Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/27/1999 08:07 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
April 27, 199
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Harold Smalley
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL 33(FIN)
"An Act relating to contracts for the performance of certain state
functions previously performed by state employees and to the
Commission on Privatization and Delivery of Government Services;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HCSCSSB 33(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL 132
"An Act relating to allowable absences from the state for purposes
of eligibility for permanent fund dividends; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 132(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL 159
"An Act granting certain employees in correctional facilities
status as peace officers under the public employees' retirement
system."
- MOVED HB 159 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL 16
"An Act transferring to the Department of Health and Social
Services the authority to license all assisted living facilities;
eliminating the authority of the Department of Administration to
license assisted living facilities; and providing for an effective
date."
- WAIVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL 179
"An Act eliminating the Alaska Public Offices Commission and all
campaign contribution and expenditure limits; transferring the
administration of lobbying, conflict of interest, and financial
disclosure statutes from the Alaska Public Offices Commission to
the division of elections; relating to reporting of campaign
contributions and expenditures; defining 'full disclosure,'
'purposely,' 'recklessly,' and 'resident'; amending the definition
of 'contribution,' 'group,' and 'political party'; changing the
residency requirements for candidates for public offices; and
providing for criminal penalties for violation of these
provisions."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 33
SHORT TITLE: TASK FORCE ON PRIVATIZATION
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) WARD
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/21/99 49 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/21/99 49 (S) STA, FIN
1/28/99 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
1/28/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
1/28/99 (S) MINUTE(STA)
2/01/99 125 (S) STA RPT 2DP 1NR 1DNP
2/01/99 125 (S) DP: WARD, PHILLIPS; NR:MACKIE;
DNP:ELTON
2/01/99 126 (S) INDETERMINATE FN (GOV)
2/25/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/04/99 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/04/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
3/04/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
3/09/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/09/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
3/09/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
3/15/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/15/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
3/15/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
3/22/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/22/99 (S) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
3/24/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
3/31/99 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/31/99 (S) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
4/01/99 (S) RLS AT 11:50 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/01/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/01/99 767 (S) FIN RPT CS 4DP 2NR NEW TITLE
4/01/99 767 (S) DP: PARNELL, TORGERSON, GREEN, LEMAN;
4/01/99 767 (S) NR: PETE KELLY, DONLEY
4/01/99 767 (S) PREVIOUS INDETERMINATE FN (GOV)
4/06/99 793 (S) FORTHCOMING (FIN) CS RECEIVED
4/07/99 804 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1DNP 4/7/99
4/07/99 805 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/07/99 805 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/07/99 805 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y6 N14
4/07/99 806 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
4/07/99 806 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 33(FIN)
4/07/99 806 (S) PASSED Y15 N5
4/07/99 807 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
4/07/99 807 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
4/08/99 828 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
4/08/99 829 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/09/99 698 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/09/99 698 (H) STA, FIN
4/20/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/20/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/22/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/22/99 (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
4/22/99 (H) FIN AT 8:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
4/22/99 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
4/22/99 (H) <BILL CANCELED>
4/27/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 132
SHORT TITLE: PERMANENT FUND ALLOWABLE ABSENCES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) COWDERY BY REQUEST
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/11/99 428 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/11/99 428 (H) STA, FINANCE
3/23/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
3/23/99 (H) ASSIGNED TO A SUBCOMMITTEE
3/23/99 (H) MINUTE(STA)
4/15/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/15/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/15/99 (H) MINUTE(STA)
4/20/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/20/99 (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
4/22/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/22/99 (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
4/27/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 159
SHORT TITLE: PERS PEACE OFFR STATUS CORRECTION EMPLOYE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) DAVIS, Smalley, Kerttula
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/25/99 568 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/25/99 568 (H) STA, FINANCE
3/31/99 642 (H) COSPONSOR(S): SMALLEY
4/13/99 Text (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/13/99 Text (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/13/99 Text (H) MINUTE(STA)
4/15/99 Text (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/15/99 Text (H) <BILL CANCELED>
4/20/99 Text (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/20/99 Text (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
4/20/99 888 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA
4/22/99 Text (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/22/99 Text (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
4/27/99 Text (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
PAM LaBOLLE, President
Alaska Chamber of Commerce
217 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-2323
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 33.
BARBARA COTTING, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Jeannette James
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6822
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the committee substitute to
SB 33.
JUANITA HENSLEY, Administrator
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
PO Box 110200
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 465-5648
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 33 regarding
collective bargaining.
DON ETHERIDGE
Local 71
District Council Laborers
710 West 9th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3707
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Local 71 in opposition
to SB 33.
MARK HODGINS, Legislative Assistant
for Senator Jerry Ward
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 423
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4522
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 33 on behalf of Senator Ward.
TAMARA COOK, Director
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3867
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 33.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 513
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2693
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 159.
BILL CHURCH, Retirement Supervisor
Division of Retirement and Benefits
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110203
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-5700
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 159.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-30, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:07 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives James, Coghill, Ogan, Whitaker,
Hudson, Kerttula and Smalley.
SB 33-TASK FORCE ON PRIVATIZATION
CHAIR JAMES announced the first order of business is CSSB 33(FIN)
"An Act relating to contracts for the performance of certain state
functions previously performed by state employees and to the
Commission on Privatization and Delivery of Government Services;
and providing for an effective date."
Number 018
PAM LaBOLLE, President, Alaska Chamber of Commerce, came before the
committee noting that creating a task force on privatization has
been a priority of the State Chamber. She mentioned that a
proposal passed the legislature in 1997 and was vetoed by the
Governor and in 1998 another proposal passed the Senate and made it
to House Rules but ran out of time.
MS. LaBOLLE said the State Chamber held a seminar and invited
national experts to find out what was going on around the country
because privatization is something that governments are looking at
all over the country. She cited that the initiative to privatize
Alaska's correctional facilities was the outcome of that seminar.
The following year the State Chamber held another seminar which
focused on the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOT/PF). She stated, "What we learned in our first seminar was
that there's privatization which is when a state completely divests
itself of a business it is in (of providing a service or doing a
function) and they just don't do it anymore and someone in the
private sector picks it up. And then there's outsourcing where the
state's still paying for it but they're having someone else in the
private sector do it. And then, of course, there is managed
competition and that is where the state could put something out for
bid and the state's own agency would bid along with the private
sector to see who could have the 'sharpest pencil' and do the job
for the best price and with the greatest efficiency."
Number 129
MS. LaBOLLE referred to information which she had distributed
[available in the packet]. She said the first page relates to the
privatization trends going on all over the country; it shows that
almost 59 percent of the states were increasing their activities in
privatization and that another 55.2 percent plan to increase it
over the next five years. The next page shows that the State of
Alaska was hiring in-house, doing more than was probably necessary
and that it was duplicative. For example there is a lot of
private-sector engineers who are registered who have to have the
same minimal level of training, who have to reach the same
requirements, and they felt the work should go out. Ms. LaBolle
further stated, "Knowing that there would be a great influx of
federal dollars coming in on the highways this year, the Chamber
did a survey of private engineering firms ... to find out (here in
the state) what availability they had because the DOT/PF says
frequently when they want to do a job they have to have someone on
staff because there's no one available in the private sector to do
it." She said the State Chamber asked the private sector, by
DOT/PF region: How many professional do they have, could they move
their people from one region to another if needed, and was their
workload such that they could take on this work on the highways and
the response was overwhelming. She said they were immediately
interested in responding to this survey and it showed that they
have plenty of people to do the work. The reason the State Chamber
conducted the survey was so that there wouldn't be any immediate
hiring of more on-staff, in-house engineers in the department
[DOT/PF] when there are private sector people ready to do the work.
She also mentioned other reports show that companies are putting
data processing, payroll and such out to privatization.
Number 222
MS. LaBOLLE referred to an article in the Alaska Business Monthly
Magazine. She said Governor Hammond asked for the business
community to help him see what actions they could take to reduce
the cost of state spending because it had taken a mighty leap in
the previous two years. She said she thinks it might have had
something to do with the fact that the oil was flowing down the
pipeline about that time. Ms. LaBolle pointed out that 55 business
executives were lent to the state by corporations within Alaska and
those individuals (she believes) worked for 12 weeks and came up
with 362 recommendations, of which 247 of those were immediately
implemented. She further noted that $44 million was saved by the
implementation of those (indisc.) benefits, and that was in 1978.
MS. LaBOLLE mentioned Arkansas put together the "Murphy Commission"
in which 100 to 150 citizens and business leaders volunteered to
look at their state government. She emphasized that the State
Chamber will be holding another seminar on June 25 to redefine
Alaska's government and that they intend to invite someone from
groups such as the "Murphy Commission" to explain how it's working
and what they've accomplished. They also intend to invite someone
from Alberta to explain how they came about spending their
permanent fund, how they continued to fund government, and how they
reorganized.
Number 296
MS. LaBOLLE indicated the population of Alaska has increased a
little over 50 percent and that state spending has increased by
nearly 300 percent. She said the State Chamber thinks, "We don't
have the money any more and we need to reprioritize and look at
what the state's responsibilities are, the things that must be
done, and the things that the state shouldn't be in the business of
doing any more."
MS. LaBOLLE further stated that, "The work draft [version V] I know
has removed the part about the contracting that it's not negotiable
with the -- if the state is going to be able to have someone other
than state employees do something the state employees have been
doing. We did not promote that in the legislation when it was in
the Senate, however, I know why the Senate put it in - was because,
as you heard ... it had been negotiated in state contracts where
there has to be a feasibility study and ... that those can cost
between $20 and $50,000 a piece. It was my understanding ... that
it had to show a 10 percent savings before it could go out to
someone else, and of course, we kept asking the question, why, why.
I think it was 11 print shop workers - why couldn't we do away
[with] the print shop and what was keeping the state from doing
that, and it's my understanding that that had to do with the
negotiated contracts. There wasn't a feasibility [study] and there
wasn't all of that. So how it becomes part of the requirements
that in negotiating that you take that into consideration, or you
don't negotiate your right ... of state government, I don't know.
But that is the back ground for that."
Number 366
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that whole effort was the Governor's
initiative, the executive branch of government as opposed to what
we're dealing with now. The legislature is essentially
underwriting a complete review of privatization. He asked if the
State Chamber communicated with the Governor and has the Governor
initiated efforts to try to pass this kind of legislation or move
the state more and more into the privatization fields.
MS. LaBOLLE said they talked to Governor Knowles at the beginning
of this legislative session and their understanding was that he was
more amenable to privatization than he had been in the past. She
believes the difference between now and two years ago is the price
of oil. Ms. LaBolle further stated, "If you think you have the
money, it's one thing to not want to go in this direction versus
actually deciding that some things got to be done and you have to
find ways to create efficiencies and perhaps not through some of
things you've been doing in the past."
Number 423
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said privatization has been ongoing for a
long period of time and his big concern is that, "Let's be careful
that we don't replace a resident state employee with a nonresident
private employee," because an awful lot of people come from the
Lower-48 to get rich on Alaska's dollars. He said he assumed the
State Chamber still supports resident hire.
MS. LaBOLLE confirmed Alaska hire is a priority of the State
Chamber. She asked, how many of us came here because there was a
job and saw how wonderful it was and made it our home. How many
"Coasties" [Coast guardsmen] come and make this their home. She
said, "I think it's important that we create opportunities for
people. And the thing is private sector, you know corporations pay
their corporate taxes and the tax - we end up with an inverted
pyramid if we have too many government workers and down here at the
point is the ones who are paying to support the government. And
that's going to tip if it becomes to be too top-heavy. So we've
got to build that base of private-sector economic opportunities."
CHAIR JAMES noted that she came to Alaska to find a job and that
local hire is a tough issue because we want to be sure all of our
people are working before we bring people in for jobs. However, we
have no real control over this because we're part of the U.S., so
our doors are open. Chair James reiterated, "It ought to be that
way, we just ought to be very careful when we walk down that road
to be sure that we don't displace a lot of folks and replace them
with someone else who will work cheaper, or is not even as
qualified as they are."
Number 491
BARBARA COTTING, Legislative Assistant to Representative Jeannette
James, came forward to explain the proposed committee substitute.
She said she and the bill drafter (Tam Cook) agreed that it would
be easier to continue working from version V rather than hurriedly
drafting another CS. She said she will go through the new CS and
tell the members how version V changes version S.
Number 513
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt HCS CSSB 33, Version
LS0317\V, Cook, 4/21/99, as the working document before the
committee. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
MS. COTTING referred to the two amendments which were incorporated
into Version V. Per Representative Ogan's request, the duties of
the commission now include the determination that there may be
duties of the government that should cease. This language was
inserted on page 2, line 8 and on page 4. Ms. Cotting noted that
the language should also be inserted on the last page before the
last two sections. Therefore, paragraph (5) needs to be inserted
before Section 8.
MS. COTTING explained Section 2 of Version S was completely
eliminated per Representative Whitaker's request. She explained
that Section 2 (in the original bill) would have eliminated
collective bargaining from this process. Therefore, the deletion
of Section 2 allows collective bargaining as a part of the process.
She noted that there are conforming changes to accommodate the
elimination of Section 2.
MS. COTTING said Representative Whitaker's amendment deleted the
following language, "the labor or employee organization may prepare
and submit a response to demonstrate the state will not reduce
costs." That language was replaced with language saying that "the
affected agency or department must prepare a written review of the
contract proposal setting out its benefits and detriments."
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON inquired as to the page and line to which Ms.
Cotting is referring.
MS. COTTING directed the committee to page 2, lines 17-23 or
Section 2. The language on page 2, lines 21-23 replaces the
following language, "the labor or employee organization may prepare
a report". Perhaps, that needs to be revisited.
Number 578
MS. COTTING referred to page 3, lines 13-16, Section 3 which deals
with the compensation for members of the commission. She noted
that Tamara Cook, Director, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, had informed her of a problem
in this section. Originally, the section only provided a per diem
for members appointed by the Senate President and the House
Speaker. In order to have clarity for the other members, Version
V states that the other members of the commission do not receive
any compensation, per diem, or travel. Therefore, the language in
Version V does not provide compensation for the members of the
commission, save the members appointed by the Senate President and
the House Speaker. She believed that to be the intent desired by
the committee. In response to Chair James, Ms. Cotting clarified
that only the commission members appointed under paragraph (6) and
(7) are entitled to per diem. This may need to be changed.
However Ms. Cotting did note that in discussions with some of the
organizations, there was indication that the organizations would be
willing to pay the travel and per diem of their members. Ms.
Cotting reiterated the need to insert the language "identify state
functions that should be eliminated" after line 18 on page 4.
Number 625
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL inquired as to where that language was
inserted earlier in Version V.
MS. COTTING specified that the language was inserted on page 2,
line 7 and page 4, line 6. She restated that the language may need
to be inserted on page 4, after line 18.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved Amendment 1:
Page 4, after line 18
Insert, "(5) eliminated as a function of state
government"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIR JAMES directed the committee to page 2, line 17, Section 2.
She said the collective bargaining process was reinstated. Chair
James understood the collective bargaining agreement to read that
before chores of state employees can be outsourced, there has to be
a feasibility study. The feasibility study must illustrate a 10
percent reduction in cost in order to outsource.
JUANITA HENSLEY, Administrator, Division of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Administration, explained that the current contract
does not specify a 10 percent cost savings. The contract only
requires a feasibility study and the illustration of cost savings
to the state before any state employee can be replaced.
CHAIR JAMES understood subsection (b) to mean that before the state
can consider contracting out, there must be a feasibility study
unless that is changed at the collective bargaining table. Chair
James noted that the feasibility study could cost between $20,000
to $50,000. The language in subsection (b) says, "the affected
agency or department must prepare a written review of the contract
proposal setting out its benefits and detriments." Chair James was
not sure this is part of the collective bargaining. She inquired
as to the intent of Representative Whitaker with that language.
Number 704
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said that he felt the language in the
original bill would have circumvented the collective bargaining
process. Providing unlimited power to replace a collective
bargaining unit is essentially the destruction of the collective
bargaining process which is unacceptable. This language simply
requires the collective bargaining process to continue as in the
past. The state can still replace a unit of state function, but
that cannot occur without the knowledge that doing so is in the
state's best interest which would be determined through a written
review and contract proposal specifying the benefits and
detriments.
CHAIR JAMES asked if Representative Whitaker intended the language
to be a definition of what is to be included in the feasibility
study under collective bargaining or is this a different study.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER clarified that this should not be viewed as
a study on top of a study. Rather than replacing the collective
bargaining process with an absolute authority, this requires that
the collective bargaining process continue separately.
Representative Whitaker said that if privatization is considered,
the results of the privatization should be known before it occurs.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN pointed out that this is simply a task force
that can only advise the legislature of its recommendations.
CHAIR JAMES agreed with Representative Ogan, however this is
statutory change. This legislation affords the opportunity to make
procedure to be followed if the task force's recommendations were
implemented.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN expressed concern with the statement that the
task force has absolute unlimited authority. The absolute
unlimited authority is only to make recommendations.
CHAIR JAMES clarified that the insertion in SB 33 specified that
the state has unrestricted authority which is a statutory change.
She asked if this language was necessary since the feasibility
study is required under collective bargaining.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said that it is a judgement call.
Representative Whitaker expressed the need to seriously consider
the benefits and detriments of a decision changing the manner in
which the state does business. He noted that this does not relate
to the collective bargaining process.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he believed this to be appropriate
because this is something that is understood in collective
bargaining, but not included in statute.
CHAIR JAMES said that Section 2(b) on page 2 seems to place what
the agency does in statute for the consideration of contracting out
a state employee function. She noted that it does not have the
same language as she was told is in the collective bargaining.
Chair James inquired as to whether Mr. Etheridge is comfortable
with the language.
Number 792
DON ETHERIDGE, District Council of Laborers, said that there are
not two requirements. This language provides more definition
regarding what is required. This would not require two studies.
He indicated that he is comfortable with the language.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted the section regarding the union's and
the employee's ability to respond to a report. She inquired as to
the rights under the current contract.
MR. ETHERIDGE explained that under the current contracts, most have
a grievance procedure. If the state does not provide the
information required by contract, a grievance procedure can occur.
Mr. Etheridge believed that right would remain. The requirement in
Section 2(b) would give all the information required under the
contract.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if this part of the collective
bargaining negotiations, requiring a written report by the state
agency, is codified, should the employee's right to respond be
codified as well.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said that he has not had a chance to think
about that and would not want to do it "off the cuff."
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON believed that this is appropriate to place in
the Public Employees Relations Act (PERA). The state negotiates
with various unions and often there are different provisions.
Therefore, placing a general requirement in statute allows the
requirement to be amplified within the contract itself.
Representative Hudson commented that had this language been in
statute the closure of the print shop probably would not have
occurred because the final report indicated that closure would
actually end up costing money.
CHAIR JAMES said that she was now convinced of the necessity of the
language.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY inquired as to the make up of the committee.
Nine of the 11 positions have been established by this legislation.
Of the nine, seven are established by the governing majority. The
chair of the committee is established by the governing majority.
Representative Smalley expressed concern regarding the compensation
of the committee members. He said the committee members should be
treated equally. He also inquired as to the time frame for the
cost savings projections.
TAPE 99-30, SIDE B
Number 002
CHAIR JAMES ..."goes up and keeps on going so a decision might be
made to whether or not to take this bleep we've got here and put it
out to contract as opposed to hiring new folks into the agency. "
That would be a short-term savings. She doesn't believe they can
specifically say if it is something that this agency is doing, use
the print shop as an example, because they could contract out the
printing or they could have the print shop. If they are going to
do that and lay off all these folks, then they're looking at a
long-term savings. She said she doesn't know if that responds to
their concern and she doesn't know that there is anything to do
about it because it would be so specific to the kind of
consideration that is being given.
Number 033
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY said it would probably be the committee's
recommendation as to whether it is a short-term or a long-term
benefit to the state, and that is what concerns him about the
committee makeup.
CHAIR JAMES pointed out Section 2 where it says the review must
address the quality of service and cost-effectiveness and may
include other factors. There are other considerations that could
go into that. She read through the list of the composition of the
members of the commission: Two members appointed by the Governor,
one of whom shall be a representative of the labor union.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY doesn't have a problem with that one.
CHAIR JAMES read: One member of the Senate appointed by the
President of the Senate who shall serve as co-chair.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY doesn't have a problem with the Senate
president appointing someone, but he is not sure that that person
should be the co-chair.
CHAIR JAMES commented that this is a legislative task force so she
assumes that it would be chaired by legislators. She continued:
One member appointed by the Alaska Municipal League; no partisan
politics there. One member of the Local Boundary Commission
appointed by the Local Boundary Commission; no partisan politics
there. Two public members appointed by the President of the Senate
and two by the Speaker of the House. She asked him if he thought
those four persons would be partisan. She said she believes they
would have one from the majority and one from the minority, which
is the way it has been done historically.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY noted that it doesn't say that though.
CHAIR JAMES mentioned that when they had the Long-Term Financial
Task Force, the appointees were made by the majority, but they were
non-partisan, or there wasn't a partisan issue on that. She
continued reading: One member appointed by the Chamber of
Commerce.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY said he had no problem with that.
CHAIR JAMES said she believes generally that the majority
represents the public in the balance of power. When there are at
least two members appointed by the President of the Senate,
historically it always has been one from the majority and one from
the minority in both cases. She said she believes it would be
balanced.
Number 114
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY commented that he would like to see it
worded that way.
CHAIR JAMES pointed out that they should be appointing people who
have business backgrounds, some kind of business management or
labor issues. It seems to her that if they pick the best people,
partisan politics shouldn't enter into it at all.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY mentioned that the compensation for
committee members needs to be fair and equitable for all. If per
diem and/or travel is appropriate, it should be paid.
CHAIR JAMES indicated that the members of the House and Senate will
have their per diem and travel paid as a member of the House and
Senate. She referred to testimony from Pam LaBolle and
Representative Hudson from the time of former Governor Hammond's
initiative of getting the loan from the business community to do a
study that the business committee said they would do that. She
assumes that these different groups would be happy to send somebody
without compensation, or they can take care of the compensation
themselves.
Number 168
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the two public members, appointed by
the President of the Senate, and the two appointed by the Speaker
of the House, are also entitled to per diem.
CHAIR JAMES answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that four public members would be
entitled to per diem, but the members from the municipal league and
the Local Boundary Commission and the public members appointed by
the Governor would not get per diem. He suggested that this needs
to be uniformly applied so that they are all eligible for it. They
don't have to take it if they don't want to, but the net value of
what the product is going to be will be certainly worth a few days
of per diem.
CHAIR JAMES went on to say it seems to her that the Governor ought
to be able to find two people willing to serve. She agrees that
the public members appointed by the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House seem to be a duplication, and they are the
only ones that get per diem and travel expenses. This is the glitch
they are trying to fix. It seems to her that the sponsor intended
that those people, even though they are appointed, are probably
volunteering to do this, that they don't get per diem. Those
people who are appointed, not to limit those people, they might not
have stepped up to serve if they aren't compensated.
Number 229
MARK HODGINS, Legislative Assistant for Senator Jerry Ward, came
forward to testify saying it is Senator Ward's intention that the
folks who were appointed would receive per diem and travel costs.
The fiscal note reflects that. On page 3, line 11, the commission
may appoint an advisory council, there was no compensation
whatsoever for that advisory council. The compensation was only in
the form of per diem and travel for the members appointed by the
Governor, the Senate President and the House Speaker.
CHAIR JAMES asked Tam Cook to come forward to tell them if they
have preserved the intent of the sponsor for the per diem.
Number 255
TAMARA COOK, Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, came forward to testify. She is not
sure that they have preserved the intent of the sponsor. She
reiterated what this does. If they are silent on the question of
compensation, the public members would not be receiving
compensation. Government employees, of course, get a salary. If
they are silent on the question of per diem and travel expenses,
then by operation of the AS 39.21.080, public members are entitled
to per diem and travel normally. This is a difference from the
normal statutory rule, in that they are limiting the payment of per
diem and travel to only the identified public members. It is
possible that the Governor will appoint a state worker. If it is
the desire of the committee for the public members to get per diem
and travel, and they wish to address it in this bill, if they are
silent on the subject, she said she believes they would get it by
operation of AS 39.21.080. If they wish to address it, they can
also say something like the members appointed by the Governor, so
long as they are not state employees.
Number 287
CHAIR JAMES said she believes they are talking about the two people
appointed by the Governor, one shall be the labor union, and that
person could very well be a state employee.
MS. COOK noted that the labor union employee who is serving on this
commission, his time probably would not be paid by the state at
that point. He would be serving potentially as a volunteer outside
of his normal duties. If the Governor appoints a commissioner,
then it is more likely to be viewed as within the duties of that
commissioner. As to the individual appointed by the Local Boundary
Commission, that individual as this is written, regardless whether
or not he/she is a state employee, would not be entitled to per
diem. As far as she knows, the Local Boundary Commission, being a
state agency, does not have any outside source of funding, but it
would be up to these people to volunteer both their time and the
expenses.
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Cook if the Local Boundary Commission get
travel per diem when they go to their meetings, so they would get
what they normally get.
MS. COOK agreed that the Local Boundary Commission would. For the
people appointed from private organizations such as the Alaska
Municipal League, it would be up to the league to make whatever
arrangements it chose to.
CHAIR JAMES agreed that is the way it ought to be.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he is not certain that unless the Local
Boundary Commission is performing their duties as a member of the
Local Boundary Commission they would be eligible for per diem and
travel and conduct another business here that is silent about their
travel and per diem.
CHAIR JAMES said she believes that is the only reason they have
this position because they are there, and she said she believes
they are entitled because they are members of the Local Boundary
Commission.
MS. COOK agrees that the member of the Local Boundary Commission
consists of the law that requires that a member be appointed and
serve, that would be within the duty of that Local Boundary
Commission member. Whatever the statutory compensation for the
Local Boundary Commission is, would be a service of that
individual. It is a legal requirement that a member be appointed
and serve.
Number 349
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Cook if she would consider the
Local Boundary Commission member a public member.
MS. COOK answered no.
CHAIR JAMES asked what is the bill's next referral.
MR. HODGINS replied the Finance Committee.
CHAIR JAMES suggested since that is a money issue, perhaps they
could let it go to the Finance Committee. She is not necessarily
interested in the other folks having per diem or travel expenses;
the Finance Committee can choose whether they want to do this or
not, and it is to their advantage to do it.
Number 370
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Ms. Cook if the title is broad enough to
cover Section 2.
MS. COOK answered because of the existence of Section 2, the first
part of the title is necessary. They do have something that
relates to contracts through the performance of these functions.
She hopes this is what came over from the Senate.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if this was germane as far as the single
subject rule.
MS. COOK said she believes it is so the way that the courts have so
broadly construed single subject. It deals with basically state
employment issues.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Cook if she knows of any other
commissions or boards that split the per diem according to what
their status is.
MS. COOK said she believes that the legislature does from time to
time on boards of a temporary nature; they are often called task
forces or commissions. They very often do include representatives
of the public. They tend to be advisory groups; they do not
perform anything other than an advisory function. Very often the
legislature will single out the treatment of per diem and treat
that issue of per diem differently from the normal rule. In some
circumstances, the legislature has gotten so precise in the
treatment of per diem that they opted to use the legislatively
determined per diem number or travel expense number, which is
different even from the statutory one.
CHAIR JAMES mentioned that was so in the military task force and
long-term financing task force.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if they treat individuals differently
within the group.
MS. COOK said she believes that has occasionally occurred,
particularly when there is representation from professional groups.
The professional group will often take care of the expenses or
determine that the individual will bear the expense.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Hodgins how the sponsor feels about
the new Section 2 and about the language in the original bill.
Number 455
MR. HODGINS said Senator Ward originally set this bill up without
those sections in it. He had originally decided that the problem
isn't with state employees, per se, it is with the management that
they must carry and charged to their activities when they are out
doing whatever they do. The sponsor felt that there would be
experts in this who are actually the state employees. They are the
ones who have been delivering the front-line services, and they are
the ones who know the efficiency and inefficiency within the
organization. Senator Ward felt that the existing rules in the
collective bargaining allowed for their voice to come out, and he
felt that they would get a lot more value out of the snowplow
folks, saying that they can do something at a certain price, if
they are not having to carry the cost of a commissioner, deputy
commissioner and all the directors that they carry. This is where
they are looking at privatization or making the government more
efficient, by not necessarily removing state employees but having
them make suggestions about what they felt was the best way for
them to deliver their services.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the sponsor supports the changes.
MR. HODGINS said the sponsor supports the bill as long as there is
a commission or task force going out and looking at how they
deliver government services, with the concept that they are facing
some tremendous deficits in the budget. They have to look at a
different way of delivering government services to the people of
the state.
Number 497
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON moved Amendment 2 which changes the date from
January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2001.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he said he believes that this may be the
most important single study that the state has done in 24 years.
They have been fumbling with it in the legislature this year trying
to identify consolidation of state agencies, elimination of
functions, changes to collective bargaining, they are doing these
things as a body, and now for the first time, somebody has come up
and said let's put together a committee and look at all of the
functions of government and come back to the legislature and
Governor and recommend which can be transferred to the private
sector, local government, federal government, consolidated,
eliminated, which should remain the responsibility of the state,
get public comment, and they are asking them to do all of this by
January 1, 2000. They won't even go through a winter to find out
whether or not they are plowing the roads efficiently. If they
keep that date, they will end up with only a paper track. He said
he believes it would be better to come back with something of
quality, and that commission will need time at least until 2001.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN maintained his objection to the amendment
because there are no guarantees that the current legislature will
be back after next year. He would like something he can put his
teeth into next January to take substantive action on and make some
of the reforms of downsizing and elimination in state government.
He agrees with Representative Hudson, but he believes they could
reinstate the task force as written and extend the sunset date for
another year if they wanted to. He wants a report he can look at.
Number 561
CHAIR JAMES agreed they wouldn't get a comprehensive written report
in that length of time, and she asked if they might have an interim
report in 2000 and then have it finalized in 2001. She asked Pam
LaBolle to respond to that.
MS. LaBOLLE said the commission done under Governor Hammond was
done in 12 weeks. She noted that an extension would have an impact
on the fiscal note. Her concern is that this is a legislative
commission, and it goes beyond this legislature if they take it
until the end of next year instead of the end of this year. She
agrees with Representative Hudson that it is very important and is
great if they have the time, but with the two-year window to work
in, where they use one year to set it up, they need to get a report
to the legislature so actions can be taken if this legislature
decides that the commission has come up with some good
recommendations.
Number 591
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Hudson if they could just change
the date on line 19.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON answered that that would defeat his
intentions which were to have a complete report for the
legislature. He doesn't see any reason to have a complete report
submitted by 2000 and keep the group together until 2001. He
understands Representative Ogan's concerns, and he would like to
see this thing as soon as possible too. When Governor Hammond's
review took place, and it was a "quick track" review where a
totally new government had just come to Juneau. He was part of it,
and they were overwhelmed. Governor Hammond wisely brought in this
group of business people from all over the state, and they went
through all the departments before the people were outgoing, and in
some cases had already left, and then tried to analyze the whole
thing from a business perspective and then present it to a brand
new government, who in turn, delivered it to all of us newly
appointed officials. He said he believes that is a different
situation.
CHAIR JAMES agreed it sounds like an entirely different situation,
but most of the industry loaned their very fine folks who worked
intensely. She doesn't believe this is a full-time commission.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON indicated that if it is going to be something
meaningful, he said he believes it has to give meaningful
consideration to how well the services are performed and calling
for audits and fiscal analysis. They are talking about a group
coming back in and recommending drastically modifying the Alaska
Marine Highway System, for example.
CHAIR JAMES commented that that sounds like someone the Governor
should put on his staff, and that is not happening so the
legislature is doing this instead.
Number 635
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed a full study should be done, but he
doesn't believe the current financial situation tolerates studying
beyond 2000, to make sure they have a good framed issue of how to
look at it needs to be done during this particular legislative
watch. Urgency demands that if the commission can only look at it
in generalities, the legislature needs to look into it more
specifically.
Number 655
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA commented that if they are going to do it
right, they need to be going to the employees who are actually
doing these jobs. She fears what will happen with this is that
they will just sit in a room and move pieces of paper around
because the jobs sound alike, they should be going together. It
should be done right, and they should be given the time to do it
right. The voters will decide who will be in the legislature, and
she trusts that future legislators will look at the study and take
it seriously if it is done right.
Number 670
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER commented that there has been good debate
on both sides of the issue, but this is their watch, and they
should do what they can with the best information they have.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Hudson, Smalley and
Kerttula voted for the amendment. Representatives Ogan, Coghill,
Whitaker and James voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed
by a vote of 4-3.
Number 683
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to move HCS for CSSB 33, version
1-LSO317\V, Cook, 4/21/99, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and asterisked fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Ogan, Coghill,
Whitaker and James voted in favor of moving the bill.
Representatives Hudson, Smalley and Kerttula voted against it.
Therefore, HCS for CSSB 33 moved from the House State Affairs
Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
HB 132-PERMANENT FUND ALLOWABLE ABSENCES
Number 709
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HB 132, "An Act
relating to allowable absences from the state for purposes of
eligibility for permanent fund dividends; and providing for an
effective date," noting that there is a new proposed committee
substitute. She said the difference between the last CS and the
new CS is that it removes serving in the peace corps from line 24,
page 2.
Number 719
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 132, version LS0202\I, as the working draft.
There being no objection, that proposed CS was before the
committee.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any other discussion. Hearing none,
she asked for a motion to move HB 132 out of committee.
Number 731
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved to report CSHB 132 (STA) out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER objected because the committee is opening
"Pandora's box" a little further with the addition of this piece of
legislation [HB 132]. He said, in search of equity, let's go the
other way and close the box a bit.
CHAIR JAMES and REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON agreed with Representative
Whitaker.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA reported a conflict of interest with her
sister who works in Washington, D.C. because HB 132 might affect
her.
CHAIR JAMES asked for a roll call vote.
Upon a second roll call vote, Representatives Ogan, Smalley,
Coghill, Kerttula and James voted in favor of moving HB 132 and
Representatives Hudson and Whitaker voted against it. Therefore,
CSHB 132(STA) passed by a vote of 5-2.
99-31, SIDE A
Number 001
HB 16-LICENSURE OF ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES
CHAIR JAMES asked for a motion to waive HB 16, "An Act transferring
to the Department of Health and Social Services the authority to
license all assisted living facilities; eliminating the authority
of the Department of Administration to license assisted living
facilities; and providing for an effective date," out of committee
and forward it to the House Health and Social Services Committee.
Number 015
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to waive HB 16 out of the
committee and asked unanimous consent. There being no objection,
it was so ordered.
CHAIR JAMES said she will make that motion to waive HB 16 on the
floor of the House.
HB 159-PERS PEACE OFFR STATUS CORRECTION EMPLOYE
CHAIR JAMES announced the last order of business is HB 159, "An Act
granting certain employees in correctional facilities status as
peace officers under the public employees' retirement system."
Number 026
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS presented HB 159 stating that it relates
to certain employees in the correctional facilities who are on a
30-year retirement plan as opposed to other employees in the same
facility that are on a 20-year retirement plan. It's an equality
issue because those employees face the same conditions and risks as
those on the 20-year plan. To correct that inequity, this
legislation puts these employees under the 20-year plan.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said the fiscal note was prepared by the
Division of Retirement and Benefits, Department of Administration,
which states a $375,000 per year increase in benefits to the
retirement fund by the state.
CHAIR JAMES mentioned the committee didn't hold a hearing on HB 159
on April 22, because it did not have a fiscal note.
Number 095
BILL CHURCH, Retirement Supervisor, Division of Retirement and
Benefits, Department of Administration, came before the committee.
CHAIR JAMES said HB 159 indicates that the employee would
immediately have a liability to buy the past service. She asked
what happens with the state's portion of that.
MR. CHURCH replied that any additional costs to fund those benefits
would become part of the past service rate for the employer. He
said any bill that is crafted in this way, that's how it would
function.
CHAIR JAMES said she talked with the drafter about making it that
the employee would have to pay the full actuary cost of buying the
past service, the only ongoing expense would be that the state
would have the additional money which would have to be paid by the
state due to the shorter length of retirement.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he was a little confused with the
employees being able to buy back in - that incurs the $375,000 for
that, or is it from then on.
Number 141
MR. CHURCH explained that what their actuary did was value the
benefits between the "all-other" and the peace officer and
(indisc.) it over 25 years adding the additional normal cost for
the ongoing peace officers' component came out to $375,000 a year.
The actuary has indicated that there does not appear to be any
measurable past service cost in this particular group. Mr. Church
noted that there is only 8 percent of 274 that are actuary tier-one
employees and that the tier-one employees do have a higher cost, as
an employee group in general.
MR. CHURCH pointed out that he is only separating the 274 employees
between tier-one and tier-two. The actuary has to look at when are
these benefits going to be payable, how much do we have to set
aside today to pay a benefit in 20 years versus 30 years. Mr.
Church further explained that the compacted time between that 10-
year difference means that more money has to be set aside today to
pay that benefit in the future. He said this is what we're talking
about when we say, "The value difference between an all-other
benefit and a peace officer benefit, and the impact of that to
future state contributions."
Number 210
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked, if HB 159 becomes law, and they are
now involved in a 20-year plan, and if they want to go back and
claim the retroactive part, how is that calculated.
MR. CHURCH clarified that the way the bill is currently written,
they would be charged the difference in the contribution rate and
all other employees -- or this particular group currently pays 6
3/4 percent of salary and a peace officer pays 7 1/2 percent
salary, so they would pay the 3/4 of a percent based on all of
their contributions during the period that they're in a position in
a correctional facility.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked what is the state's portion of that.
MR. CHURCH replied that really is something that the actuary said
"is not measurable." In other words it would be something
extremely small. So we're saying "that part would not appreciably
affect the state rate at all."
CHAIR JAMES asked if they were currently paying 7 1/2 percent, how
much does the state put in.
MR. CHURCH explained the state rate for "all-other" and "peace
officer" is valued two years in advance based on interest
assumptions and the various assumptions are based on the number of
members, salaries, mortality assumptions, disability and death
rates. He added that any of these types of factors go into
creating what the future rate is going to be for an employer.
Number 255
CHAIR JAMES reiterated that with the 8 percent of the 274 people
affecting that long-term contribution that the state has to make,
(dumped into all the other folks) a contribution is not measurable,
it's insignificant.
MR. CHURCH replied, yes it is immeasurable.
CHAIR JAMES expressed that it was her concern because she thought
it was a chunk, but it's not.
MR. CHURCH emphasized the 8 percent are what parts of this total
group are tier-one employees.
CHAIR JAMES understood that.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he believes this group of people were
overlooked years ago. They are in dangerous situations as are
public safety officers and fish and game enforcement people. He
said he wanted to applaud the prime sponsor for bringing HB 159
before this legislature.
Number 281
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said he was having difficulty understanding
the statement, "There's no appreciable cost," and the fiscal note.
He asked if the $375,000 is attached to HB 159.
MR. CHURCH replied yes it is.
CHAIR JAMES further explained the amount that it takes for them to
be in the 20-year program, from now on, is the additional amount
that the state would have to put in to make their annuity part come
out right at the end.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON emphasized that that's precisely the
difference. He said, "We have them in a 30-year plan now and the
state's contribution of their contribution is 6 3/4 [percent], and
to put them into a 30-year plan, both the employee and the state
have to 'anti up' more money in order to put more money into the
actuarially established trust fund so that when they do retire that
they'll be covered from there on out, that's the law."
CHAIR JAMES said $375,000 for approximately 274 employees is a
little more than $1,000 per employee per year. She said she
doesn't know how many years they've worked (that's the additional
amount that the state will have to pay every year) and that it's
difficult for her to understand that the "catch up" is
immeasurable. She said it seems it would be at least $27,000 if 10
percent of these people were there. Chair James further stated,
"But I do understand the way we decide, every couple of years, how
much is put into the pile so it's a different calculation, it has
nothing to do with what the employer pays in, it has to do with the
total amount of money that is in the fund and it needs to be - and
calculated how many - if everybody retires, when they think they're
going to and they keep it at a percentage that's safe and dump
money in there. And a couple of years ago, that's where we cut the
budget by $16 million because all of sudden they had put too much
money in there and so we didn't have to put as much in. So that's
done in another figure."
Number 343
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that he also has a hard time
understanding that. He said, "But with the $100,000 a year going
in from the state to squeeze that time down, the employee also is
increasing their contribution." He asked what is the average for
employee.
MR. CHURCH said he doesn't have that information, however, he
received information from the Department of Corrections [and is
looking for it].
CHAIR JAMES said, if it is 7 1/2 percent, it would be similar to
(indisc.--simult. speech) about the same as you would be paying for
social security and Medicare if you were working anywhere else;
it's about the same amount of money.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that basically answers his question.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that he agrees with HB 159, but he
also understands that the state is basically going to have to take
this money from somewhere else, and how do we do that. He agrees
with the concept but he may be one of those fellows that will say,
"We can't afford it this year."
Number 370
MR. CHURCH said the information from the Department of Corrections
indicates that there are 15 political subdivisions that also run
some sort of a correctional facility, that this would also impact
them as well. He said Retirement and Benefits only valued the
state portion because it was something that they could measure.
CHAIR JAMES remarked, "And that's another unfunded mandate,
[laugher] and we're good at that. We're good at that, we whine a
lot about it when the federal government does it to us, so we do it
all the time."
Number 386
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON moved to report HB 159 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY asked if the bill was going to be amended so
that the employee pays the arrears.
CHAIR JAMES explained that it is an immeasurable amount so we don't
need to do that.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN reported a conflict of interest because his
sister-in-law would be affected by this.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN agrees that people who work in correctional
facilities may be in dangerous situations, however, are not on the
same level as public safety officers and fish and game enforcement
officers because the facilities are a controlled environment. He
said he also agrees with Representative Coghill's comment that this
is a year that we can't afford this and objects to moving the bill.
Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Hudson, Smalley, Kerttula,
Whitaker and James voted in favor of moving HB 159, and
Representatives Ogan and Coghill voted against it. Therefore, HB
159 passed 5-7.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 425
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:55 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|