insurance
acts; to premium increases in automobile
insurance; to insurance rating; to assigned risk
pools; to filing and approval of certain insurance
policy forms; to required insurance coverage for
acupuncture, nurse midwives' services,
mammography, and phenylketonuria; to health
insurance provided by small employers; to transfer
of an insurer's status as a domestic insurer; to
quarterly statements of benevolent associations,
fraternal benefit societies, and health
maintenance organizations; to reciprocal insurers;
to the definition of `member insurer' for purposes
of the Alaska Life and Disability Insurance
Guaranty Association; to electronic insurance data
transfer and insurance funds transfer; to the
definitions of `managing general agent' and
`person' applicable to insurance law; to
automobile assigned risk plans; placing a person
employed by the division of insurance as an
actuary or assistant actuary into the exempt
service; amending Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure
45; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
HB 270: "An Act relating to retirement incentive programs
for the public employees' retirement system and
the teachers' retirement system; relating to
separation incentives for certain state employees;
and providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 109: "An Act relating to telephone directory listings
and solicitations."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 263: "An Act relating to certification of workers who
handle hazardous waste; and providing for an
effective date."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES
Alaska State Legislature
State Capital, Room 102
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of HB 88
DUGAN PETTY, Director
Division of General Services
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110210
Juneau, AK 99811-0120
Telephone: (907) 465-2250
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 288
STAN RIDGEWAY, Deputy Director
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
Department of Education
801 West Tenth Street, Suite 200
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6932
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 288
DEBORAH OSTENDORF, Legislative Secretary
to Representative Irene Nicholia
State Capitol, Room 501
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4527
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave sponsor statement on HB 249
DENNIS BOCHARD, Director,
Division of Charitable Gaming
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110440
Juneau, AK 99811-0400
Telephone: (907) 465-2229
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 249
GEORGE DOZIER, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 432
Telephone: (907) 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 263
BEVERLY WARD, Director
Southeast Government Relations
ARCO Alaska, Incorporated
134 N. Franklin
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3680
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 263
BLAKE JOHNSON
Laborers Local 341
HCO A, Box 1580
Kenai, AK 99611
Telephone: (907) 776-5217
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 270
MARIANNE BURKE, Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Commerce
and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110805
Juneau, AK 99811-0805
Telephone: (907) 465-2515
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SB 53
ANNALEE MCCONNELL, Director
Office of Management and Budget
Office of the Governor
P.O. 110020
Juneau, AK 99811-0020
Telephone: (907) 465-4660
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 270
PHYLLIS OLSTA, Steward
Alaska Marine Highway System
Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities
411 Seventh Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-2058
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 270
JIM TEDFORD, Parent
9367 Rivercourt Way
Juneau, AK 9980
Telephone: (907) 789-0976
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 270
BOB STALNAKER, Director
Division of Retirement and Benefits,
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110203
Juneau, AK 99811-0203
Telephone: (907) 465-4460
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 270
JACK KREINHEDER, Senior Policy Analyst
Office of Management and Budget
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110020
Juneau, AK 99811-0200
Telephone: (907) 465-4676
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 270
MARK LIVINGSTON
832 Warren
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Telephone: (907) 247-0166
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 270
GARY BLOOMQUIST, City Manager
City of Kodiak
P.O. Box 1397
Kodiak, AK 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-8640
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 270
ART SNOWDEN, Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
303 "K" Street
Anchorage, AK 99501-2084
Telephone: (907) 264-0547
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 270
REPRESENTATIVE KAY BROWN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 517
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4998
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor HB 109
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 288
SHORT TITLE: PROCUREMENT PREFERENCES/STATE LEASES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/29/95 979 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/29/95 979 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE
04/03/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/03/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/07/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/24/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/24/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/28/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
05/01/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 249
SHORT TITLE: MCGRATH KUSKOKWIM RIVER ICE CLASSIC
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) NICHOLIA
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/10/95 701 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/10/95 701 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE
04/28/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
05/01/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: SB 53
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/25/95 83 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/25/95 84 (S) L&C, JUD
02/28/95 (S) L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/02/95 (S) L&C AT 01:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/02/95 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/07/95 515 (S) L&C RPT CS 1DP 4NR NEW TITLE
03/07/95 516 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
03/27/95 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/27/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/05/95 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
04/05/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/06/95 891 (S) JUD RPT CS 2DP 3NR NEW TITLE
04/06/95 892 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DCED)
04/10/95 (S) RLS AT 01:00 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/10/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/18/95 1058 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/18/95
04/18/95 1065 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/18/95 1065 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/18/95 1066 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
04/18/95 1066 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 53(JUD)
04/18/95 1067 (S) PASSED Y16 N3 E1
04/18/95 1067 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
04/18/95 1068 (S) COURT RULE(S) FAILED Y12 N7 E1
04/18/95 1068 (S) TAYLOR NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/19/95 1088 (S) HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 4/20
04/20/95 1122 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
04/20/95 1123 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y17 N3
04/20/95 1123 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
04/20/95 1123 (S) COURT RULE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
04/20/95 1126 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/21/95 1417 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/21/95 1417 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
04/28/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/28/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
05/01/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 270
SHORT TITLE: RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/20/95 813 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/20/95 814 (H) STA, L&C, FINANCE
03/20/95 814 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (ADM)
03/20/95 814 (H) INDETERMINATE FN (GOV/ALL DEPTS)
03/20/95 814 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/30/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/01/95 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/01/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/04/95 (H) STA AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/20/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/20/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/25/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/25/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/27/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/27/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/28/95 1623 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 2DP 5NR
04/28/95 1624 (H) DP: ROBINSON, WILLIS
04/28/95 1624 (H) NR: JAMES, PORTER, GREEN, IVAN, OGAN
04/28/95 1624 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (ADM)
04/28/95 1624 (H) INDETERMINATE FN (GOV/ALL DEPTS)
3/20/95
05/01/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 109
SHORT TITLE: TELEPHONE DIRECTORY LISTING/SOLICITATIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BROWN, Navarre, B.Davis
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/23/95 115 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/23/95 116 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
01/26/95 148 (H) COSPONSOR(S): B.DAVIS
04/28/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
05/01/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 263
SHORT TITLE: CERTIF. OF HAZARDOUS WASTE WORKERS
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/17/95 778 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/17/95 778 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE
03/29/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/29/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/31/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/31/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/28/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
05/01/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-54, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Labor and Commerce Committee was called to order by
Chairman Pete Kott at 3:08 p.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Kott, Masek, Sanders and Rokeberg.
Members absent at the call to order were Representatives Elton,
Kubina and Porter.
Number 008
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT announced that a quorum was present. The
order of business would be HB 249, HB 288, HB 263, HB 109, SB 53
and HB 270. Chairman Kott noted Representative Kim Elton arrived
directly after the call to order.
HB 288 - PROCUREMENT PREFERENCE/DISABLED PERSONS
Number 029
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 288, said HB
288 provides for people to qualify for a bidder preference
granted to disabled people. It does so by extending the
preference to include corporations where 100 percent of the
shareholders are disabled and to disabled partnerships where 100
percent of the partners are disabled. The law currently states
that only people who are sole proprietors are able to qualify.
Dugan Petty was in attendance to explain the changes to the bill.
She said she has a letter from the Legislative Legal Services
Division stating that there still may be a problem with the
existing bill as opposed to the new language relating to who
qualifies for a bidder preference. The addition to this language
is that in order to qualify for a bidder preference, the company
has to have maintained for a period of six months immediately
preceding the date of the sale, a place of business within the
state that offers the supply, services or construction of the
general nature solicited by the agency. Also it is required that
it be staffed by the bidder or an employee of the bidder. She
reiterated Dugan Petty was present to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted for the record that Representative Gene
Kubina had joined the committee at 3:12 p.m.
Number 017
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK asked if they were working off the
work draft G, dated 4-10-95, or the work draft that had been
faxed to her office dated 4-28-95.
Number 086
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES answered that she was looking at the
proposed committee substitute (CS) (L&C) Version G. She
explained the changes to the old Version F. Section 1 in Version
F becomes Section 2 in Version G. The new Section 1 has the new
language, which she had just read. The old Section 2 was
deleted, and Section 3 remains the same in both versions.
Number 104
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG inquired if there was an Alaska
Statute with the definition of "disabled persons."
Number 109
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said these people must be severely disabled.
The people would have to be certified by Vocational
Rehabilitation as qualified. That would be the same
qualifications for this bill.
Number 130
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked where that is stated in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said it was in existing statute. There
wasn't a reference to that in this bill. She said they were
allowing corporations to qualify as long as the owners are 100
percent disabled, sank as the existing law with respect to sole
proprietors.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the current statute reads: "A person
with a disability means a person who has a permanent mental or
physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major
life activity. Major life activities include caring for oneself,
performing manual tasks, walking, hearing, speaking, breathing,
learning, and working. Mental impairment means a physiological
disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement or anatomical loss
affecting one or more of body systems such as neurological,
muscular skeletal, special sense organs, respiratory including
speech organs, cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genital
urinary, (indisc.) lymphatic, skin and endocrine, or mental or
physical disorder including mental retardation, organic brain
syndrome, emotional or mental illness and specific learning
disabilities."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would like a copy of this.
Number 172
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON said this applies to nonprofits also,
and a nonprofit would be any kind of a corporation not for
profit.
Number 176
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the ownership has to be 100 percent
disabled. Nonprofit may not necessarily have an identified
ownership. She would defer the question to Dugan Petty.
Number 181
DUGAN PETTY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF GENERAL SERVICES, DEPARTMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION, stated that employment programs receive a 15
percent Alaska preference. When this law was established, it set
out a separate preference for employment programs. They can't
double on the preference, but they do receive a 15 percent
preference in addition to the Alaska bidders preference.
Number 190
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if it would be appropriate to move the
work draft for committee's consideration.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he would entertain a motion.
Number 194
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON made a motion to adopt work draft 9LSO992\G.
Number 196
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were any objections in adopting the
work draft version G, dated 4-10-95. Hearing none, the work
draft was adopted. He asked Mr. Petty if he had any comments.
Number 202
MR. PETTY said he had nothing more to add.
Number 208
STAN RIDGEWAY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF VOCATIONAL
REHABILITATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (DOE), stated that the
division supports HB 288. The division added the fiscal note
because, over the past few months, they have had many inquiries
from people who have just found the law on the books. People
have tried hiring employees as brokers in order to receive a
bidder preference. While they support corporations that are
wholly owned, receiving a bidder preference they feel they would
be dealing with other companies or corporations trying to get
their foot in the door. This will require a lot of screening on
the division's part. Since the division doesn't know for certain
how much time this screening would take, they would go on record
that if the committee moves HB 288 without the fiscal note, the
division might come back next year and tell the committee how
much time it has taken.
Number 231
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked what Mr. Ridgeway thought the amount
might be, and would it be used for full-time employees.
Number 234
MR. RIDGEWAY said the amount was $23,000, for a half time
clerical person to do the screening and follow-up on the
preferences.
Number 239
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON inquired if a fiscal note had been prepared
but not yet submitted.
MR. RIDGEWAY replied it has been submitted.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if there was a House Finance Committee
referral.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said it would need a House Finance Committee
referral.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he didn't have a copy of the fiscal
note.
CHAIRMAN KOTT took a brief at ease at 3:20 p.m., while copies
were made.
Number 256
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the 15 percent preference was
added onto the 10 percent.
Number 266
MR. PETTY said the question was, "What about nonprofits or
employment programs, previously called shelter workshops?"
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that wasn't his question.
Number 270
MR. PETTY said the question he was responding to was regarding
the 15 percent. There is a separate preference in statute that
allows employment programs to receive a 15 percent preference, in
addition to the Alaska bidders preference, if they compete on
bids issued by the state.
Number 273
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he had asked the question because it
wasn't entirely clear.
Number 277
MR. PETTY explained that it wasn't clear from the CS because
there wasn't any reference to the employment program preference.
Number 279
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted for the record that this was 10
percent plus 5 percent for a total of 15 percent.
Number 283
MR. PETTY said it first applies the 5 percent Alaska bidder
preference. Then, if the qualified bidder is no more than 15
percent above the lowest bidder, after applying the Alaskan
bidder preference, they would win the bid. He commented that it
doesn't necessarily work out to exactly 15 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it was 10 percent in the draft.
MR. PETTY said that was correct. He restated it was 5 percent
with the Alaska bidders preference. If that bid is within 10
percent of the lowest bid after application of the 5 percent
bidder preference, they would receive the bid.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he was glad he asked the question.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if that had addressed his concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied yes, and it was also on the
record.
Number 297
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative James if she had further
comments.
Number 300
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she would like to dispute the fiscal
note. She thought perhaps the department could be persuaded to
withdraw it. The statute hasn't had much activity since it has
been on the books from 1991. It is true there may be more
activity now, but she hesitates to say its because of this bill.
The number of people having 100 percent disabled owned
corporations and partnerships might be limited. She suggested
that it not have a fiscal note; it could be absorbed by existing
staff and Vocational Rehabilitation. She asked of the DOE would
consider withdrawing the note.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Ridgeway to explain the fiscal note
again.
Number 314
MR. RIDGEWAY replied they had prepared the fiscal note prior to
the current language change, which states a person must be in
business for six months. The department anticipated they would
have people brokering, which is the hiring of people with
disabilities as brokers, who then bid state contracts. The
disabled wouldn't be full-time employees. He stated that the new
language prevents that. Therefore, they would have a smaller
number applying for the contract because the loop hole has been
tightened. They would withdraw the fiscal note at this time.
Number 333
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON had a procedural question on how the
committee would dismiss the fiscal note.
Number 340
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he wasn't sure, having never gone through
this. He thought it should be sufficient to have the fiscal note
withdrawn on the record.
Number 342
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to remove the fiscal note on
HB 288 and to move the bill without the note.
Number 345
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were objections. Hearing none, the
note was withdrawn.
Number 348
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON made a motion to move CSHB 288(L&C) with
attached zero fiscal note from the Department of Administration
with individual recommendations.
Number 358
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were objections. Hearing none, CSHB
288(L&C) passed from committee.
HB 249 - MCGRATH KUSKOKWIM RIVER ICE CLASSIC
Number 364
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated the next order of business would be HB 249.
Number 366
DEBORAH OSTENDORF, LEGISLATIVE SECRETARY TO REPRESENTATIVE IRENE
NICHOLIA, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 249, testified that HB 249 changes
AS 05.15.690 to add the McGrath Ice Classic. She said she had
received a call from someone in the Bethel area concerning use of
the name Kuskokwim River included in the bill. She asked the
committee to adopt the committee substitute which would take out
the "Kuskokwim River" and rename it "The McGrath River Ice
Classic."
Number 379
The committee took a brief at ease at 3:30 p.m. and was back at
3:35 p.m.
Number 384
CHAIRMAN KOTT would entertain a motion to adopt the proposed CS.
Number 384
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to adopt the proposed CSHB
249(L&C), 9L-S0658/F, Luckhaupt, dated 4-28-95.
Number 386
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were any objections. Hearing none,
CSHB 249(L&C) was adopted. He asked Ms. Ostendorf to explain the
differences.
Number 389
MS. OSTENDORF stated that it removes the name "Kuskokwim River"
from the title, renaming it the "McGrath Ice Classic."
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked why the change was needed.
Number 393
MS. OSTENDORF replied there was a similar ice classic out of
Bethel, named the "Kuskokwim River Ice Classic." People in
Bethel didn't want there to be any confusion.
Number 400
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that in reading the sponsor
statement, he could see where the proceeds are intended to go.
He asked whether there was anything in statute to mandate them
changing where the beneficiary or profits would go.
Number 405
MS. OSTENDORF said the permit holder could have the proceeds go
to any organization. In this case, KSKO Radio had opted to keep
half of the proceeds and to share the other half with the McGrath
Emergency Services. Once they have a permit, they can change
that. There is nothing in statute prohibiting them from sharing
the money with whomever they want.
Number 412
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the Kuskokwim Public Broadcasting Company
was also responsible for the Bethel Kuskokwim Classic.
Number 413
MS. OSTENDORF replied no. They do not currently hold the permit
for this. She wasn't sure who was responsible for that.
Number 415
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said Bethel Social Services.
Number 419
DENNIS BOCHARD, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CHARITABLE GAMING,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, stated that he was in attendance to answer
any questions the committee might have. The division is neutral
on the bill as there are several other ice classics, and this
would be no different than those they currently oversee.
Number 428
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK commented that with the state being in the
situation it's in, they were going to have to have an "Alaskan
Classic Day." She made a motion to move CSHB 249(L&C) with
individual recommendations and accompanying zero fiscal note out
of committee.
Number 434
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were any objections. Hearing none,
CSHB 249(L&C) was passed out of the House Labor and Commerce
Committee.
HB 263 - CERTIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE WORKERS
Number 446
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated the next matter to come before the committee
would be HB 263.
Number 449
GEORGE DOZIER, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT TO REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT,
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE, stated that the original bill amended
Title 46 and granted the Department of Labor (DOL) the authority
to promulgate regulations which would establish standards for
hazardous waste worker certification. Authority is also granted
to review and approve certification programs. The programs would
not be operated by the DOL. Instead, they will be operated by
employers, unions, colleges, and other organizations. The bill
required workers to be certified before they undertake work at
hazardous waste sites. The employers would propose certification
programs to the department, which would review the programs and
grant approval if appropriate. The employer would also have to
certify that each worker was adequately trained to safely handle
the waste. The bill establishes a civil penalty of $1,000 and
two levels of criminal penalties at the class A and B misdemeanor
levels. The CS, Version K, dated 4-27-95, makes changes proposed
by the DOL. The most significant being that it removes the
statute from Title 46 and places it in Title 18. The language in
the original version concerning the handling of hazardous waste
has been replaced with reference to working at hazardous waste
sites. Section G expands the department's authority to
promulgate regulations. The department is granted authorization
to implement this section. The department has submitted a
reduced fiscal note.
Number 487
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said she didn't have a copy of the new CS or
the new fiscal note.
Number 492
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked the date of the fiscal note.
MR. DOZIER responded the new fiscal note was dated 4-6-95; the
old fiscal note is dated 3-28-95.
Number 502
BEVERLY WARD, DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, ARCO
ALASKA, INCORPORATED, stated that the changes made in the
proposed CS were an improvement to the bill. The statutory
references and the use of the phrase "hazardous waste site" are
consistent with the intent. However, ARCO Alaska opposes HB 263.
They believe it duplicates existing laws and regulations and will
create more bureaucracy.
MS. WARD described the hazardous waste operations and emergency
response training requirements known as HAZWHOPPER.
HAZWHOPPER is the name given to a Federal Occupational Safety
Health Administration (OSHA) regulation 29.CFR 19.10.120, and it
was adopted by the state of Alaska, OSHA, Subchapter 10.01.01.
The regulation was designed to protect employees involved in
three aspects of hazardous chemical exposure. First, those
cleaning hazardous waste sites, as defined in regulation;
second, those handling wastes at a specially designed treatment
storage and disposal facility; and third, those responding to
chemical spills. HB 263 addresses those who are employed in
cleaning hazardous waste sites. The general site workers
involved in most operations at a hazardous waste cleanup site are
presently required to have a 40 hour training class. The content
of the class is specifically described in regulation. "The
content of the class must include the names of personnel and all
(indisc.) responsible for site safety and health; safety and
other hazards present on site; use of personal protective
equipment; work practices by which the employee can minimize
risks from hazards; safe use of engineering controls and
equipment on site; medical surveillance requirements including
recognition of symptoms and signs which might indicate
overexposure to hazards; contents of the site safety and health
plan required by other sections of the regulation."
MS. WARD continued that these workers were also required to have
three days of actual field experience under the direct
supervision of a trained experienced supervisor. Other workers
who may only occasionally be on the site or who are located in
areas away from the main hazardous work are required to have 24
hours of training similar to the training listed above. If they
become general site workers, they have to obtain the extra 16
hours of training. The workers need eight hours of annual
refresher training each year. The training group must provide a
certificate to the employee acknowledging that the employee has
completed the course.
Number 539
MS. WARD stated that because of the 40 hour training already
required under HAZWHOPPER, they believe the bill to be redundant.
She based this assessment on the following considerations: The
fact that employees already receive initial classroom training;
the requirement of three days of supervised, on the job training;
the required eight hours of refresher training and the fact that
regulations specifically address what information must be
presented; and the fact that employees already receive
certificates. She said HB 263 will have an impact on the state.
The fiscal note shows two additional employees. The training
providers will have to pay for the course review, thus raising
their training rates to defer costs. She noted that the
department had been talking with them in the past few days to
address some of ARCO's concerns and are willing to continue
dialogue on specific language. She said if the bill is moved,
they would continue to work with DOL and the next committee of
referral.
Number 553
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted the testimony Ms. Ward gave speaks to
HAZWHOPPER which speaks to chemical exposure. He asked, "Is that
narrower than what this bill would do?"
MS. WARD responded no.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked, "@What about radioactivity, asbestos
or (indisc)?"
Number 558
MS. WARD replied that radioactive materials may have their own
regulations because of the problems with the nuclear industry.
She could not address that. HB 263 would include crude oil and
things of that nature. She did not believe it was "narrower" in
any sense. The HAZWHOPPER training can be narrowed. For
example, if you had a spill and knew exactly what exposure
employees would have, HAZWHOPPER training could be for those who
hadn't had training already. It could be very specific and
directed towards deficiencies.
Number 568
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON surmised that HAZWHOPPER was not just
chemical, it could apply to...
MS. WARD interjected that it applied to a broad spectrum of
hazardous substances.
CHAIRMAN KOTT turned to the teleconference line.
Number 575
BLAKE JOHNSON, LABORERS LOCAL 341, testified from Anchorage, via
teleconference. He stated he would like to see HB 263 passed out
of committee, and would also encourage continued work on it so
the language would suit everyone. One of his concerns when
working out in the field is if the person next to him was
adequately trained. If a person carries certification from
another state, how do we know that program was adequate. As this
work becomes more prevalent, it might be easy to counterfeit
certificates, because there is a cost for the training. The
costs could run anywhere from $500 to $700. Someone might not
hesitate to sell counterfeit cards for $100. This program would
be similar to the asbestos certification program and,
consequently, they would know they had trained people. There is
going to be $50 million to $100 million worth of work per year in
Alaska, at a minimum. He asked the committee to pass the bill
out so that it could continue through the process. Laborers
Local 341 would continue to look at anything that would help to
"fine tune" the bill.
Number 594
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was anyone else wishing to testify
on HB 263. Seeing none, he stated HB 263 was sponsored by the
Labor and Commerce Committee. They had received a lot of written
testimony in support of the bill, with little opposition. There
were comments from both sides regarding a few small problems.
His intent was to keep the bill in committee to work with DOL to
find some solutions. They would hold the bill in committee.
SB 53 - OMNIBUS INSURANCE REFORM
Number 610
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that SB 53 was introduced by the Senate
Judiciary Committee. Having no one present from that committee,
he asked Marianne Burke to give the committee an overview.
MARIANNE BURKE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INSURANCE, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, testified that CSSB 53(JUD)
was a successor bill to SB 362 and HB (indisc.--end of tape)
TAPE 95-54, SIDE B
Number 000
MS. BURKE continued that these were not passed. SB 53 includes
language to address new areas of insurance regulation, it adopts
new accreditation standards added by the National Association of
Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and makes needed corrections to
the insurance statutes. These changes will bring statutes up to
date with the insurance market and allow the division to maintain
its NAIC accreditation, granted in December of 1992. A zero
fiscal note was submitted.
MS. BURKE explained that the changes to the bill made between
legislative sessions were minor. These include language cleanup
to include the 1992 change in license classes from agent and
broker to producer, and general agent to managing general agent.
It contains the revision of language pertaining to the standard
valuation law. The cleanup language replaces a reference to the
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, which no longer
exists, with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. It adds
to acts considered fraudulent insurance acts. The additions
include: Falsely altering an insurance document; knowingly
possessing a forged insurance document; knowingly issuing a
forged insurance document; and establishes penalties for these
acts.
Number 147
MS. BURKE stated that the bill clarifies that a reciprocal
insurer, insuring municipalities or nonprofit utilities or
providing marine insurance, do not have to participate in the
assigned risk plan for motor risk coverage. It includes the
division's actuary and assistant actuary as exempt employees.
The bill includes 22 sections related to the NAIC accreditation,
such as: Regulation of risk retention groups and purchasing
groups as allowed by federal law; modifying the examination
hearing provision to allow for closing it to the public under
certain circumstances; requiring insurer financial statement
filing to the NAIC on electronic media; requiring disclosure by
an insurer of material transactions of purchase, disposal of
assets or reinsurance; (Indisc). reinsurance; risk based capital
provisions; reserve calculations; actuarial opinions; and holding
company reporting requirements. It allows the Director to file
civil actions for damages caused by violations of statutes by
managing general agents, reinsurance and mediary brokers, and
reinsurance and mediary managers. It also cleans up the
definition of "member insurer" of the Life and Disability
Guarantee Association.
MS. BURKE continued that some other key provisions include:
Authority to respond to catastrophic situations; the ability to
suspend the certificate of authority of an insurer for
non-renewal; providing for voluntary relinquishment of an Alaska
Certificate of Authority by an insurer domiciled in another
state; authority to refund or grant credits for overpayment of
premium taxes by an insurer due to an error or misinterpretation;
provides requirements for licensing of U.S. branches of alien,
non U.S. domiciled insurers, to allow these insurers to use
Alaska as a base of operation for business written within the
United States. It provides authority to require continuing
education for licensed insurance (indisc.--coughing); it requires
the insurance premium fiduciary accounts of resident insurance
licensees to be located in Alaska; it provides that a single
fiduciary bond can cover multiple producer office locations; it
adds incorporated insurers to the definition of a group to
reflect the recent changes at Lloyd's of London; it clarifies
when rate changes may be made to outstanding policies; it
provides that false statements made in regard to a claim may
result in prosecution under Alaska law; it allows the director to
specify the format and content of rate and policy form filings
made to the Division; it clarifies health insurance coverage
for new born and adoptive children; it provides for re-
domestication of insurers domiciled in Alaska and moving to
another state or, requesting to move their domicile from another
state to Alaska; it provides for the voluntary surrender of an
Alaska Certificate of Authority by a domestic insurer; it
provides the authority to request quarterly financial statements
from all entities regulated by the Division; it allows insurers
to pay claims by electronic wire transfer; it provides authority
to the director to specify requirements for the electronic data;
and, it otherwise makes corrections and clarifies statutory
provisions.
MS. BURKE said the bill also incorporates amendments suggested by
the division. A new section was added giving the director
discretion to accept an insurers examination report from a
nonaccredited state, and it gives the director clear authority to
require extra examination supervision if a state was performing
substandard examination. She said revisions were made to the
section pertaining to risk retention groups to avoid conflicts
with federal law. Section 35, dealing with continuing education
requirements for insurance licensees, was amended to include
language agreed to by the division and the Alaska Independent
Agents and Brokers Association. The fraudulent insurance acts
provision was modified to reflect recommendations by the DOL.
Language was added to various health insurance contracts statutes
to make them applicable to health maintenance organizations. The
section of (indisc.) independent counsel, conflicts of interest
counsel was deleted. This provision was not authored by the
division, and legal counsel advised them that it was neither
necessary or consistent with the Alaska Supreme Court decision
Chi of Alaska, Incorporated versus Employers Reinsurance. The
bill was also amended by the Senate Judiciary Committee to remove
the Consumer Credit provisions. Senator Taylor agreed to sponsor
a separate piece of legislation on consumer credit which would
incorporate some of the amendments suggested during the Senate
Judiciary Committee hearing process. That bill is currently
being drafted.
MS. BURKE continued that minor wording changes were made in
Section 15, changing the reference to a Canadian or British
chartered accountant, to make the reference more global. Section
32 was amended to include the wording, "or the aggregate of a
series of related transactions", to close a potential holding
company reporting loop hole. In Section 82 there was a typo
correction, changing the word "and" to "or".
Number 191
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to the Chi (indisc.) reference and
said the back-up material says page 63. He asked what section
was it in?
MS. BURKE responded the section had been removed.
Number 207
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked Chairman Kott what his intentions for
the bill were.
Number 209
CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that it was his intent, as always, to
have a good understanding of the bill before taking action.
Number 232
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked if there were other committee
referrals.
Number 233
CHAIRMAN KOTT answered no.
Number 237
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG observed this was a very complex bill
that needed to be closely looked at.
Number 242
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON had a concern about slowing things down on
what is purported to be technical changes. He referred to when
accreditation comes up and asked what happens if this gets
stalled this session.
Number 250
MS. BURKE said many of the 22 items listed must be in place by
January 1, 1996.
Number 254
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he had asked the question because he
was in the Department of Commerce at the time the program became
accredited. It eased the ability of a state to work with other
states on cross jurisdictional matters. It meant that a lot of
duplicative things did not need to be done because the program
was nationally accredited. He pointed out if this was not done
prior to accreditation, it would complicate matters not only for
the division but also for insurers who want to do business in the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER joined the meeting at 4:13 p.m.
Number 268
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Ward if the provisions were not
implemented, was it her interpretation they would lose
accreditation or was it that they "may" lose accreditation.
MS. BURKE responded "may."
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that it should be on the record that there
is no guarantee we would lose accreditation.
Number 280
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA stated he had never looked at a bill like
this on the insurance industry. If they were to have a
subcommittee on the bill, he would volunteer to be on it. He
said he wouldn't feel comfortable at this time to pass the bill
out of committee.
Number 287
MS. BURKE pointed out SB 53 had also been referred to the House
Judiciary Committee; however, there is a memorandum with all
members agreeing to waive it from committee.
Number 291
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER noted that this was the same bill that had
made it through the system last year; however, for some reason it
wasn't passed. There is no one who doesn't like the bill.
Number 301
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he did not want to send the bill to
subcommittee but would hold the bill over to Wednesday's
calendar. He asked committee members to look at any important
sections and contact the Division of Insurance if they had
questions.
HB 270 - RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Number 312
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked the director from the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) to give her comments on HB 270.
ANNALEE MCCONNELL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, testified that HB 270 was one of the key
management tools the Administration was seeking to help OMB deal
with the state's current fiscal situation. It also addresses the
downsizing of state government, not only in as financially
effective way as possible, but to also address the needs of
employees. She said they have structured the program differently
than previous retirement incentive programs (RIP). It is their
intention to use it in areas where the position would be not only
vacated but eliminated.
MS. MCCONNELL said the same sort of program could be used by
local governments and school districts, both of which have
expressed interest in having the same kind of management tool
available to them. The initial plan was to restrict the RIP bill
only to those areas where the positions would be eliminated.
However, they decided it was a good idea to leave open the
possibility of replacing employees in certain situations where
they could demonstrate, within a three year time frame,
significant savings. This would be implemented in the area of 24
hour institutions, such as pioneer homes or corrections. They
would be replacing the employees who are very high on the pay
scale with employees at a lower range and step. For example, a
guard currently at a 15J level would be replaced by an 11A, for a
savings of nearly half the total cost. They shorten the period
during which the savings must be demonstrated to three years.
They would also insist all costs be taken into account.
MS. MCCONNELL pointed out there would be a need for substantial
reduction in positions over the next few years. They have
recommended a three year window and set it up so this would be
applied strategically. She said this was the largest difference
between past RIP programs. It is not an across the board RIP,
and it would only be used where it could be demonstrated to yield
a savings. Departments would have to show this fit not only the
financial need for cost savings, but also their operational
plans, so services would not be disrupted in order to grant
RIP's. It would not be at the discretion of the employee. She
would be pleased to address questions the committee might have.
Number 384
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if she was comfortable with the CS.
MS. MCCONNELL answered yes. It was done as a result of inquiries
from local government. The Administration surveyed and found
they could handle the expected work load.
Number 388
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if she would object to adding the
Judicial System.
Number 390
MS. MCCONNELL said she would prefer that Mr. Bob Stalnaker speak
to the Judicial System question.
Number 393
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA observed that on page 7, the window for the
school distinct plan was shorter than the window for the state
plan. He asked if there was any reason not to expand the window
for school districts.
Number 397
MS. MCCONNELL explained that they had problems with the
mechanics. Since Mr. Stalnaker was the administrator of this,
they had worked out the windows so not only would they fit some
over all purposes for downsizing, but also they could be sure the
Administration could meet its commitments on the administrative
end. She said Mr. Stalnaker could speak best to that aspect.
Number 403
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked which sections held the provisions
for eliminating positions.
Number 408
MS. MCCONNELL stated they didn't require that the position be
eliminated, although that was their initial intent. This was
because of situations like correctional institutions, pioneer
homes, and health and human services facilities which require 24
hour care. They realized a substantial savings could still be
made even if they replaced those positions. She noted they had
submitted a diagram to the State Affairs Committee which outlined
the steps they would go through to ensure a cost savings over the
three year time period.
Number 433
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked if the Administration worked with
State Affairs on the changes in the CS.
Number 438
MS. MCCONNELL answered yes. The changes came from the hearing in
State Affairs where a number of communities testified they were
interested in having a wider window so they could use the RIP.
The initial reason for not having a wider window was they were
skeptical about being able to handle all of the administrative
work that would be required to do the RIP not only for state
employees but also the political subdivisions. As a result of
that hearing, the Department of Administration did a quick survey
of local communities to find out the work load they could expect.
They found they would be able to handle it.
Number 451
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if in Section 10 where the separation
incentive program was added, would those positions remain
unfilled. He also asked if there were positions that people
wouldn't be retiring from, but just eliminating the position.
Number 457
MS. MCCONNELL replied yes. She said this was a provision she was
resistant about initially. However, she spoke to private
employers who pointed out that separation incentives are
important because often it is the case that the places in need of
downsizing, or which present the greatest opportunity for
savings, aren't necessarily the places where you have the oldest
employees. There are situations where the separation incentive
can end up being less expensive for the state than the retirement
incentive.
Number 477
CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired whether that the Administration had a goal
as to where they wanted to be in three to five years, as far as
downsizing.
Number 479
MS. MCCONNELL responded that the Administration had not yet
pegged a specific dollar amount. The long-range fiscal planning
commission which is now underway would help look at the issue.
She said coming in as a new Administration, they have not yet had
a chance to have the commissioners take a look at all the
services out there and where the greatest opportunities for
savings were located. They also have not had a chance to look at
the statutory and regulatory requirements that they might want to
propose changing. They plan on having an outline ready with the
next budget what addressing what they think makes sense
concerning expenditures in the out years.
Number 510
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS inquired if the example she used of level
15J being replaced by an 11A was a normal situation. He thought
perhaps they would need to replace them with someone closer to
experience and longevity.
Number 517
MS. MCCONNELL explained that people were moving up the career
ladder with greater experience and training. So, although the
person leaving would be at a 15J, the new person replacing him
would be at the bottom. Other employees already would have gone
through those steps. They wouldn't be replacing a large chunk of
experience with inexperienced people. In the case of
corrections, for example, you would still maintain the experience
and training in the work force to continue to get the job done
right.
Number 531
CHAIRMAN KOTT commented on having sat through another session of
budget hearings, and most of the departments which testified
commented they were stretching themselves thin. The personnel
cuts, over the years, have gotten to the point where they can't
fulfill their statutorily required actions. Without making
substantial cuts in programs, he doesn't think the departments
can absorb any more personnel losses.
Number 546
MS. MCCONNELL concurred this was the general feeling among the
commissioners. They've gotten to the point where they need to
address which functions are no longer as necessary as they have
been in the past. She said the effort has begun, and in some
area proposals are coming forward, such as with the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC).
Number 560
CHAIRMAN KOTT said this was commendable. He added that with over
20,000 employees out there, he hoped the people advocating and
pushing this legislation wouldn't think for an instant they would
cut 5000 employees without wholesale changes in the way business
is conducted in the state. The RIP will satisfy some
requirements; however, they won't see a 20 percent reduction in
the state work force.
MS. MCCONNELL agreed and added it was important not to have
expectations out of line. They want them to be challenging
expectations, not unrealistic.
Number 568
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS inquired if there were more state
employees today than in May, 1994.
Number 569
MS. MCCONNELL replied she wasn't sure about the number for 1994.
There are places where there have been increases, such as in
Child Support Enforcement. There were 31 enforcement officers
added during the course of last year and many of those were added
with federal funds. She said as the federal government changes
its requirements, they still don't know where these changes will
come. However, they may affect areas of state government. They
need to be prepared to address those.
Number 584
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if there were any significant areas
that were downsized.
MS. MCCONNELL said she wasn't aware of one particular area where
the number went down. There were more positions in this year's
budget than in last year's budget, attributable to a combination
of child support enforcement, totally revenue supported
positions, and capital funded positions.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were more questions for Ms.
McConnell. Hearing none, he asked the representative from the
Alaska Marine Highway to join them at the table.
Number 594
PHYLLIS OLSTA, STEWARD, ALASKA MARINE HIGHWAY SYSTEM, DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, testified that all
employees of the ferry system were members of the union. The
terms of the new contract are not as generous as the contracts
prior to 1986. Her vacation benefit is $3,100 a year more than
employees hired at this time. She said she is at the age where
she could continue working for another five or six years. The
person replacing her would receive no more than 35 hours a month
vacation. The employees working in this system would be younger,
receiving less benefits, supporting the economy, building homes,
sending their children to school and other things that would be
much more cost effective than older employees, who are not
stimulating the Alaskan economy in such a manner.
Number 611
JIM TEDFORD, PARENT, read the following statement: "To whom it
may concern: Alaska is no longer the land of plenty. We all
have to learn to get by with less, but we should try to minimize
the impact on our children. Today most school districts are in a
financial bind. Class sizes are growing and education is
suffering. HB 270 offers a partial solution to this crisis in
funding. A retirement incentive program would free up thousands
of dollars that school districts could use to better educate our
children. Please move HB 270 expeditiously through the
legislative process so RIP can be in place before the end of the
school year. Thank you."
Number 624
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked Mr. Bob Stalnaker, Director, Division
of Retirement and Benefits, Department of Administration, why on
page 7, lines 4 and 5, the time span for school districts was so
short.
Number 629
BOB STALNAKER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT AND BENEFITS,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, answered that the time window is
the same as in the previous two RIPs. It is designed to cover
two school years.
TAPE 95-55, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if their plan had to be submitted
between the end of June, and the end of the year, they then could
then retire at the end of this school year and the end of the
next school year.
MR. STALNAKER said this was correct. By having a June 30, as the
application date, a person can apply and then be retired on July
1, for this school year. By having it in July, they can apply
June 30 next year to be retired by July 1 of the following year,
which would give them the latitude of two school years.
Number 018
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he was thinking specifically of Delta
Junction, currently in the process of base closure over the next
three years. Because they have the three year closure plan, he
asked if it would be objectionable to extend the date of August
1, 1996 to 1997.
Number 034
MR. STALNAKER responded that first and foremost they have always
looked at this as a tool. They have been diligent in making it
revenue neutral to the systems, by identifying the full cost up
front. If the employer can better utilize the tool by extending
it another year for school districts, the retirement system
wouldn't have an objection. It would expand the number of
teachers for all school districts which would qualify, giving
them more latitude in phasing it through.
Number 048
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA stated they would still have to file their
plan before the end of this calendar year.
MR. STALNAKER said this was correct.
Number 051
JACK KREINHEDER, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, stated that when the bill was
being drafted, they discussed it with representatives from the
education community. The concerns some school districts have
with extending the window are that they have problems they need
to address now. They want as many teachers who might be able to
participate now to do so, but teachers, given the option of
another year, may stay on the payroll for another two years.
School districts could address this by saying if they are
eligible for the program they must use it now. Only teachers not
eligible will be able to use it down the road.
Number 074
MR. STALNAKER concurred with Mr. Kreinheder. In previous RIPs,
some school districts have offered cash incentives to entice
teachers to retire during the first year instead of the second.
He said they haven't heard from school districts that they don't
like the window. They have heard from the employees that they
would like the longer window period in which to strategically use
it themselves.
Number 091
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if he had an objection in including
the Judicial System in this bill. He asked, "Are they under your
purview or are they a separate retirement system?"
MR. STALNAKER responded that it was a separate retirement system,
but felt this would be fine.
Number 101
MARK LIVINGSTON, testified from Ketchikan via teleconference in
support of HB 270. He read the following statement: "Recently
Ketchikan School District has had to cut many educational
programs. The school district is looking at a $200,000 plus
deficit. Next year, the funding unit will be at $61,000, and
they're talking about a funding unit cut to $59,000. Because
classroom teaching positions are based on school enrollment,
teaching positions cannot be eliminated or reduced much, at least
hopefully, more than it already has been. If retiring teachers
are replaced with teachers at the low end of the pay scale,
school districts will save a substantial amount of money.
According to the Ketchikan School District business manager there
are approximately 40 teachers eligible to retire now. If a
retirement incentive program were passed, Ketchikan School
District could save from $67,452 to $85,716 for each retiring
teacher over a three year period. Within the last decade, 75
percent of the largest U.S. companies have offered early
retirement options. This comes out of U.S. News and World
Report, dated November, 1991. I think that's a pretty good
endorsement considering corporate America's search for a better
bottom line. The retirement incentive bill is one of the more
viable options available to save money. Thank you."
Number 139
GARY BLOOMQUIST, CITY MANAGER, CITY OF KODIAK, testified from
Kodiak via teleconference. He stated that in 1992, they made
efforts to gear their budgeting and personnel policies to
accomplish significant savings in the long term. He said anyone
being replaced in Kodiak would be replaced at a step A rather
than a step I. In 1992, they eliminated longevity pay for all
new hires, expecting to get the benefit of the elimination of
longevity pay over a seven to ten year period. All new employees
would be hired with nine days less vacation per year. In order
to budget and maintain minimal staffing levels they use overtime.
Beginning April 1, 1992, they established part payment for
dependent medical coverage. They have 32 people that would be
eligible out of a total employment force of 107. The estimates
show that 16 of those would leave. He said they would hate to
lose them all at one time. He said he very much appreciates the
effort that has gone on in the House to extend the period and
move the date to an earlier date. It appears the savings for
Kodiak in the first year would conservatively exceed $200,000.
They would like to take advantage of this as soon as possible.
The major concern they have is the Senate has merged SB 137 into
SB 148, and the savings could be denied to them if the retirement
bill alone isn't allowed to proceed as the retirement bill. He
said they would appreciate any advice the committee might have,
and thanked them for their time.
Number 175
CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired how the two Senate bills were intertwined.
Number 177
MR. BLOOMQUIST replied, "As of this morning SB 137, which is the
House's HB 270 as was amended in the House and moved onto this
committee, was merged into SB 148 which, in effect, is a new
retirement program. There is now a single SB 148 and SB 137 has
gone no where.
REPRESENTATIVES KOTT and Kubina both commented: "The plot
thickens."
Number 187
CHAIRMAN KOTT believed that bill to be in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Number 191
MR. BLOOMQUIST believed the bill passed out of the Finance
Committee this morning. He said their understanding was that SB
148 is controversial enough and hasn't had the full discussion
that HB 270 has had and could possibly cause the demise of the
RIP bill.
Number 207
CHAIRMAN KOTT added that very seldom do they follow what's going
on in "the Dark Side". He asked Representative Porter to
comment, having chaired the subcommittee on HB 270.
Number 213
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated the subcommittee of the State
Affairs Committee came away with the impression that HB 270 was
designed to do exactly what they were touting it to do. The
mechanism is in place to review and make sure it does that. The
bill doesn't guarantee the budgets of affected divisions and
departments would go down. That is the function of the
legislature in the years to come, to take the reports HB 270
requires to be submitted and find out if the budgets don't come
down, and what the cause is.
Number 234
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA offered Amendment 1, to include the
Judiciary System.
Number 247
CHAIRMAN KOTT objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA told the committee it would be the entire
Section 9. This is the same language that was in the Senate
version.
Number 266
CHAIRMAN KOTT inquired if he was removing Section 9.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA replied no. He would be inserting in the
title the words: "The Judicial Retirement System", and on page
7, line 20, adding the entire Section 9 of his amendment, It
would be adding a new Section 9, and renumbering the subsequent
sections.
Number 278
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if he was adding a new Section 8.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA replied, a new Section 9.
CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that starting at line 20 would be a new
Section 8.
Number 279
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA apologized and said it would be a new
Section 8 and 9. However, he just wanted a new Section 9.
Numb 290
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he could amend the amendment starting on page
1, line 27, insert the amendment of Section 9, and renumber the
subsequent sections. He asked if this was the intent of the
amendment.
Number 297
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said this was correct.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was someone present from the Court
System who would like to comment on this.
Number 302
ART SNOWDEN, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, said
he hadn't yet seen the language in this amendment. However, if
it was the same language as is contained in the Senate bill, it
would allow the administrative director of courts to participate
in the RIP if there is a savings to the state. This language was
in the past two or three RIPs that had been introduced in the
legislature. If there isn't a monetary savings, the
administrative director wouldn't be allowed to use the RIP. This
has to be approved by the Chief Justice. It doesn't give the
administrative director anymore years towards retirement. It
just lets him get older. This has been in the previous two RIP
bills, and the Senate put it in their version. The Supreme Court
supports this.
Number 319
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were questions for Mr. Snowden and
added that it was Mr. Snowden's birthday.
Number 328
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the rest of the Judicial System
was involved in this.
MR. SNOWDEN replied no. There would be no savings. All other
court employees are in the bill under the Public Employees
Retirement System (PERS). There is an Administrative Director's
Retirement Act in the state. To allow himself to participate in
the RIP, there has to be specific reference to that act. It has
the same mandate as every other part of the bill. If there's no
savings, it cannot be done.
Number 337
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection to Amendment 1.
Number 340
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented that it was his birthday tomorrow
and wondered what he was going to get.
Number 347
CHAIRMAN KOTT replied there would be no Labor and Commerce
Committee meeting. Hearing no objections to Amendment 1, it was
adopted. He added that he planned on ordering a CS and bringing
it back before the committee on Wednesday.
Number 348
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that he wouldn't resist moving HB
270, as amended.
Number 350
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked the committee members if they were
comfortable with the incorporated language.
Number 353
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said this was a straight forward amendment.
It comes from the "other side." He didn't have a problem with
it.
Number 355
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA wondered what games were being played with
them changing the amendment. He would like to see this make it
to the Finance Committee.
Number 360
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move the CSHB 270(STA) as
amended, with accompanying fiscal notes.
Number 362
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection to moving the CSHB
270(STA) as amended. He noted the House Labor and Commerce
Committee will work on a new CS in incorporating Amendment 1. I
would then become CSHB 270(L&C). Hearing no objection, the CSHB
270(L&C) was moved.
HB 109 - TELEPHONE DIRECTORY LISTING/SOLICITATION
Number 369
CHAIRMAN KOTT said the committee would now readdress HB 109.
Number 373
REPRESENTATIVE KAY BROWN testified that HB 109 would address
telephone solicitations which are often an annoyance and
intrusive. She feels the legislature has broad direction to be
concerned about the privacy of Alaskans and to take proactive
actions to implement that provision of the constitution. HB 109
provides that a local exchange telephone company would be
required to offer the opportunity to identify oneself in the
phone book as not wishing to receive solicitations. She said on
page 2, line 13, there is a list of actions which would not be
covered. This includes: Calls made in response to a request or
inquiry by the customer who was called; calls made by a
charitable organization, public agency or volunteer; calls
limited to polling or soliciting the expression of ideas,
opinions or votes; and business to business calls or people
seeking business from prior customers. The penalty for a
violation would be a finding of an unfair trade practice, covered
under Title 45.50, which would only come about should the
Attorney General get enough complaints to bring an action. The
law would then provide for a civil fine of $5,000 per violation.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN distributed an amendment suggested by
General Communications, Incorporated (GCI) which would address
concerns telemarketers have expressed. She said if they had a
computerized list of people not interested in being called, it
could be sorted against the other computerized list they're
working with. If implemented, this system would not only benefit
the privacy of people not wishing to be contacted, but it also
would benefit the sellers because they wouldn't be wasting their
time calling people who don't intend to purchase in this manner.
Number 416
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN pointed out there was a federal law passed
in 1991 or 1992, implemented by the Federal Communication
Commission (FCC) in 1992. She does not feel this federal law has
cut down on the amount of uninvited solicitations. She has asked
phone solicitors who have contacted her, and found several to be
unaware of the federal law. They couldn't respond to items
required by that law.
Number 428
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked how telemarketers currently obtain
lists of numbers, and if it was just from telephone books.
Number 430
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN responded she was not certain of all sources
where such lists might be generated.
Number 437
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA wondered what happened if you distributed
numbers of people who didn't want to be solicited. Could those
be private numbers?
Number 441
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN stated it would not affect private or
unlisted numbers. This was intended to be a kind of compromise
so that you could still have a public number listed in the
directory, however, it would have a "dot" by the name saying
"solicitors, don't call me." People who chose to have unlisted
numbers would be relying on the federal law.
Number 452
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if this affected pollsters.
Number 453
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN said it did not. They are specifically
exempted on page 2, lines 21 and 22.
Number 458
CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that he seldom watches TV. However,
there was a show regarding telemarketers that caught his eye. If
you are solicited, you may ask to be placed on the non call list.
As long as you have the person's name, what time it was, and a
brief summary of what took place, it would be a violation if they
call you again.
Number 467
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN said that is the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. The difficulty there is that every telemarketer
in the country could call, each one keeping a separate list.
With HB 109 you would be putting people on notice that you don't
want these calls and it would be their burden to obtain the
lists.
Number 475
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he didn't know anyone who liked to be
solicited. He asked if it would be advantageous to have the
telephone companies put the dot next to the people who wanted to
be called.
Number 480
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN commented this was probably more of a
problem in urban areas where there is a big enough market to show
up on some computer sorting where they do it by zip code.
"You're paying for a little bit of privacy protection."
Number 485
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted the staff had advised him he may have
problems with the first amendment on this idea; so, he would
withdraw that idea.
Number 490
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if she considered expanding the
bill to include mail catalogs. He said he had two trees a month
arriving at his home.
Number 496
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if a religious organization was a
charitable organization. He would hope they were not.
Number 505
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN replied that the things prohibited if you
had the "do not call me dot," includes people who are trying to
get you to buy something or to make a donation. She said if the
religious organization were soliciting donations, this would not
be allowed. However, they could ask you to attend services.
Number 511
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER interjected there were additional
qualifications. This doesn't allow charitable organizations to
call out of hand. You have to be a member of the organization or
have made a previous donation or expressed an interest.
Number 514
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he had an amendment distributed by
Representative Brown. He would move Amendment 1. He asked if
there were any objections. Hearing none, Amendment 1 was
adopted. He said this would be adopted in the form of a CS at
some point.
Number 520
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated he had heard the bill last year and
wouldn't feel uncomfortable moving it, as amended.
Number 526
CHAIRMAN KOTT said they had a scheduling problem. In accordance
with AS 24.08.035, they could not move the bill without a fiscal
note.
Number 527
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN responded they were not informed until
Thursday afternoon the bill was going to be heard Friday. This
was the reason they had not requested it. They do have a fiscal
note for last year's version of the legislation of HB 54. That
fiscal note was zero.
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated he wouldn't have a problem moving HB 109
from committee and holding it in committee until they had
received the fiscal note. If it is other than zero he would
bring the bill back before the committee.
Number 530
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made the motion to move CSHB 109(L&C) out
of committee
Number 533
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were any objections to moving CSHB
109(L&C) with the understanding it would be held in committee
until a fiscal note was received. It would then be transmitted
to the Chief Clerk. Hearing no objection, the motion carried.
Number 537
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Labor
and Commerce Committee, Chairman Kott adjourned the meeting at
5:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|