Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/23/1999 08:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 23, 1999
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative John Coghill, Jr.
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Harold Smalley
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 80
"An Act relating to a state employment preference for certain
members of the Alaska National Guard."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 45
"An Act relating to initiative and referendum petitions; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to initiative and referendum petitions.
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 80
SHORT TITLE: EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE FOR NAT'L GUARD
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) MORGAN, Foster, Kapsner, Masek,
Harris, Kott, Mulder, Croft, Dyson, Coghill, Rokeberg, Phillips,
Murkowski
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/03/99 133 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/03/99 133 (H) MLV, STATE AFFAIRS
2/05/99 147 (H) COSPONSOR(S): COGHILL, ROKEBERG,
2/05/99 147 (H) PHILLIPS
2/08/99 173 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MURKOWSKI
2/16/99 (H) MLV AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120
2/16/99 (H) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
2/17/99 235 (H) MLV RPT 7DP
2/17/99 235 (H) DP: FOSTER, PHILLIPS, CROFT, COGHILL,
2/17/99 235 (H) KOTT, JAMES, MURKOWSKI
2/17/99 235 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM)
2/17/99 235 (H) REFERRED TO STA
2/23/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 45
SHORT TITLE: INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) WILLIAMS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 30 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 30 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
2/11/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
2/11/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
2/19/99 (H) STA AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 102
2/19/99 (H) MINUTE(STA)
2/23/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 7
SHORT TITLE: CONST AM: INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) WILLIAMS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 17 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
2/11/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
2/11/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
2/19/99 (H) STA AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 102
2/19/99 (H) MINUTE(STA)
2/23/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, JR
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 416
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3719
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 80.
HEATHER KINZIE, Employee Resources Consultant
Division of Personnel
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110201
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0201
Telephone: (907) 465-4076
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified neither in support nor against HB 80.
THELMA BUCHHOLDT, Director
Office of Equal Employment Opportunity
Office of the Governor
Frontier Building
3601 C Street, Suite 250
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 269-7495
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 80 in regards to women and
minorities.
CAROL CARROLL, Director
Administrative Services Division
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs
400 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 500
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-4730
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 80.
CHRIS NELSON, Staff
to the Senate Majority
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 413
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3865
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 80.
BRUCE GAZAWAY, President
Alaska National Guard Enlisted Association
(Address not provided)
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 80.
CRAIG LISONBEE, Sergeant Major
Alaska Army National Guard
(Address not provided)
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding attrition rate of
the Alaska Army National Guard.
BRUCE J. GABRYS, President
Alaska National Guard Officer's Association
200 West 34th Avenue, Suite 727
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 694-3874
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 80.
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MORGAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4527
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 80.
FATE PUTMAN, Representative
Alaska State Employees Association/Local 52 AFSCME AFL-CIO
P.O. Box 20473
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 586-2813
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 80 in relation to collective
bargaining units.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-7, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives James, Coghill, Ogan, Whitaker,
Kerttula and Smalley. Representative Hudson arrived at 8:10 a.m.
HB 80 - EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE FOR NAT'L GUARD
Number 008
CHAIR JAMES announced the first order of business is HB 80, "An Act
relating to a state employment preference for certain members of
the Alaska National Guard."
CHAIR JAMES explained Representative Morgan, sponsor of the bill,
is not available to discuss the bill and that Representative
Coghill has agreed to present the sponsor statement.
Number 014
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL JR, Alaska State Legislature, read the
following sponsor statement into the record:
This legislation serves as motivation for joining the
Alaska National Guard by establishing an enlistment and
retention incentive. This bill will initiate a state
hiring preference for Alaska National Guard members
recognizing their tremendous contributions to our state.
Specifically, the bill will allow three points to be
added to the passing grade of a member of the Alaska
National Guard when qualified for classified service
under the State of Alaska's merit system examination. To
qualify for the preference points, Alaska National Guard
members may have served in the Alaska National Guard for
eight years. A person may use the preference without
limitation when being considered for a position for which
persons who are not currently state employees are being
considered.
Currently, under Statute 39.25.159, the bill considers
preference for veterans, disabled veterans and prisoners
of war. With the introduction of this new bill, members
of the Alaska National Guard will also be included in the
hiring preference.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL JR noted, as somebody who has worked with
the guard in his district, these folks deserve respect for having
to strap on a gun and be called into harm's way.
Number 063
HEATHER KINZIE, Employee Resources Consultant, Division of
Personnel, Department of Administration, stated the department
neither opposes nor supports HB 80. The department simply wants to
present the impact of the bill on certain operations for the state.
Firstly, the state uses Workplace Alaska, an on-line application
process, for all of its classified service positions. Classified
service positions are those positions backed by bargaining units.
For the general government bargaining unit, a little more than 70
percent of the workforce, there is a numerical scoring device.
Applicants who meet minimum qualifications receive a score of 70,
and an additional 10 points are added for certain desirable
qualifications for a total score of 100. The bill would add an
additional five points for veterans. Ms. Kinzie referred to a
handout titled, "Workplace Alaska Ranking System", and noted there
are currently 9 ranks starting at a score of 70 and increasing in
increments of 5 to a total score of 100. The bill would increase
the ranks to 13 starting at a score of 70 and increasing in
increments of 3 to a total score of 110. She also noted the two
possible scenarios [Scenarios A and B] in the handout illustrating
the "reachable" candidates. She explained she did not take any
veteran preference away from the applicant pool because it weighs
more than an Alaska National Guard preference. In Scenario B she
added an Alaska National Guard preference to a regular applicant
with no preference. She noted the addition decreased the applicant
pool drastically from 13 to 9 reachable candidates, and from 9 to
2 for reachable candidates without a special preference.
Number 178
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked Ms. Kinzie whether the possible
scenarios are plausible, probable or absolute.
MS. KINZIE replied possible.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked Ms. Kinzie, referring to the
possibility, whether there could have been more applicants without
a special preference in Scenario B.
MS. KINZIE replied it is possible, but Scenario B includes the
overall possible percentage of veterans at 12 percent - the number
of applicants receiving veteran points. She reiterated she
included an Alaska National Guard preference in Scenario B which
caused a decrease, but the scenario is as close as she could make
it. Yes, it is possible that there could be more "normal"
applicants who would have scored just as high increasing the number
of reachable applicants.
Number 215
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated for clarification that nobody other
than a veteran could score 110.
MS. KINZIE replied correct. She reiterated about 70 percent of the
vacancies for classified service positions are ranked numerically
from a starting score of 70 up to 110. The other vacancies are
unranked, but veteran points apply. In other words, everyone
starts with a score of zero and veterans get five or ten preference
points. The bill would include three as a fourth rank.
Number 232
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER stated it appears Scenario B should be
headed "probable" rather than "possible" because a percentage of
actual population is being used. He asked Ms. Kinzie whether she
agrees.
MS. KINZIE replied, yes, it should be a probable scenario.
CHAIR JAMES announced the presence of Representative Hudson.
Number 247
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Ms. Kinzie whether a lot of Alaskan
veterans are using their preference and actually receiving a job.
MS. KINZIE asked, for clarification, whether Representative Hudson
is interested in the percentage of veterans applying for jobs where
that veteran's preference points are applicable, or the number of
veterans actually getting jobs because of that veteran's points.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied he is interested in whether or not
veterans are applying for jobs and getting them.
MS. KINZIE replied, according to statute, veterans only receive
preference points for open, competitive lists. They do not receive
preference points for promotional opportunities. The current
percentage of applicants receiving veteran points is 12. She does
not know how many veterans are getting jobs because of that
veteran's preference points, but she would try and get that
information to him.
Number 275
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated that information would be helpful and
interesting in order to see whether or not it is working.
Number 282
MS. KINZIE continued. She noted that there would be two other
impacts on the operation of the state. Firstly, she explained the
state gives veteran preference points after 180 days of active duty
during a war period, once disabled, or once a prisoner of war. A
veteran will always receive that preference. House Bill 80,
however, does not state that for the guard. It only states that a
member has to be in the guard for eight years and active. Those
circumstances can change placing a burden on the state by requiring
every applicant for every application to show eligibility.
Secondly, she explained there is a high percentage of employees
with guard status within the Department of Corrections and
Department of Public Safety and noted that Desert Storm placed a
burden on those departments because of the shortage of staff. The
departments had to seek other types of coverage, such as
double-shift and overtime. The bill might solve the retention
problem the guard is having while at the same time put an undue
burden on the state.
Number 325
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to the zero fiscal note and asked Ms.
Kinzie whether the department is going to absorb the additional
burdens.
MS. KINZIE replied she doesn't know. She would have to get back to
the committee on that.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered whether a zero fiscal note is
accurate.
CHAIR JAMES noted Representative Ogan's concern and stated it is
something that can't be calculated. Nevertheless, the national
guard is so important that the state needs to allow its members to
have a job and continue service - the purpose of the bill. She is
not sure whether or when there would be a fiscal impact on the
departments, however. She noted a fiscal note addresses the
current budget, and it is good to talk about a possible fiscal
impact, but a positive fiscal note would not be appropriate.
Number 372
THELMA BUCHHOLDT, Director, Office of Equal Employment Opportunity,
Office of the Governor, testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. She noted there are presently 13,543 state employees in
the executive branch of which 2,294 or 5 percent are minorities:
Native Americans, Alaska Natives, Asian-Pacific Islanders,
Hispanics and African-Americans. She stated the bill might affect
the application and retention of minorities and women. It is
another hurdle for them when the state has a hard time hiring
minorities anyway. She explained there have been complaints from
Alaska Natives and African-Americans regarding the insufficient
number of their people in state jobs. She reiterated adding
another preference above and beyond the five and ten points to
veterans would be detrimental to the hiring of minorities. She
asked that the committee members consider her concerns when
deliberating the bill.
Number 413
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Buchholdt whether there is a high percentage
of Alaska Natives in the guard and wouldn't that increase the
opportunity for minority hire.
MS. BUCHHOLDT replied, yes, but she is not talking about them. She
recognized that the bill could be a boost to Native hire. She is
talking about the other minorities and women. Traditionally, most
guard members are male thereby depriving white females and
minorities the opportunity to compete for those jobs.
Number 433
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER noted he would like to see the basis of Ms.
Buchholdt's conclusion in the form of a calculation sheet.
Number 444
CHAIR JAMES called on Ms. Kinzie and referred to Scenarios A and B.
She asked whether the applicants at the rank of 90 and 100 have any
preferences.
MS. KINZIE replied there are some typical applicants at the rank of
90 and 100 without special preferences.
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Kinzie whether anybody in the reachable group
can be chosen, not necessarily the top five.
MS. KINZIE replied right.
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Kinzie whether the chances of having a
minority applicant is better in Scenario A at 13 reachable
candidates or in Scenario B at 7 reachable candidates.
MS. KINZIE replied the chances of reaching an underutilized
candidate is the exact same in both scenarios because they are
always reachable. In other words, they are guaranteed a
consideration.
CHAIR JAMES stated a minority or woman is pushed up into the
reachable status.
MS. KINZIE responded yes.
CHAIR JAMES stated in light of that Ms. Buchholdt's concern is not
necessary.
MS. KINZIE replied she could not say exactly. She is aware of the
concern of appearances and hiring managers tend to do the bare
minimum of what's required. In other words, hiring managers tend
to take only the top five candidates. It is probable, therefore,
a hiring manager would see a lower score and assume that candidate
is not as qualified. The fact that that candidate is reachable
sometimes does not play a part. A hiring manager will consider
that candidate because it is the law, but more than likely that
hiring manager will assume a candidate with a lower score is not as
qualified.
Number 478
CHAIR JAMES stated it is possible, therefore, that any reachable
candidate in the scenarios could either be a minority or woman.
MS. KINZIE replied yes.
Number 483
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Ms. Kinzie for comparable information
on the underutilized similar to what he requested earlier regarding
veterans.
Number 495
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL JR asked Ms. Kinzie whether the state
follows equal employment opportunity hiring.
MS. KINZIE replied correct.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL JR asked Ms. Kinzie whether that is also
true for the national guard.
MS. KINZIE replied she is not sure.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL JR stated he thinks that the Alaska National
Guard has equal employment opportunities creating a level playing
field and encouraging minorities. He sees the bill as an
incentive. He does not see it as discriminatory.
Number 512
CAROL CARROLL, Director, Administrative Services Division,
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, noted acting
Commissioner Phillip Oates, Brigadier General, testified
enthusiastically in favor of the bill in the House Special
Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting. The
department always likes to support recruitment and retention
efforts of the national guard. Currently, the state is having a
problem recruiting and retaining members, therefore, the bill would
be good to help with those goals. However, it is not the
commissioner's intent to have a detrimental effect on any other
group of people.
Number 528
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Carroll what percentage of the
Alaska National Guard is female.
MS. CARROLL replied, according to the department's statistics, 27
percent are women and 34 percent are Alaska Natives.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Carroll whether she has any other
breakdowns.
MS. CARROLL replied no. She further noted the department is
gathering information on how many guardsmen would be eligible for
these points.
Number 543
CHRIS NELSON, Staff to the Senate Majority, Alaska State
Legislature, noted he is also currently serving as staff to the
Joint Committee on Military Bases. In reference to the issue of
verification, each active member of the national guard receives a
leave and earning statement indicating that members length of
service. Therefore, he doesn't believe the state would incur any
administrative burden. It is simply a matter of asking a guardsman
to present that guardsman's pay slip. In reference to the makeup
of the Alaska Army National Guard, 6 percent are African-Americans,
4 percent are Asian and Pacific Islanders, 5 percent are Hispanics,
31 percent are Native Americans and 54 are others. Thirteen
percent of the guard is female. The numbers stand up well against
state agencies and the armed forces as a whole. In reference to
the Alaska Air National Guard, 8 percent are African-Americans, 1
percent are Asian and Pacific Islanders, 3 percent are Hispanics,
2 percent are Alaska Natives and 86 percent are others.
Twenty-three percent of the guard is female. He noted every
position in the Alaska Army National Guard is open to females
including positions in the field, and he doesn't know of any other
organizations that have done a better job than the Alaska National
Guard in reaching out, including and opening opportunities for all.
A preference, therefore, is only a preference to a personnel pool
that is already ethnically and racially diverse. He doesn't think
the bill would adversely affect women and minorities.
Number 597
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked Mr. Nelson whether the total makeup
of minorities is 46 percent.
MR. NELSON replied, yes, for the Alaska Army National Guard.
Number 601
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER referred to the 13 percent figure for
females in the Alaska Army National Guard and asked Mr. Nelson what
percentage was previously counted as minorities.
MR. NELSON replied he doesn't have that breakdown. He would get it
to him this afternoon.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked Mr. Nelson whether it is fair to
speculate that the number could be roughly one-half.
MR. NELSON replied upon speculation the numbers would reflect the
overall makeup of the Alaska Army National Guard because a decision
to join the guard is primarily driven by geographic location and
there are several units in bush Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked Mr. Nelson whether taking the total
for minorities and the total for women would put the figure at over
50 percent.
MR. NELSON replied yes if the categories are constructed that way.
A percentage of each of the ethnic breakdowns is female. There is
a strong case in looking at the overall picture of the Alaska Army
National Guard and arguing that over one-half could be counted in
one of the categories.
Number 624
CHAIR JAMES noted a veteran will always get a preference under
current law, but a member of the national guard will only get a
preference if that member is active with eight years of service.
She wondered whether it would be better to just give a guard member
five preference points instead of three. Representative Morgan has
indicated to her that the figure three was used because veterans
objected to having guard members at the same level.
MR. NELSON replied he has served as an enlisted soldier in the
regular army, as an officer in the army and as a member of the
reserve. In reference to the issue of mobilization and its effect
on state agencies, a mobilization disrupts everything. He has
great respect for guard members because they serve the governor as
commander in chief and respond to federal and state emergencies
including natural disasters. It isn't realistic to think that a
worldwide emergency or natural disaster isn't going to disrupt
anybody. In addition, it is valuable to have a well-trained,
organized and equipped personnel pool to deploy in various part of
the state. It may cause disruption to an agency, but the very
nature of an emergency disrupts everybody.
Number 677
CHAIR JAMES stated a guard member and a veteran are two different
folks, but there seems to be parity in making the preference points
the same. She understands, however, that veterans might feel
differently, particularly if they have spent time in harm's way.
Number 690
MR. NELSON replied there might be generational feelings on this
issue because of the draft during the Vietnam Era. It was
criticized for its exemptions from service. It ended up being
highly discriminatory and eventually discontinued. However, during
that era a person could enlist in a reserve unit that had a low
percentage of being mobilized and therefore completing that
person's military obligation. Consequently, there has been
resentment among veterans who did not serve in the guard, but
served in active duty, as required by the draft, and spent time in
harm's way. That feeling is going away, however. In addition,
there is a high percentage of national guard members that are
veterans and have already passed the "189"-day window entitling
that member to a five-point preference. There is also a high
percentage of national guard members that are not veterans and
have...
TAPE 99-7, SIDE B
Number 001
MR. NELSON continued. The preference system is not cumulative
whereby a guard member would get either three or five points. It
is a valuable preference and a new way to value a member's service
in the Alaska National Guard. The bill does not disrupt the
current preferences for veterans. He thinks it will reach the
people that it intends to reach; it will be a valuable recruiting
and retention tool; and it will deliver a racially and ethnically
diversified personnel pool to the state.
Number 037
BRUCE GAZAWAY, President, Alaska National Guard Enlisted
Association, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He noted
he is also a citizen soldier. He mentioned Sergeant Major Craig
Lisonbee and Senior Master Sergeant Lisa Scroggs are also available
as resources regarding the issue of recruiting and retention. The
association believes that the preference points are not a reward
for past service, but to encourage further service of mid-level
managers and trained technicians. In other words, it is a modest
and low-cost incentive for master mechanics, shop foremen,
electricians, load masters, pilots, squad leaders, platoon leaders
and the other worker bees. The association would not object to
including retired guard members or a five-point preference which
has been discussed. Three points were chosen to prevent conflicts
with veteran organizations and to keep the focus on providing an
incentive to stay with the guard. He explained the entire U.S.
military is facing a retention crisis, not just the national
guards, and the most skilled service members are being lured away
into a civilian market. The Alaska National Guard suffers about a
10 percent to 20 percent dropout rate, the reason for generating
this type of legislation. In addition, the Alaska National Guard
is one of the most racially integrated and ethnically represented
institutions in the state. Alaska Natives comprise over 34 percent
of its membership and over one-half are members of one minority
category. It is these individuals that will benefit most from this
type of policy because what drives many minorities and low-income
youths to join the military is the desire to learn job skills. The
guard can provide the training, but it can't provide many with
full-time employment resulting in a high dropout rate. This bill,
therefore, can abridge that problem and encourage those individuals
in their quest for a stable job and a guard career. In addition,
he noted this measure will set Alaska apart from the rest of the
states.
Number 162
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Gazaway what the figures are for
dropouts.
MR. GAZAWAY replied he doesn't have those figures and deferred the
question to Sergeant Major Lisonbee.
Number 172
CRAIG LISONBEE, Sergeant Major, Alaska Army National Guard,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated on a yearly
basis the guard goes from an 18 percent to 22 percent attrition
rate. It depends on the year, however, and what happens within
that year.
Number 178
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked whether a great portion of dropouts is
due to the fact that they don't have jobs.
MR. GAZAWAY replied there is the concept referred to as "job
instability" which indicates the period of time when a guard member
can't find stable work and often migrates out of the state. That
guard member often drops out of the guard.
Number 202
BRUCE J. GABRYS, President, Alaska National Guard Officer's
Association, testified via teleconference from Homer. He noted he
is retired with over 15 years of leadership experience with the
Alaska National Guard. The three-point preference recognizes the
service that the guard provides to the people of Alaska and the
nation. National guard members are called upon on an increasing
frequency to assist in times of state emergencies and federal
service. This bill would provide an additional incentive for the
retention of mid-career servicemen and women who have received a
great deal of training and who are critical to the success of the
national guard. In reference to dual membership as a member of the
guard and employee of the state, there is a synergistic effect
because in a time of state emergency there is a cross-pollination
of skills that facilitates interdepartmental coordination. He
finds the reference to co-membership as negative and discriminatory
towards military members. The state should be rewarding those who
service that state and country. In reference to the three-point
preference, the bill is not intended to create an additional
category of employment. He agrees with Representative James'
suggestion of making it a five-point preference and believes that
veteran organizations would support that change as well. In
reference to the Vietnam Era, the membership of the guard is
different now and the hard feelings have long passed. In reference
to the handout titled, "Workplace Alaska Ranking System", he is
concerned because it uses a veteran density of 12 percent, assumes
all the applicants are of the same veteran preference, and assumes
50 percent are disabled veterans. The bill is not intended to
eliminate people from the top five tiers and restrict the selection
of choices. It is intended to give an opportunity to select guard
members to be interviewed or at least to be considered. A
selection, however, should be based on merit.
Number 306
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON referred to page 2, lines 18-21, "If all job
qualifications are equal, a member of the national guard shall be
given preference over a person who was not a veteran, prisoner of
war, or members of the national guard, and the member of the
national guard shall be kept on the job.", and noted it is a
provision that runs into traditional and current labor negotiated
bumping rights. He wondered whether it is also a leg up on
seniority status. He would not be comfortable offsetting those
tradition privileges.
Number 338
CHAIR JAMES wondered whether being in a job longer is a "job
qualification".
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated he is not sure.
Number 345
CHAIR JAMES stated it needs to be made clear. A person on the job
for a few months compared to a person on the job for years do not
have the same job qualifications.
Number 355
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL JR referred to page 2, lines 21-22, "This
subsection may not be interpreted to amend the terms of a
collective bargaining agreement.". He noted some guard members
have bargained into a collective agreement and the bill will not
change that.
CHAIR JAMES stated she believes the bill will not change that
either.
CHAIR JAMES announced the presence of Representative Morgan, prime
sponsor of the bill.
Number 369
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Representative Morgan to explain his
concern regarding the appearance of upsetting somebody on the basis
of a national guard qualification in relation to seniority. He
supports the intent and purpose of the bill, but doesn't want to
see it upset long-standing and traditional contractual
relationships.
Number 383
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Morgan whether including the term
"seniority" would remain consistent with the intent of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MORGAN, Alaska State Legislature, replied it is
fine with him.
Number 407
MS. CARROLL noted language already exists in statute and that
language works. She also stated qualifications include seniority.
Number 414
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Carroll whether there is a
conflict in Section 1 referring to veterans and Section 2 referring
to members of the national guard in relation to all qualifications
being equal.
MS. CARROLL replied the bill sets a situation for a veteran to
stay, and if there isn't a veteran, a member of the guard would
stay with all things being equal. She doesn't believe there is a
conflict.
Number 423
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Carroll whether she is saying,
all qualifications being equal, the veteran preference will make it
so that veterans will not be quite equal.
MS. CARROLL replied, with all things remaining equal, a veteran
gets the preference. And, if there isn't a veteran then a member
of the guard would get that preference, and if there are neither
that preference wouldn't come into play.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that is not how the bill is written.
It needs to be clarified.
Number 439
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Carroll whether the language mentioned
earlier in existing law regards veterans.
MS. CARROLL referred to the language on page 2, lines 3-6; and page
2, lines 18-21, and noted a guard will be given preference over a
person who is not a veteran, prisoner of war, or member of the
national guard...
CHAIR JAMES interjected and noted it is existing language. She
also noted the only change is to include members of the national
guard. It is, therefore, not necessary to include language
referring to seniority.
Number 456
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL JR referred to page 2, lines 21-22, "This
subsection may not be interpreted to amend the terms of a
collective bargaining agreement." He feels that seniority is
adequately protected and there isn't an inequity.
CHAIR JAMES agreed with him.
Number 465
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY stated he would like to see seniority
included rather than implied. It is much cleaner.
CHAIR JAMES wondered whether it would also have to be included in
existing law.
Number 472
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted the first instance is referring to
filling a new position and the second instance is referring to the
elimination of a position within a classified service. He is
concerned about keeping language that is in accordance with the
collective bargaining agreements in relation to downsizing.
Seniority is a major provision that collective bargaining
agreements address. He suggested hearing from a representative of
a union.
CHAIR JAMES explained the language in existing law is exactly the
same as the language in the new subsection. She doesn't know why
language referring to seniority would be needed in the new
subsection when it is not needed in the existing language.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated maybe it is needed in both places.
Number 499
MR. GAZAWAY stated the goal of the association is not to perpetuate
rights or privileges after employment has been obtained. The
association is simply trying to have its membership get to an
interview and prove that member's capability. The association
would not object to striking that language.
Number 515
CHAIR JAMES stated keeping that member employed is just as
important as getting that member employed. They are the same
priorities.
Number 522
FATE PUTMAN, Representative, Alaska State Employees
Association/Local 52 AFSCME AFL-CIO, explained the issue is a
policy decision. He suspects the members would be part of a
collective bargaining unit. He reiterated it is a policy decision
on whether or not to expand a seniority right to a large class of
people.
Number 531
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Putman whether he is concerned about it
interfering with a collective bargaining agreement.
MR. PUTMAN replied it would interfere in the area of seniority.
Giving absolute preference to a member of the guard would allow
that member to bump somebody who is not a member of the guard.
CHAIR JAMES noted that is just what veterans do.
MR. PUTMAN replied exactly.
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Putman whether seniority is included in the
language, "if all job qualifications are equal".
MR. PUTMAN replied he is confused about that, but doesn't think it
includes seniority.
CHAIR JAMES noted that collective bargaining agreements refer to
seniority.
MR. PUTMAN responded yes.
CHAIR JAMES stated, according to her understanding, two people with
the same job qualifications includes seniority because it is part
of the collective bargaining agreement.
MR. PUTMAN replied if that is her understanding he agrees.
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Putman wouldn't it be just as important for
a member of the guard to keep a job as it is to give a preference
to get a job as long as everything else is equal.
MR. PUTMAN replied yes.
Number 554
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated he believes a job qualification does
not include seniority, but now believes that language shouldn't be
included in the bill because he doesn't want to modify "job
qualifications" in general. Seniority is a position that is
negotiated in collective bargaining agreements.
Number 564
CHAIR JAMES stated a person's qualifications have risen after being
in a job for a number of years. She said, "Don't tell me that a
person who has not been on the job longer isn't more qualified than
somebody who's just been hired."
Number 582
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied it isn't always equal from year to
year. There are other provisions as well. Chair James is talking
about an employee who has received computer training, for example,
as a qualification that is taken into consideration when hiring.
The unions take seniority into consideration in the event of a
layoff. But a veteran would have an equal opportunity at a minimum
to maintain that veteran's job.
Number 588
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated an employee cannot be fired unless that
employee is grossly incompetent in this state.
CHAIR JAMES stated, "I would."
CHAIR JAMES explained to Representative Morgan before he arrived
there was discussion about three versus five preference points.
Mr. Lisonbee indicated there wouldn't be a conflict with the
veteran organizations and the guard, but he would check it out.
She referred to the scenarios provided by Ms. Kinzie and noted that
more people are included in the five-point scenario giving
minorities and women a better chance. She doesn't have a problem
with changing it to five points. She wondered how Representative
Morgan feels about it, and asked him whether he wants to move the
bill out of committee today or wait until Mr. Lisonbee gets back to
the committee on that issue.
Number 616
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN replied he feels more comfortable waiting.
CHAIR JAMES announced the bill will be held over for further
consideration.
HB 45 - INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS
HJR 7 - CONST AM: INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS
Number 622
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business in HB 45, "An Act
relating to initiative and referendum petitions; and providing for
an effective date."; and HJR 7, Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to initiative and
referendum petitions.
CHAIR JAMES explained that these two bill have been in a
subcommittee.
Number 625
CHAIR JAMES called for a brief at-ease then called the meeting back
to order.
CHAIR JAMES announced there is a committee substitute for HB 45,
CSHB 45(STA), 1-LS0254\D, Kurtz, 2/22/99. There is also a
committee substitute for HJR 7, CSHJR 7(STA), 1-LS0252\D, Kurtz,
2/22/99. She noted the change for both committee substitutes is 10
percent. She called for a motion to adopt the committee
substitutes for consideration.
Number 637
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to adopt CSHB 45(STA),
1-LS0254\D, Kurtz, 2/22/99, and CSHJR 7(STA), 1-LS0252\D, Kurtz,
2/22/99, for discussion purposes. There being no objection, they
were so moved.
Number 645
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON explained, as a member of the subcommittee,
a number of different percentage points were looked at. The
subcommittee concluded that the three-fourths number, as proposed
by the prime sponsor, would expand the democratic process into
rural Alaska so it was left in the bill. The subcommittee also
discussed a number of different percentages of those in the various
house districts and came up with 10 percent. The original 15
percent was a bit heavy, especially for the sparsely settled
districts, creating an extra burden. He also noted 10 percent was
used in the early language by the Founding Fathers of the state
constitution.
Number 667
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN announced he has an amendment.
CHAIR JAMES called for a brief at-ease then called the meeting back
to order.
Number 667
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to adopt Amendment 1. It reads
as follows:
TO: CSHB 45(STA)
Line 12 (2.) [AND] resident in [AT LEAST
THREE-FOURTHS] all of the house districts of
the state: and
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON objected for discussion purposes.
Number 673
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained Amendment 1 adds the language "all"
instead of "three-fourths" to the bill. The committee substitute
eliminates the possibility of the average citizen to amend statutes
by referendum due to the cost of getting to each of the house
districts, but three-fourths is not a high enough bar for the
special interest groups from the Lower Forty-Eight, such as the
sierra clubs and animal rights activists that have been involved in
initiative processes in Alaska. He reiterated, as the bill is
written, it is obtainable for a well-funded organization to get
those signatures. That organization can go to the house election
districts in the major urban centers and pick up a few in the bush.
The amendment makes it fair for everybody. He said, "If we're
gonna make it tough on the grassroots folks, I think we ought to
make it tough on the well-financed special interest groups as
well."
Number 697
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER stated it seems the amendment makes it
impossible for any group to rise from the grassroots and utilize
the petition process. It was his impression that the bill intends
to raise the bar somewhat while still making it possible to utilize
this important constitutional process. He is concerned about the
amendment even though he agrees in part to it, but feels it is
shutting the process down altogether.
Number 707
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated, although he understands where
Representative Ogan is coming from in regards to the well-funded
outside groups, he believes the committee substitute expands the
level reasonably from two-thirds to three-fourths. An organization
would have to go to 30 out of 40 districts in order to get 10
percent of all the people who casted a vote in the preceding
general election. He cannot support the amendment because it may
shut down the initiative process. He said, "I think we're going to
have a tough enough job selling making it tougher rather than to
essentially make it almost impossible."
Number 718
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY stated he agrees with the comments made by
Representative Whitaker and Hudson...
TAPE 99-8, SIDE A
Number 001
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY continued. Even though he was part of the
subcommittee, he now questions whether 10 percent of the
three-fourths is reasonable. This is just to get the measure to
the ballot box. He doesn't support the amendment, and announced he
is having second thoughts about the committee substitute.
Number 014
CHAIR JAMES referred to the numbers provided by the sponsor of the
various possibilities. She asked the committee members to look at
the numbers at 15 percent for each of the house districts and
visualize the numbers at 10 percent. She calculated a few of the
house districts then stated 10 percent might be too high.
Number 072
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated, after agonizing about this with
Representative Smalley for the past week, she came to the
conclusion that the numbers turnaround at the end and actually
start to hurt the bush and rural communities.
CHAIR JAMES referred to the numbers provided by the prime sponsor
and calculated a few house district at 5 percent. She stated
presumably those who support initiatives do so because they haven't
been able to get the legislature to pass such a bill meaning it
either isn't a good idea or it is from the minority. Furthermore,
it is easy to get signatures because people don't like to say no.
Those getting signatures even sit in a supermarket and ask for
them. She wondered whether the intent of the law is recognized in
those cases because a lot of the people don't understand the
initiative. Many people sign purely because they believe it should
go to a vote. And, when something is on the ballot Anchorage alone
can pass it disenfranchising the rest of the state at which point
the representative part of government has failed. A balance is
needed. She noted a figure of 5 percent of those who voted in the
preceding general election doesn't sound unreasonable, but one
person in two-thirds of the house districts is not enough.
Three-fourths calls for 4 of the 15 bush districts, otherwise the
urban districts are only needed. Most of the rural districts have
a larger community such as Nome, Barrow or Kotzebue, and wondered
how many signatures are possible as a percentage in those cities.
Number 151
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL JR stated, referring to the intent of the
Founding Fathers of the state constitution, the 10 percent and 8
percent numbers were intended to get a minority view on the ballot.
Today, the ability to travel and communicate is very high and
keeping the numbers high enough to require work is just as
important as making it too easy. He is not saying that the
minority shouldn't have a view; he is saying that requiring
three-fourths of the house districts is going to take work
regardless of whether the number calls for 5 percent or 10 percent.
The most important thing is to get more districts involved and 10
percent is not unreasonable. It will generate a discussion
nonetheless.
Number 202
CHAIR JAMES explained it is 10 percent of those who voted in the
preceding general election and noted that the turnout has been low.
It is not 10 percent of the registered voters.
Number 207
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL JR stated this process would encourage more
people to vote by placing responsibility back onto the voter. It
puts on-notice that this is an involved society. He reiterated 10
percent is not off-base.
Number 217
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated the discussion has strayed quite a bit
from the amendment. The purpose of Amendment 1 is to stand up for
the grassroots people. Changing the ability of the average citizen
to amend a statute is a serious policy call. The way the committee
substitute is written has seriously affected the ability of someone
without money or resources to get signatures, but it hasn't
effected those with money. He said, "I think if we're gonna limit
people's ability to amend statute by referendum, we should limit it
for all and not just the little guy." He explained he didn't
expect the amendment to pass, but wanted the discussion on the
record.
Number 250
CHAIR JAMES called for a roll call vote. Representative Ogan voted
in favor of the motion. Representatives Coghill, Hudson, Smalley,
Whitaker, Kerttula and James voted against the motion. The motion
failed to pass.
Number 254
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY made a motion to adopt Amendment 2. It
reads as follows:
TO: CSHB 45(STA)
Page 2, line 1 change "10 percent" to "5
percent"
TO: CSHJR 7(STA)
Page 1, line 10 change "ten per cent" to "five
per cent"
Number 264
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY explained a bar of 10 percent will have the
exact opposite effect and eliminate some of the rural vote. He
thinks 5 percent is more reasonable. According to the statistical
data, even 5 percent will be tough in some districts. He is not
sure the bill should create a bar that will make the process more
difficult. He would love to see 100 percent of the voters voting,
but the turnouts have been pitiful. He reiterated 5 percent is
more reasonable.
Number 289
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated it is the eye of the beholder. The
bill calls for 5 percent of those who voted in the preceding
general election with a 30 percent to 40 percent voting turnout.
He stated 40 percent is a high figure these days so it is not
really 1 out of 10, but 1 out of 30 in a given region. In this
case it is 1 out of 60 in a 30 percent turnout. He likes 10
percent and recognizes it will be the voters who make the final
decision on whether or not to change the constitution. He agrees
that one is too few and more than one is really in the eye of the
beholder.
Number 314
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated he would vote for Amendment 2 if it
included "all" districts in the state. If it passes, he announced
he would move an amendment to amend it.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON called for the question.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES called for a roll call vote. Representative
Hudson, Ogan, Coghill, Whitaker and James voted against the motion.
Representatives Smalley and Kerttula voted in favor of the motion.
The motion failed to pass.
CHAIR JAMES announced the bill will be held over in committee for
further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 332
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting at 9:59 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|