04/20/2005 08:30 AM House RULES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB123 | |
| HB121 | |
| HB98 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| HB 123 | |||
| HB 98 | |||
| = | HB 121 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RULES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 20, 2005
8:39 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair
Representative John Coghill, Vice Chair
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Harris
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 123
"An Act relating to occupational licensing fees and receipts;
extending the termination dates of the Boards of Barbers and
Hairdressers, Social Work Examiners, Pharmacy, Professional
Counselors, Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners,
and Veterinary Examiners; relating to an exemption that allows
one bill to continue more than one board, commission, or agency
program; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 123(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 121
"An Act relating to consolidating or abolishing certain service
areas in second class boroughs."
- MOVED CSHB 121(2d RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 98
"An Act relating to the compensation of certain public
officials, officers, and employees not covered by collective
bargaining agreements; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 123
SHORT TITLE: OCCUPATIONS: FEES & EXTENSION OF BOARDS
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
02/02/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/02/05 (H) L&C, FIN
02/07/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/07/05 (H) Moved CSHB 123(L&C) Out of Committee
02/07/05 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/09/05 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) 6DP
02/09/05 (H) DP: CRAWFORD, LYNN, LEDOUX, GUTTENBERG,
ROKEBERG, ANDERSON
04/01/05 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/01/05 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to Thurs
4/7/05>
04/07/05 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/07/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/07/05 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
04/11/05 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/11/05 (H) Moved CSHB 123(FIN) Out of Committee
04/11/05 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
04/12/05 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 2DP 5NR 1AM
04/12/05 (H) DP: HAWKER, FOSTER;
04/12/05 (H) NR: HOLM, STOLTZE, MOSES, WEYHRAUCH,
MEYER;
04/12/05 (H) AM: KELLY
04/20/05 (H) RLS AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 121
SHORT TITLE: SERVICE AREAS IN SECOND CLASS BOROUGHS
SPONSOR(S): COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
02/02/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/02/05 (H) CRA, STA
02/15/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/15/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/15/05 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/24/05 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) NT 1DP 5NR
02/24/05 (H) DP: THOMAS;
02/24/05 (H) NR: CISSNA, NEUMAN, SALMON, LEDOUX,
OLSON
02/24/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/24/05 (H) Moved CSHB 121(CRA) Out of Committee
02/24/05 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/01/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/01/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/05/05 (H) STA AT 9:30 AM CAPITOL 106
03/05/05 (H) Moved CSHB 121(CRA) Out of Committee
03/05/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/07/05 (H) STA RPT CS(CRA) NT 4DP 1NR
03/07/05 (H) DP: LYNN, RAMRAS, GRUENBERG, SEATON;
03/07/05 (H) NR: GATTO
03/16/05 (H) RLS AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
03/16/05 (H) Moved CSHB 121(RLS) Out of Committee
03/16/05 (H) MINUTE(RLS)
03/17/05 (H) RLS RPT CS(RLS) NT 4NR 2AM
03/17/05 (H) NR: HARRIS, KOHRING, COGHILL, ROKEBERG;
03/17/05 (H) AM: KERTTULA, BERKOWITZ
03/17/05 (H) RETURNED TO RLS COMMITTEE
04/04/05 (H) RLS AT 9:30 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
04/04/05 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/13/05 (H) RLS AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 106
04/13/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/13/05 (H) MINUTE(RLS)
04/20/05 (H) RLS AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 98
SHORT TITLE: NONUNION PUBLIC EMPLOYEE SALARY & BENEFIT
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/21/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/05 (H) STA, FIN
02/17/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/17/05 (H) Moved CSHB 98(STA) Out of Committee
02/17/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/18/05 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 7NR
02/18/05 (H) NR: GARDNER, LYNN, RAMRAS, GATTO,
GRUENBERG, ELKINS, SEATON
02/19/05 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/19/05 (H) ELECTIONS
04/13/05 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/13/05 (H) Moved CSHB 98(STA) Out of Committee
04/13/05 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
04/14/05 (H) FIN RPT CS(STA) 5DP 3NR
04/14/05 (H) DP: MOSES, KELLY, FOSTER, MEYER,
CHENAULT;
04/14/05 (H) NR: HAWKER, HOLM, STOLTZE
04/20/05 (H) RLS AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
RICK URION, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 123, answered
questions and provided background.
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor
Division of Legislative Audit
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 123, answered
questions.
JOHN WALSH, Lobbyist
Alaska Psychological Association
Douglas, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 123, explained the
need to reinsert Section 7 of CSHB 123(FIN).
TAMARA COOK, Director
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 123, answered
questions.
LINDA ANDERSON, Lobbyist
Fairbanks North Star Borough
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 121.
MIKE TIBBLES, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 98.
PAMELA VARNI, Executive Director
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 98.
KARLA SCHOEFIELD, Deputy Director
Accounting
Legislative Administrative Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 98.
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, Deputy Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 98.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Rules Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:39:28 AM. Representatives Rokeberg,
Coghill, Kohring, McGuire, Berkowitz, and Kerttula were present
at the call to order.
HB 123-OCCUPATIONS: FEES & EXTENSION OF BOARDS
8:40:01 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 123, "An Act relating to occupational
licensing fees and receipts; extending the termination dates of
the Boards of Barbers and Hairdressers, Social Work Examiners,
Pharmacy, Professional Counselors, Psychologist and
Psychological Associate Examiners, and Veterinary Examiners;
relating to an exemption that allows one bill to continue more
than one board, commission, or agency program; and providing for
an effective date."
8:40:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt CSHB 123, Version 24-
LS0360\X, Mischel, 4/18/05, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected.
8:40:44 AM
RICK URION, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED), reminded the committee that the Division of
Occupational Licensing is charged with managing occupations.
The division charges the occupation the cost of regulating them.
One of the largest costs is disciplinary actions. Mr. Urion
explained that for years the fines that were generated from
disciplinary actions "went into the mix". However, the law
refers to "fees" with no mention of fines. Therefore, this
legislation will correct the aforementioned. The professions
pay a lot of money for disciplinary actions, and the fines
generated by those actions will help offset the costs. He
emphasized that it isn't a money-making operation; disciplinary
actions cost more than is ever generated in fines. The language
in Sections 1-4 allows the [division] to take the fines and "put
them into the mix".
8:42:11 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG explained that the fines and penalties went to
the general fund (GF) rather than to the occupation, which was
the direction the legislature gave the division last year in
legislation. He further explained that [CSHB 123(FIN)] had a
drafting technicality such that the legislation allocated all
the funds to the board rather than to the specific occupational
license. Therefore, Version X directs the fines to the
particular occupational license. He characterized it as an
accounting methodology.
8:43:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented that he didn't see any
mention of fines or penalties in CSHB 123(FIN).
CHAIR ROKEBERG clarified that the House Finance Committee
deleted the section mentioning fines and penalties because the
committee was concerned that it didn't allocate the funds to the
occupations. He informed the committee that he had spoken with
those on the House Finance Committee, who are in concurrence
with [Version X].
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ related his understanding that the
House Finance Committee stripped the provisions because they
believe they should be in another bill. He said he is inclined
to support such reasoning.
8:44:44 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG agreed that was part of the House Finance
Committee's stated rationale. However, in terms of the policy
and the balance [of Version X], the House Finance Committee is
in concurrence with Version X. He opined that whether or not
it's appropriate to include these sunsets with policy matters is
another issue. Chair Rokeberg said that this provision is a
creature of the legislature rather than the administration.
8:45:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said there is another problem from a
policy perspective. If the legislature allows the department to
collect fines and penalties in order to make-up shortfalls, it
could be an incentive for the department to increase fines and
penalties disproportionate to the sanctions levied. He opined
that fines and penalties shouldn't be made a fundraising
mechanism for anyone because the fines and penalties become a
way of taxing wrongdoers in order to make-up budgetary
shortfalls, which is a bad policy call.
8:46:12 AM
MR. URION informed the committee that in total fines last year,
the division [collected] $64,000 for the approximately 50,000
professionals it licenses. The cost of disciplinary actions far
exceeded the fines collected. He emphasized that this isn't a
money-making operation.
8:46:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ agreed that the current situation [with
fines] is not a money-making operation. "But if you incentivize
it for the department to make it a money-making operation, I
think it becomes more of a money-making operation," he said. He
further said that he didn't know how the aforementioned impacts
the justice these licensing boards are to be doling out.
8:47:12 AM
MR. URION specified that the legislature sets fines in statute.
In further response, Mr. Urion confirmed that there are caps on
some [of these fines]. The way the system is set up it will
never be a money-making situation because someone [in one of the
professions] has to do something bad for which a complaint is
filed and then the judiciary process follows to establish the
fine.
8:47:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ highlighted that the legislation refers
to fines and penalties. He questioned [the definition] of a
penalty, which he surmised could be when someone is overcharged
for a certain profession and that profession is required to pay
it back. Representative Berkowitz then asked if this
legislation runs afoul of the dedicated funds provision of the
state constitution.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said that penalties are late fees and things of
that nature, while fines are [established] by the process in
which there is a hearing officer that acts independently and
makes recommendations to the board or commission for the final
sanctions. Therefore, there's a check and balance on the
process. With regard to the constitutionality issue, Chair
Rokeberg specified that [this legislation] doesn't create a
dedicated fund but rather directs a fine to the appropriate
area.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that these are fines that
would otherwise go to the GF and be dispersed through the normal
budgetary process.
8:49:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE said that there's some precedent for the
aforementioned. For example, some of the penalties resulting
from criminal activities are directed to the Violent Crimes
Compensation Board. She highlighted that the funds still have
to be appropriated. This [legislation] relates a statement of
intent with regard to where the money should go, she opined.
8:50:19 AM
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
Alaska State Legislature, explained that statute specifies how
the fees for the occupations are set. There is a calculation in
which the regulation has to be offset by the fees, fines, and
penalties. She specified that in statute the [funds from the
fees, fines, and penalties] aren't being appropriated or
dedicated rather the [statute] specifies the calculation by
which the fees for licensure are going to be set by occupation.
The funds still must be appropriated, she confirmed.
8:51:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA pointed out that the [fees, fines, and
penalties] are program receipts and thus they're accounted for
separately and appropriated. However, it's a situation in which
those receipts are set aside for the programs.
MS. DAVIDSON acknowledged that Representative Kerttula's
thoughts are the belief of many. In fact, many of the licensees
believe it's their money. However, due to the prohibition
against dedicated funds, it isn't. She reiterated that there is
a mechanism for calculations which are tracked such that the
amount can enter into the budgetary process and be identified as
the program receipts.
8:52:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA drew attention to Section 14, which is a
repealor. She inquired as to its purpose.
MR. URION said he didn't know the answer.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:53 a.m. to 8:57 a.m.
8:57:27 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG turned to the matter of Section 7 of CSHB
123(FIN), which was inadvertently left out of Version X.
8:57:38 AM
JOHN WALSH, Lobbyist, Alaska Psychological Association, informed
the committee that the House Finance Committee accepted a
provision for licensing by credential. The provision would
modernize the statute to reflect what is occurring nationally.
Therefore, Mr. Walsh said he would appreciate the committee
reinserting Section 7 of CSHB 123(FIN) into Version X. In
response to Representative Coghill, Mr. Walsh confirmed that the
provision was officially amended in the House Finance Committee
version.
8:59:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1, which would insert Section 7 from CSHB 123(FIN)
into CSHB 123, Version X.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ opined that the aforementioned motion
is out of order because there is a pending motion to adopt
Version X before the committee.
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that Conceptual Amendment 1 was
withdrawn.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ maintained his objection to adopt CSHB
123, Version X.
9:00:16 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Coghill, Kohring,
McGuire, and Rokeberg voted in favor of adopting CSHB 123,
Version X. Representatives Kerttula and Berkowitz voted against
it. Therefore, Version X was adopted by a vote of 4-2.
9:00:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL then moved that the committee adopt
Conceptual Amendment 1, which would insert Section 7 from CSHB
123(FIN) into CSHB 123, Version X. There being no objection,
Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:01:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA commented that it seems unusual to roll
all the professions into one bill.
MS. DAVIDSON agreed that it's unusual. However, she suggested
that there will be a couple of bills doing this because of the
unusual amount of sunsets of boards and commissions this
session. Typically, the legislature addresses three to four
board/commission sunsets, but this year there are twelve current
board/commission sunsets plus two holdovers from the prior year.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA expressed concern with going against the
statutory policy.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that Section [15] specifies
the exemption from AS 44.66.050.
MS. DAVIDSON interjected that in realizing how difficult it is
for the legislature to address this many [sunsets], the years
until the next sunset were set such that the legislature would
only have to review four to six boards [in one year].
Therefore, the extension of the boards range from four to six
years in order to accommodate the aforementioned. In further
response to Chair Rokeberg, Ms. Davidson said that she was not
familiar with the cost of getting one sunset bill through the
legislature.
9:04:31 AM
TAMARA COOK, Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, said that she didn't have any idea
as to the cost of getting one sunset bill through the
legislature, In fact, she said that she didn't know how to
calculate that. However, she surmised that one bill must be
somewhat less expensive than many smaller bills.
CHAIR ROKEBERG opined that it costs a lot [to move many sunset
bills through the legislature versus one bill].
9:05:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA announced that she would accept this for
the purposes of getting through this session, but she maintained
that it's a bad idea because each profession has its own
particular needs. By combining all these professions in one
bill, it sells the professions short.
CHAIR ROKEBERG recalled that the audits were reviewed with
regard to whether there was any contention. With the exception
of the psychologists, there wasn't much controversy. The
[boards or commissions] that did generate more interest were
handled separately.
9:06:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report CSHB 123, Version 24-
LS0360\X, Mischel, 4/18/05, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 123(RLS) was reported out of the
House Rules Standing Committee.
HB 121-SERVICE AREAS IN SECOND CLASS BOROUGHS
9:06:59 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 121, "An Act relating to consolidating or
abolishing certain service areas in second class boroughs."
9:07:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1, which
was left pending at the April 13, 2005, hearing. There being no
objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was withdrawn.
9:07:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved that the committee rescind its
action in adopting CSHB 121, [Version L, Cook, 4/11/05]. There
being no objection, CSHB 121(CRA) was before the committee.
9:08:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt CSHB 121, Version 24-
LS0396\S, Cook, 4/18/05, as the working document. There being
no objection, Version S was before the committee.
9:09:08 AM
LINDA ANDERSON, Lobbyist, Fairbanks North Star Borough, stated
that Version S is a compromise that tightens the sidebars
related to giving a second class borough the ability to dissolve
or combine a road service area if the criteria specified on page
2 [of Version S] are met. She related her understanding that
Version S satisfies all parties while remedying the problems
facing the Fairbanks North Star Borough.
9:10:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report CSHB 121, Version 24-
LS0396\S, Cook, 4/18/05, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
9:10:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA opined that the problem is the
underlying statute and commented that until it's fixed the
problem will remain.
9:11:37 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG, upon determining there was no objection,
announced that CSHB 121(2d RLS) was reported out of the House
Rules Standing Committee.
HB 98-NONUNION PUBLIC EMPLOYEE SALARY & BENEFIT
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 98, "An Act relating to the compensation of
certain public officials, officers, and employees not covered by
collective bargaining agreements; and providing for an effective
date."
9:11:52 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG explained that he calendared this bill to discuss
potential amendments and to review whether legislators should be
included in the bill.
9:13:05 AM
MIKE TIBBLES, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Administration,
presented HB 98 to the committee. He stated:
House Bill 98 matches the statutory pay schedule for
partially exempt and exempt employees in legislative,
judicial, and the executive branch of government, and
provides the same wage adjustment that was recently
negotiated by the supervisory unit in the public
employees association. We have a two-step process
that's required to provide wage adjustments to our
state employees, and one is through the collective
bargaining process where we submit the monetary terms
to the legislature, and that has been done and
included in the House budget. We have a significant
amount of increase this year in wage adjustments. ...
We have submitted monetary terms last year and this
year to the legislature and so far in the process
those haven't been approved in the budget. The second
step to provide the wage adjustments for state
employees is to introduce legislation similar to what
you have in front of you now. That covers the
partially exempt and exempt employees.
MR. TIBBLES continued:
We feel this bill is really important for a number of
reasons. The first reason is just basic equity. Our
statute requires us to pay our state employees like
pay for like work. And [in the case of] the failure
of the passage of this bill, we will see a 9 percent
difference between the employees of a particular range
... under the collective bargaining agreement and the
statutory schedule. And that does ... cause us
problems because I don't believe we'd be meeting our
statutory obligations. ...
The second concern that I have is an issue regarding
recruiting qualified managers. We're asking our
managers to do more and more, and when we get to such
a disparity between the contracts, I feel that we
really place a heightened burden and challenge on our
ability to hire qualified managers.
And the third concern I have is that we have a
difficult time getting people to move up into some of
the senior management positions. You have supervisors
or supervisors that are paid on a statutory schedule
and it doesn't take long for the supervisor of the
supervisor to make less than the people that they're
supervising.
MR. TIBBLES turned attention to some charts in the committee
packets. He stated that the last page shows an example of the
last scenario mentioned above.
9:16:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ remarked that he hoped this bill will
inspire the consistent application of this line of reasoning by
the administration: the desire to recruit and retain, and the
desire to have competitive pay. He said, "I hope that you'll
keep those thoughts in your mind as you review changes to the
[Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS)/Teachers' Retirement
System (TRS)] system, because all of those issues are right
there too."
9:17:34 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG inquired as to how this would play out with
senior commissioners.
MR. TIBBLES replied, "The commissioners are a unique situation;
their statute is set at a particular range and step in the
statute, ... 28E." He explained that a 28E yearly salary would
be about $91,000. He noted that many people have to take a pay
reduction to take a position as commissioner.
CHAIR ROKEBERG shared an anecdote in which an deputy city
attorney [outside of Alaska] was making more money than Alaska's
attorney general. He remarked that many who take on a
commissioner role give up substantial compensation for the
leadership position, and many times a commissioner has to
maintain homes in Southcentral and in Juneau, which is a
financial burden.
9:20:20 AM
MR. TIBBLES noted that the salary of the governor of Alaska is
$85,700 and that of the lieutenant governor is $80,000.
CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that these elected officials were making
less money than the appointed commissioners.
9:21:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE asked Chair Rokeberg if he planned to
take amendments to the bill at a later time.
CHAIR ROKEBERG explained that his intention is to add to the
bill, not change it. He remarked that he thought there should
be a public debate regarding whether commissioners' wages should
be raised. He noted that he'd like to look at an amendment to
the schedule for commissioners offered a few years ago by the
previous administration. He commented that the [committee]
needs to act relatively quickly, as there is similar legislation
in the Senate Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. He said,
"It seems obvious to me that we are in a very difficult
recruitment position here."
9:24:36 AM
PAMELA VARNI, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs Agency,
paraphrased from the following written testimony [original
punctuation provided]:
In the 80's and again in the 90's, the Executive
Branch received a raise, which legislative employees
did not receive. Currently, legislative employees lag
roughly 5% behind their counterparts in the Executive
and Judicial Branches with the exception of partially
exempt employees.
This bill should be passed as a matter of fairness and
to eliminate any suggestion that employees doing
similar work are not paid equally. It is long
overdue.
You want to retain the best and the brightest
employees. We have lost many employees to the
Executive Branch because they can take a position at
the same range and step and make more money - or they
accept positions at a higher range and receive an
additional 5% increase in pay. We need to stay on an
even par to retain attorneys, programmers, personnel
assistants and probably most important to each and
every one of you are the staff working directly for
you. It is interesting to note the drain of
legislative assistants. In budgeting I do not see the
higher longevity steps that we used to have in the
legislative branch.
Also, we have had difficulty over the years in rural
areas hiring our teleconference moderators. The
private sector wages are higher and we have trouble
competing to attract people to come and work for us.
It is difficult for our staff at the lower ranges to
keep up with the cost of living. To give you some
idea of the difference between the cost of living
increases and our legislative pay increases - the CPIU
increased from 1988 to 2003 (15 years) a total of
41.4% - legislative pay increased 14.72%. We are
26.68% lower than the CPIU. It is a significant
difference.
To give you some comparisons to other State
Legislatures on how their salaries have changed over
the last five years.
New Mexico increased 14.5%
Louisiana increased 30%
Indiana increased 12.7%
Virginia increased 11.8%
Rhode Island increased 12.3%
Alaska increased 5%
Thank you for your time and as a manager and previous
personnel officer I urge you to pass HB 98 to be fair
and equitable to all employees in the Legislative
Branch whether we are talking about an analyst,
janitor, programmer, legislative assistant, secretary,
etc.
9:29:31 AM
MS. VARNI, in response to Chair Rokeberg, explained that
legislators were equivalent to a Range 10A in 1991, but now are
down to about a Range 8.
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked Ms. Varni to prepare information for the
committee regarding the possibility of raising that range level
up to a 10A or 15A.
MS. VARNI noted that a fiscal note had been prepared.
9:30:43 AM
KARLA SCHOEFIELD, Deputy Director, Accounting, Legislative
Administrative Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, explained
that there is a $1.6 million fiscal note. She opined that it is
important for this bill to pass this year. She noted, "The
legislature has over the last few years lapsed over $3 million
each year, and if it were the will of the legislature and the
... committees in charge of the money were willing to
redistribute their funds and salaries from all of their
components, the legislature as a whole could probably absorb
this in FY06."
9:31:38 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG pointed out that "other discussions have been
going on about other adjustments" in order to retain staff.
9:32:08 AM
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, Deputy Administrative Director, Alaska Court
System, paraphrased from the following written testimony
[original punctuation provided]:
I would like to thank Governor Murkowski for including
the employees of the Alaska Court System in this
legislation.
First, a little background. We have about 733
permanent employees. 62 are judges appointed by the
governor, 39 are magistrates, and most of the rest are
clerical employees. We absorb less than 2% of the
operating budget; that makes us smaller than a number
of individual departments in the executive branch.
While we are small, more private citizens come though
our doors every day than any other entity, other than
perhaps the university. Unfortunately, many of those
people are angry or scared, they are going through the
most traumatic experience of their lives, and they
don't understand how the system works. These are the
people that our employees work with every day. These
people were involved in over 150,000 new cases filed
last year. Court employees work hard under very
stressful conditions. However, I have often heard from
employees that they are proud of the work they do,
they believe that what they do matters, and most of
them do it for a low salary. 70% of our employees are
compensated at Range 15 or below. Low salaries result
in a high turnover rate (approximately 50% before 5
years, and as much as 100% in some rural courts where
we compete with higher salaries or benefits offered by
the local Native corporations or boroughs), and a
large percentage of court system clerical employees
have second jobs.
The legislature has historically given non-judicial
court employees a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA)
equal to the COLA it has approved for union employees
in the executive branch. The last time it failed to do
so was in 1993. Shortly thereafter, non-supervisory
court employees voted to join the IBEW.
MR. CHRISTENSEN continued:
In 1996, the legislature gave both union and non-union
court employees a COLA that restored parity with the
salaries that had been approved for union employees in
the executive branch. The unionized court employees
subsequently voted to decertify the IBEW as soon as
the first collective bargaining agreement expired.
Workers organize for different reasons. For court
employees, the main driver seemed to be equity in
compensation rather than changes in working
conditions.
With respect to our judges, salaries were ranked first
in the nation in 1982. Today, however, the National
Center for State Courts states that the salary of a
th
superior court judge in Alaska ranks 49 when adjusted
for cost-of-living. Normally when we talk about states
th
that are 49 in something, we're referring to
Mississippi or Arkansas; not in this case. The average
annual increase in salaries for general jurisdiction
judges in other states during the period from 1992 -
2004 was 3.1%. In Alaska, it averaged less than 1%,
well under half the rate of inflation.
Unlike other state employees, judges do not get annual
longevity increases; the salary of a new judge is
identical to the salary of a judge with 15 years of
experience. Thus, there is no longevity increase to
help compensate for a failure to provide adequate cost
of living adjustments. In addition, the geographic
differential received by rural judges is generally
much less than that received by other state employees.
In Barrow, for example, a union employee gets 43%; a
non-union employee gets 31.5%; and the local judge
gets only 17%, Moreover, the geographic differential
is limited to the first $40,000 of salary, unlike
other state employees who have it calculated on their
entire salaries. Because of the lack of longevity
increases and the limited geographic differential,
there are actually long-time prosecutors in rural
Alaska who make substantially more than the local
superior court judge.
MR. CHRISTENSEN continued:
HB 98 would give the non-judicial employees of the
Alaska Court System a salary adjustment in FY 06 that
would place their salary schedule approximately on par
with the salary schedule approved by the legislature
last session for members of the APEA. Even if they get
this, court employees will still have lost substantial
ground to inflation over the last decade. Judges will
get a salary increase equal to the percentage salary
increase that HB 98 proposes for a Range 28E in the
executive branch. With this increase, Alaska's judges
thth
will leap from 49 place to 47 place.
This bill sends a message that the legislature does
value court employees as much as it values union
employees in the executive branch, and that it does
not take their hard work for granted. Thank you for
your consideration.
9:38:41 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked if pages are Range 10A.
MS. VARNI replied that this was correct. She noted that the
janitors are Range 8, but they may move to Range 9. She
commented that Range 9 is really the lowest pay, so if the
legislators do not get a raise, they will be the lowest paid
people.
CHAIR ROKEBERG explained that the bill has a schedule that
reflects a 5 percent increase, and on July 1, 2005, the salaries
raise automatically [an additional] 2 percent.
MS. VARNI commented that if this bill was passed the legislators
would probably be down to a Range 6 or 7.
9:40:57 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG asked if legislators were Range 10A before 1991.
MS. VARNI replied yes, although back in the 1980s, legislators
[received an annual salary of around $46,800 and there was no
per diem].
CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that there is public outcry whenever
there is mention of a raise for the legislators.
9:42:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE stated that the people in her district
recognize that [legislators are low paid]. She commented,
"There's always a risk that when you take on issues like this
that there will be some type of backlash from someone, but I
think it's an education process and I think it's something I
personally am willing to take on."
9:43:49 AM
MS. VARNI stated, "Alaska is so unique from other states; there
are not other legislatures that move their legislators because
... the states are so small that they can drive home at night.
... The salary that is set right now for legislators is so low,
considering the unique circumstances that you have...."
9:45:03 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG inquired as to why changes were made in 1991 so
that legislators were no longer Range 10A.
MS. VARNI related her understanding that the changes were made
because the legislature wanted to cut the budgets of the
executive branch and the judicial branch, and the legislature
wanted to show that it was cutting its own budget as well.
CHAIR ROKEBERG calculated that a readoption of the Range 10A for
legislators would result in a $4,500 [or more] annual salary
increase. He remarked that the issue then would be if the
legislators could handle "the heat" from the public for giving
themselves a raise, and whether it would be worth pursuing.
9:46:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE asked if Chair Rokeberg was open to
discussion with regard to other ranges. She stated, "If you're
going to take the heat, you might as well take it once and do it
the right way. And I think there ought to be some analysis
about what range we think the work that we do here is associated
with."
CHAIR ROKEBERG replied that he was open to this discussion.
9:47:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated:
The issue to me in this bill is the equity within
state workers and the marketability of our jobs. But
that's not the issue with the legislature; ... I think
that's a little different discussion, so the way I
would look at it is: "What's reasonable compensation
for living expenses for me?" because I still see us as
a citizen legislature. ... I wouldn't want to look at
it as a career step so much as a reasonable
compensation.
CHAIR ROKEBERG reiterated that there have been no adjustments to
[legislators' salaries] for 14 years, and therefore he thinks it
warrants examination.
[HB 98 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Rules Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:49:05 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|