Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/11/2000 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 April 11, 2000 8:05 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Jeannette James, Chair Representative Joe Green Representative Jim Whitaker Representative Bill Hudson Representative Beth Kerttula Representative Hal Smalley Representative Scott Ogan MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 85(RLS) "An Act relating to credited service in the public employees' retirement system for temporary employment." - MOVED CSSB 85(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 444 "An Act relating to nongovernmental activities of state agencies, including the University of Alaska; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: SB 85 SHORT TITLE: CREDITED SERVICE FOR TEMP EMPLOYEES:PERS Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 2/22/99 325 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 2/22/99 325 (S) L&C, FIN 3/04/99 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 3/04/99 (S) -- MEETING POSTPONED TO 3/9 3/09/99 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203 3/09/99 (S) MOVED CS (L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE 3/09/99 (S) MINUTE(L&C) 3/10/99 463 (S) L&C RPT CS 1DP 3NR SAME TITLE 3/10/99 463 (S) DP: MACKIE; NR: TIM KELLY, DONLEY, LEMAN 3/10/99 463 (S) FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 3/31/99 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 3/31/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD 3/31/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 1/21/00 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 1/21/00 (S) Heard & Held 1/21/00 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 2/07/00 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 2/07/00 (S) -- Meeting Postponed 2/11/00 -- 2/11/00 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 2/11/00 (S) Moved CS(Fin) Out of Committee 2/11/00 (S) MINUTE(FIN) 2/11/00 2270 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 1NR NEW TITLE 2/11/00 2271 (S) DP: TORGERSON, ADAMS, PETE KELLY, 2/11/00 2271 (S) WILKEN, LEMAN; NR: PHILLIPS 2/15/00 2301 (S) FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 3/09/00 (S) RLS AT 11:30 AM FAHRENKAMP 203 3/09/00 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 3/29/00 (S) RLS AT 12:15 PM FAHRENKAMP 203 3/29/00 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 3/30/00 2796 (S) RLS TO CALENDAR W/CS 03/30 NEW TITLE 3/30/00 2797 (S) PREVIOUS FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 3/30/00 2797 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 3/30/00 2797 (S) RLS CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 3/30/00 2798 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 3/30/00 2798 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 85(RLS) 3/30/00 2798 (S) PASSED Y19 N- A1 3/30/00 2800 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 3/31/00 2801 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 3/31/00 2801 (H) STA, FIN 4/11/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HB 444 SHORT TITLE: STATE GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 4/06/00 2889 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 4/06/00 2889 (H) STA, FIN 4/06/00 2889 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS 4/11/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 WITNESS REGISTER JEAN SMITH, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Jerry Mackie Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 427 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for SB 85. EARL CLARK 9163 Parkwood Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 85. CLARKE DAMON PO Box 455 Douglas, Alaska 99824 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 85. VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director National Education Association-Alaska 114 Second Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition of SB 85. GUY BELL, Director Division of Retirement & Benefits Department of Administration PO Box 110203 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0203 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 85. JEFF BARNHART Kodiak, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 85. JOE DINNOCENZO Kodiak, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 85. LOUIS BENCARDINO Seward, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 85. MICHAEL DEAN Alaska Department of Fish and Game Anchorage, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 85. ANNETTE DEAL, Staff to Representative John Cowdery Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 204 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 444. BARBARA COTTING, Staff to Representative Jeannette James Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 102 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 444. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 204 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 444. PAMELA LABOLLE, President Alaska State Chamber of Commerce 217 Second Street, Suite 201 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 444. MARCO PIGNALBERI, Legislative Assistant to Representative Cowdery Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 204 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 444. JACK KREINHEDER, Senior Policy Analyst Office of Management & Budget PO Box 110020 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0020 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 444. ANDREE MCLEOD Anchorage, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 444. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 00-31, SIDE A Number 0001 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, Whitaker, Kerttula, and Smalley. Representatives Green, Hudson, and Ogan arrived as the meeting was in progress. SB 85-CREDITED SERVICE FOR TEMP EMPLOYEES:PERS Number 0099 CHAIR JAMES announced the first order of business is CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 85(RLS), "An Act relating to credited service in the public employees' retirement system for temporary employment." JEAN SMITH, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Jerry Mackie, Alaska State Legislature, presented the sponsor statement for SB 85 on behalf of Senator Mackie. She said SB 85 is a familiar piece of legislation that has actually been around several times since 1992; it became more important as departments tried to minimize impact of downsizing because it is a simple mechanism to cut personnel costs. She explained that currently temporary employees in the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) can buy back their temporary time; however, it does not count toward their minimum service needed for retirement. She stated that SB 85 amends the statutes that would allow employees to buy up their temporary time and have it credited. MS. SMITH commented that SB 85 also amends the statutes by adding a public service benefit that entitles a person to a retirement benefit if he/she had at least two years of paid-up PERS service and a total of at least five years of combined PERS and Teachers Retirement System (TRS) service. When the Department of Education switched from PERS to TRS years ago, the employees that were in PERS were not able to count that time toward their retirement, so they got caught in the middle. Temporary service under the retirement system provides that the full actuarial cost of using this temporary service be paid by the employee, and there are absolutely no general funds involved in the proposal. She informed the committee that there is a $4,000 designated PERS fund source for computer modification, and the legislation will allow the state to realize immediate cost savings by enabling employees to meet retirement eligibility thresholds sooner. Employees prone to use SB 85 are in the Tier I system, and employees replacing Tier I employees generally would be Tier II and III. She acknowledged that not only are their steps lower, but the supplemental benefits cost to the state is substantially lower too. MS. SMITH remarked that SB 85 was introduced at the request of several Kodiak constituents, has received support from several Alaskan workers, has many support letters, and has letters from the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters Union. She reminded the committee that SB 85 is a responsible piece of the puzzle in the development of Alaska's long-term budget system and it is an easy, simple remedy. She added that SB 85 is a responsible economic tool that can be used to minimize the impact of downsizing state government. Number 0417 EARL CLARK said he was recruited late in his career to come to the University of Alaska to help develop the University of Alaska Juneau. He explained that after five and one half years, he left the University and sought a career at the state level. He had a little difficulty getting jobs for one reason or another. He has about three and one half years of part-time service and three years, four months of full-time, permanent service with the state. He has approximately 11 years of service to the state but does not qualify for a retirement program; SB 85 will assist him in qualifying for a retirement which he would like to have. He is a good example of how a person can get caught in the middle between two retirement systems, and SB 85 would attempt to rectify that. CLARKE DAMON indicated that in 1972 he accepted a position at the Department of Education. Besides having various training positions, he was the Veterans' Affairs (VA) recruiting officer for the Veterans' Administration. A number of committee members had asked him if he knew the rules of retirement, why did he not stick around. The way the question is phrased means that the government program is probably more of a disincentive than an incentive for people to progress and work with the state. He understood that the state has six different retirement programs, and transferability between programs is quite impossible in many cases. He had left the Department of Education after three and one half years because at that point the department was reorganized, and the manpower training function was moved to the Department of Community and Regional Affairs. He said that the VA recruiter's responsibilities were moved to the new Postsecondary Commission. Before the move, two employees were doing the student financing under VA approval; shortly after the Postsecondary Commission was established, it had 20 people doing what two people had done before. He explained that is an example of reorganization. Number 0823 MR. DAMON commented that then he took a position with the Department of Highways as a training officer, and during that phase the Department of Public Facilities and the Department of Highways merged. As training officer, he had the responsibility of 135 state employees, and thus witnessed retirement programs in action. He indicated that a number of people had many years in service, and they had to stick it out so to speak because they could not afford to make a move. He recalled that production probably could have been greater. When he realized that the state was exempt from the U.S. Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which requires the private sector to vest employees within five years [it was too late for him to make adjustments]. He had assumed that [ERISA] would apply to the state too so he did not think about it. He informed the committee that in his lifetime, he had managed to get involved in six different retirement programs, and Section 39.35.375 of SB 85 seems to affect him. MR. DAMON said that in a study that he had conducted, he analyzed and researched the contributions that he and the state had made. He had researched the fund earnings over the 20 some years and compounded these contributions through fund earnings until 1997 when he would have been eligible for retirement. He assumed that he was to receive a $606 benefit each month, which consists of $348 of health benefits and $258 cash. He projected that figure into the future, assuming the funds would have eight percent earnings, and found that his contributions would pay 217 months of his benefit at which time he would be switching over to the state contribution, and that value was over $500,000 earning about $4,000 each month. MR. DAMON noted that he went a step further as a result of discussion with legislative staff people who had asked why did he not stick it out. He explained that he had decided to assume what would have happened if he had invested his [retirement contribution] money in the same way as the state. He explained that if he had not taken a pension and had left the money to be invested his heirs would have had $1 million if he had died at 250 months as projected by mortality tables. If SB 85 passes, he would receive a benefit of about $151,000. If that is the case when he passes away, the [state retirement] fund still would have approximately three quarters of a million dollars left over based on contributions made on his behalf. MR. DAMON had evaluated retirement programs after the fact, and he should have done so when he first interviewed. When he interviewed for his job, he had been told how great the retirement program was in Alaska compared with any place else, but now he is finding out that is not the case. As he evaluates his experience with school districts' and state departments' retirement programs, he notes that there are numerous disincentives built right into the programs. Mr. Clark had alluded to the fact that he had a little less than 13 years' experience with the state and still does not receive benefits. Mr. Damon emphasized that he believes that if other retirement programs were to be compared, a person could work an entire state career and still probably have nothing. MR. DAMON gave an example of how disincentives are built into the retirement system. He asked the committee to assume that there is a teachers' aide who has less than five year's experience in the aide job [covered by PERS] but then acquires a teaching degree and has the opportunity to take a teaching position [covered by TRS]. He asked the committee if it would suggest that the teachers' aide move into the profession under TRS, wherein two or three years' probation is required and another eight years to reach vesting, or would it recommend that the teachers' aide stay as a teachers' aide for another year just so that he/she can get that magical five years of retirement. MR. DAMON said that as a taxpayer, the example is a disincentive that stifles personal goals, ambitions, training, development, improvement, and experience because people are locked into a retirement system by official barriers. Number 1227 VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, National Education Association-Alaska (NEA), spoke in support of SB 85. GUY BELL, Director, Division of Retirement & Benefits, Department of Administration, said that SB 85 allows employees to use their temporary service toward either 20- or 30-year-out depending upon which branch of service they contributed toward. He explained that SB 85 also has to do with legislative employees who worked temporary service before 1979 but have not yet claimed that service, and it allows them to claim that service toward a conditional retirement benefit by paying the full cost. A very small number of former employees were affected by SB 85, and their inclusion was the result of an addition that the Senate had made to SB 85. Further, SB 85 deals with the public service benefit which Mr. Clarke and Mr. Damon have discussed. The public service benefit would allow a person with at least two years of paid-up PERS service to add that with TRS service to get to the five-year vesting requirement in PERS to receive a benefit. He indicated that SB 85 is basically made up of those three components, and there is a very small fiscal note which has to do with some relatively modest computer modifications funded with non general fund retirement system money. Number 1348 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN informed the committee that he is amazed at how many people the committee has seen this year regarding retirement benefits. He asked if Mr. Bell was getting concerned that the retirement system was experiencing a run and setting a precedent. He asked if it does not cost anything, why not just allow people to make a choice of whether they want to retire at 20 or 30 years of work with the state. He acknowledged that people pay more [to opt out at 20], so why not retire them out earlier. He continues to be amazed at the benevolence of state government in caring for people from cradle to grave. He asked Mr. Bell to comment about that. MR. BELL replied he would categorize the legislation this year in two or three pieces. The Division of Retirement & Benefits did submit a retirement system clean-up bill that just had to do with administering efficiencies of the system, and that bill had been waiting for a long time. The other aspect of it is the ability of certain categories of employees to pay to go from a "30 and out" to a "20 and out" program. He recognized that the "20 and out" category would include police dispatchers, non-certificated correctional officers, and some other categories. The "20 and out" program requires employees to pay full actuarial cost; so from the retirement system's perspective, there is no cost to the retirement system whether the employees are city or state employees. There is no cost to the system because it is up to the employee to pay the full cost, either by paying up front or by paying over time through reduction in their benefits. Those are the two general types of legislation, whereas SB 85 is slightly different, but the only section that would have a fiscal impact has been addressed by requiring the employee to pay full cost. He noted that temporary service is certainly service for the employer whether it be the state or another employer in the PERS, and the employee has worked 20 or 30 years, but it just happens that part of that time was temporary. He explained that SB 85 allows employees to pay the costs to attribute that temporary time toward "20 and out" or "30 and out" and the employees have certainly put in the years. Number 1528 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that he is concerned from a policy level that the committee is getting "easy." One of the testifiers had made a decision to change careers, and now the testifier is asking the committee to retroactively vest him in his first retirement. He asked Mr. Bell if that was a fair characterization. MR. BELL replied that it was a fair characterization. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN inquired if Mr. Bell had any idea how many people SB 85 could affect, because there have to be more people who maybe made career decisions early on and worked for one outfit in TRS and then switched over to the PERS later on. MR. BELL indicated that his division did do a count by accessing the division's computer system in order to review records of people with paid-up service in PERS who had less than five years and who also had TRS service but with combined service had a total of five years. The division had counted 22 people out of 70,000 members in the system. Number 1729 CHAIR JAMES reminded Representative Ogan that Mr. Damon had taken his own retirement contributions and the matching state contributions and projected those contributions to ascertain what the contributions on deposit would have earned. She added that Mr. Damon's and the state's contributions would have earned a huge amount of money, and the retirement kept that money of what she considers was his money if he is not able to use it for retirement. Maybe the state wants to keep people's money, but she has a little problem with the whole procedure if people do not remain on the job long enough, all the money the people paid in goes away. MR. BELL stated that Mr. Damon could have had his retirement contribution refunded, but he chose not to do so because he feels that he would get a much more valuable benefit through passage of SB 85. If SB 85 passes, then Mr. Damon would get the benefit of a defined benefit formula, which is funded not only by his contribution but also by employer contributions. CHAIR JAMES asked if it was true that part of the contributions that the employer makes is considered to be part of the employee's wages. MR. BELL replied that the employee contribution is a deduction from the employee's salary. Number 1749 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked if it was correct that employer contributions would stay in the system if the employee chose to take the employee contribution plus interest out. MR. BELL answered in the affirmative. REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said that benevolence has an inherent notion of cost associated with it, and he thinks that the word "benevolence" may be inappropriately used here because it appears to him that there is no cost to the system or state. He asked Mr. Bell to please clarify that point. Number 1801 MR. BELL noted that SB 85 is a public service benefit. When a person leaves early and cashes out, then the system gains from those contributions that the employee made. Those gains are used to fund benefits of other people who are vested in a benefit, so it is like a windfall. If the windfall increases investments greater than anticipated, the windfall can bring employer rates down, and that is to the benefit of employers. He indicated that SB 85 is reducing the windfall by a small amount because these people are going to get a benefit who otherwise would not have received one. He agreed that a portion of the windfall will be wiped out by passage of SB 85. REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER inquired if there was an estimate as to the amount of the windfall reduction as it relates to the 22 people. MR. BELL replied that the fiscal note does provide an estimate, and the division had reviewed it between the PERS and the TRS because the division would draw money from both PERS and TRS. The division had measured the windfall reduction at less than $700,000. He recognized that $700,000 might sound like a lot, but it is taken out of a fund asset liability of $12 billion so the windfall reduction is 7/1000ths of one percent. He acknowledged that yes, there is a very small cost, but it has no impact on the funding status of the system or on employer rates because it is such a small portion of the total fund. Number 1893 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER inquired as to the percentage of the benevolence cost. MR. BELL answered 7/1000ths of one percent. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON remarked that the trigger in the PERS and TRS programs is the period of vesting, and both employer and employee contribute to the investment portfolio. When an employee leaves prematurely, he/she has an opportunity to withdraw his/her funds plus interest accrued, thus no longer being affiliated with the trust fund. He asked Mr. Bell what happens to the employers' contribution at that point. Number 2042 MR. BELL answered that the contributions made by each employer (there are 100 and some employers in the retirement system) go through the employer's separate account in the PERS, and those contributions stay with that employer's account. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the contributions offset the employer's contributions. MR. BELL replied that over time the division actuaries compare the assets (how much money has built up) of the employer with its expected liabilities and that comparison results in a rate for that employer. Employee contributions are credited to the appropriate employer's account to be used for future benefits, and obviously the employer's contribution for the employee is not the employee's money, but is used for some other employee who in the future will receive retirement benefits. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated that the committee will be establishing a precedent wherein any future employee fitting into the same category as described in SB 85 will benefit from SB 85 if the committee passes SB 85. The precedent applies to 22 people today, but it does mean that from here on out anybody else who falls under the SB 85 category will have legal recourse to benefit from SB 85. He asked Mr. Bell if that was a correct understanding. Number 2113 MR. BELL answered in the affirmative because there is no sunset clause in SB 85, so SB 85 would be permanent. He said that in the past some people did not know the impact of the decisions that they had made on their potential benefit, or they thought they might come back into PERS and gain the five years. He noted that now people can make their plans based on SB 85 because it would become a permanent part of the law. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON explained that he had pointed out the precedent because it is a policy question beyond the people who are in it right now since SB 85 will be effective from here on out. Number 2149 CHAIR JAMES agreed with Representative Hudson's point about precedent and commented she has been thinking that if the people are not vested they can take their money out while the rest of the money remains in the fund. The time required for vesting is to encourage people to stay. If they do not stay, then they do not get the benefit. She reiterated that vesting is like a carrot to encourage people to stay because if they stay long enough, they will be vested. MR. BELL indicated that Chair James was correct in her explanation. Another issue is that if immediate vesting were offered in a system, it would be very costly because a person could stick around for one day and then show up at age 65 to collect benefits. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Bell if he thought it was the state's responsibility to retroactively vest an employee who worked for the state but was not vested. MR. BELL replied that the theory behind SB 85 is that if a person has five years or more total paid-up service combined between PERS and TRS, sufficient money has been contributed to the system by the employee and the employer to provide a deserved benefit for the employee. It should be called a public service benefit because it is a benefit that is paid for by both systems. Having worked for five years, the person should be entitled to receive some benefit, and that is the policy question raised in SB 85. Number 2277 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said that he is looking at people who did not make a decision to move on to a higher paid job in a different bureaucracy but did not get vested for some reason. He remarked that he thinks there is an issue of fairness here. He added that maybe a person took a job in the private sector. Again, he asked if the state is going to go back and retroactively pick up five years for that person. He supposed that the state could do that so then the person would be vested in the system. He reiterated that he just sees this trend coming where everybody will [try to get in], and he thinks the committee is heading down a real slippery slope. Number 2345 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER agreed that SB 85 is a question of fairness and acknowledged that these individual employees have contributed, employers have contributed on their behalf, and the system is receiving a windfall rather than the individual accruing the benefit. He emphasized that it truly is a question of fairness and these individuals deserve fairness. He stated he supports SB 85 and would like to see it move. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said that people who work for a PERS or TRS employer and do not stay five years also contribute to retirement, but they never get their money. He asked Mr. Bell if that also was a windfall. MR. BELL inquired if Representative Ogan was talking about people in TRS who just stay in the system for less than the vesting period. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied yes or he said PERS too. He noted that his wife had worked for the state for three years and contributed. He commented that she has about $12,000 in the retirement system, but she is not vested because she does not continue to work for the state. He asked if she could get her money and is her money a windfall. CHAIR JAMES inquired if Representative Ogan's wife had received her contributed money back. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained that his wife did take her money out of the supplemental benefits system (SBS) but not PERS. Number 2419 MR. BELL mentioned that Representative Ogan's wife could withdraw her PERS contribution at any time, or she could return to a PERS position and eventually become vested and be eligible for benefits. He indicated that there is the future "carrot" if a person returns to a PERS position and becomes vested. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN reiterated that the state [employer] contribution becomes a windfall to the PERS. Number 2438 MR. BELL replied yes, because of all those people who do not reach the vesting requirement and that factor is built in to the funding of the system. The division expects that some people will leave state employment [before reaching vesting] and that will reduce overall costs to the benefit of everyone else. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if one of the testifiers could have taken his contribution out of PERS at any time. MR. BELL answered yes. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN remarked that the testifier chose not to. MR. BELL answered yes. MS. SMITH reminded the committee that this whole thing started back in 1980 when the Blue Ribbon Commission on Personnel did a report and made the decision that the state was ripping off its employees. She added that the Blue Ribbon Commission demanded equity. She asked the committee to remember back to legislature days when some legislative employees were temporary [range] 19s and 15s and permanent 21s and 15s. She recognized that there was no fairness because an employee could work all year and still be temporary. She acknowledged that management did allow employees to be temporary all year so that people could get a paycheck and more people could keep working. She reiterated that it was the Blue Ribbon Commission that originally recommended this change. Number 2518 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON inquired where in SB 85 the inequity is corrected. MS. SMITH answered that it is partially there where employees are allowed to buy back their temporary time, but in the past, employees were not allowed to use that time to count toward retirement eligibility. She explained that the buy-back part had been the part that was fixed originally. Number 2518 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if there was something in SB 85 that takes care of the temporary service. MS. SMITH replied that the whole intent behind SB 85 is the next layer after the first layer was already laid. She said the first layer was allowing employees to buy back their benefits whereas SB 85 allows them to buy back their eligibility threshold. CHAIR JAMES noted that it also allows employees to put PERS and TRS together. MS. SMITH agreed that combining PERS and TRS was another increment. She had researched the history of what is now SB 85 and found that it is a downsizing tool being used all across the country. She commented that SB 85 is a way to minimize the impact [of downsizing] and many personnel systems are doing what SB 85 does. Number 2617 JEFF BARNHART testified via teleconference from Kodiak in support of SB 85. In 1999 the legislature had asked the people of Alaska to bring forth ideas that would provide cost savings for the state, and SB 85 does exactly that. He had one and a half years of temporary time that he had worked in the 70s, and this bill would allow him to claim that temporary time toward his retirement eligibility. The administration also has determined there are no costs associated with SB 85, and it does in fact provide a cost savings to the state. He urged the committee to support SB 85 and pass it out of committee today due to the shortness of the legislative session. In the words of the bill's sponsor, Jerry Mackie, "It is the right thing to do." JOE DINNOCENZO testified via teleconference from Kodiak in support of SB 85. He is a state employee and works in Kodiak. He said he is not sure if SB 85 would benefit him or not, but it definitely will provide an incentive for some long-time employees to retire early with an increased retirement benefit which they have already paid. He reiterated that he thinks that SB 85 is the right thing to do morally, and it will save the state money. The legislature has been looking for ideas to save money, and he thinks SB 85 is a good positive way to do it. He urged the committee to get SB 85 passed this year. Number 2710 LOUIS BENCARDINO testified via teleconference from Seward in support of SB 85. He explained that back in 1975 and 1976 the city of Seward had chosen to become a member of PERS but the city did not include temporary employees' back time even though the employees had worked 40 hours a week. He commented that the city of Seward has five employees that have temporary time ranging from three months to two years still hanging out there. He really would like to have a way to pick up those employees' back time in SB 85. CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Smith if SB 85 would affect the people Mr. Bencardino is talking about. MS. SMITH answered yes and indicated that there are a couple of vendors that are cities and municipalities who are under the PERS. She informed the committee that SB 85 is not just for state employees but is also a mechanism for municipalities to realize savings in city budgets by letting some of their long term employees retire. Number 2792 CHAIR JAMES said that she believes that when people are around longer they are better at what they do, and other people benefit from the older workers. She acknowledged that it is the general trend to get more expensive workers to quit and hire in some less expensive people under a different, not-so-generous tier of retirement. This trend does generate cost savings although that cost savings cannot be measured in relation to the cost of training new employees. Training costs are not recognized, but she is not going to oppose SB 85 for that reason. She does not necessarily agree that getting rid of expensive employees and hiring cheaper ones is a savings. Number 2845 MS. SMITH stated that it is up to the employee to make the decision, since SB 85 is not a mechanism that forces the employee to retire. MICHAEL DEAN, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, testified via teleconference from Anchorage in support of SB 85. He has been a state employee for over 23 years. He explained that SB 85 would allow him to take two years of temporary time that he had bought back in the early 80s and use it to reach his eligibility threshold for retirement. He urged the committee to expedite SB 85 as quickly as possible to get it through the House. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented that he had reviewed all of the fiscal implications and found that there is no cost to the employer. One policy in SB 85, Section 1, that he really appreciates, which the Senate had added, is the application to all temporary credited service. He indicated that temporary credited service is an area where jobs are taken by dedicated people. He recognized that those employees could get a refund from PERS, but they could never use the time put in on those jobs as an accrual toward retirement. From a policy perspective, since SB 85 has a very limited application, he has some sympathy toward the 22 people who are in between two systems. He noted that those people had contributed money and time to both PERS and TRS. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated that he is inclined to support SB 85 because it takes care of temporary employees by allowing them to accrue retirement benefits. If SB 85 becomes law, the legislature is setting in motion an opportunity for employees for the next 50 years. He acknowledged that for people who are already in PERS, SB 85 is great and he can support that, although he might have preferred to have a sunset date on SB 85. With a sunset date all employees now caught betwixt and between would be taken care of and future employees would be advised that they had to choose one or the other. However, he will not hold it up for that reason. TAPE 00-31, SIDE B Number 2907 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to move CSSB 85(RLS) out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note; he asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, CSSB 85(RLS) moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. CHAIR JAMES called for a brief at-ease at 8:55 a.m. and called the meeting back to order at 8:56 a.m. HB 444-STATE GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES Number 2874 CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HOUSE BILL NO. 444, "An Act relating to nongovernmental activities of state agencies, including the University of Alaska; and providing for an effective date." ANNETTE DEAL, Staff to Representative John Cowdery, Alaska State Legislature, read the sponsor statement for HB 444 as follows: House Bill 444 requires state agencies to annually list which of their activities are "not inherently governmental." Inherently governmental function is defined as "a function that is so closely related to the public interest that it requires performance by state governmental employees." Section 2(c) of the bill contains several paragraphs of elaboration for this definition. What does that mean? Two things ... and let us use the court system as an example. Obviously our judicial branch is inherently governmental because they make decisions that bind our state, our lives, our liberty. However, the support staff that collects the fees, records the transcripts, and gathers information are non-inherently governmental. House Bill 444 first of all requires each state agency to identify activities that are not inherently governmental in nature. Secondly, upon decision to out source an activity by the agency, it requires consideration of all realistic and fair costs of government agency performance when comparisons are made with private sector costs. Interested persons may challenge the inclusion or omission of an activity on a list. A challenge and appeal process is defined in the bill. While a modest requirement, making a list is an important first step. House Bill 444 does not mandate any type of privatization, but does provide the basis for long-term, consistent efforts toward cost effective government. Also provided for you is Public Law 105-270. It is the "Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act" (FAIRA). It passed congress in 1998 and was signed into law by President Clinton in October of that year. House Bill 444 is a mirror of this law, only it applies on a state level. Since 1998 federal departments have complied with this requirement. These lists are available on line to the public. There have been challenges to the list by employees, private industry, and unions. These challenges and appeals work through the process and often the decision is reversed upon gathering of new information. I recently spoke with an individual in Washington, D.C. from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Office of Management and Budget is currently working on an amendment in congress that would take the FAIRA legislation one step further. This amendment would list all activities and categorize them either as inherent or not. This allows the private sector to make informed decisions. There is currently no easy way for individuals to figure out what the omissions from the list are. House Bill 444, however, does not go that far, it simply requires a list be made of the non inherently governmental activities. This allows future policy makers to become more informed. It is merely the first step in making intelligent decisions about government services. Number 2704 REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY asked Ms. Deal if she had any idea what the fiscal note might be. MS. DEAL replied that she had not heard from the administration what the fiscal note may be. CHAIR JAMES asked if Ms. Deal had any idea what the fiscal note was on the federal law. MS. DEAL answered that she is not positive about that, but she does know that HB 444 only requires a listing. She said that in missions and measures some departments are already identifying which services are non governmental. She explained that HB 444 provides access for the public to the information that departments are gathering and allows unions and employees to challenge a decision. Number 2660 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the fiscal note was requested in a timely manner. BARBARA COTTING, Staff to Representative Jeannette James, Alaska State Legislature, replied that the fiscal note was requested last Friday (4/7/00). REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the chair has the authority to issue a fiscal note if administration drops the ball. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved that the committee issue a zero fiscal note. CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objection. Number 2628 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER requested a two-minute at ease to think about the motion. CHAIR JAMES said it was her prerogative as chair to issue a fiscal note, but she believes that the committee can mandate or tell the chair what it wants her to do. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN withdrew his motion. He informed the committee that HB 444 does have a House Finance Committee referral, and that would give the administration adequate time to come up with a fiscal note at the next hearing. MS. DEAL said she does not have any evidence that the administration is against HB 444. As far as she knows, the administration was very cooperative when the Commission on Privatization did its studies. She explained that the administration had also worked with the House Finance Committee on a regular basis in performing missions and measures, which do include some government core activities. Number 2573 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Deal where attorneys and the Department of Law fit into HB 444. She mentioned that HB 444 is bothering her because she sees the section about the interpretation or execution of the laws, and then the section on page 3, line 14, talks about gathering information for providing advice, opinion, recommendations, or ideas. It looks to her as if attorneys fit in both places. MS. DEAL replied that each department is responsible for making the decision on its own, and then the attorneys have the right, if they do not agree with the department, to challenge the decision. Those are the checks and balances that are built into HB 444. However, she thinks that if an attorney makes a decision that binds the state in an economic matter, military action, or it affects life, liberty, or property, then that is an inherently governmental function. Number 2511 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked what about a legal assistant under HB 444 who is gathering information that is necessary for the attorney to provide advice. MS. DEAL answered that there is authority to delegate. The person responsible for ultimately making a decision is the person who is inherently governmental; that person can delegate authority to somebody to gather information without giving away his/her inherently governmental authority to make a decision. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA reiterated that a legal assistant would not be inherently governmental. MS. DEAL replied that she did not believe that a legal assistant would be inherently governmental. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she envisioned that a situation could arise in the Department of Law whereby attorneys for the department were designated governmental but everybody who worked with them would not be inherently governmental. Number 2465 CHAIR JAMES said that private industry who provide staff sometimes are very successful and have specific types of people. The problem with private industry is that the staff change jobs quite often, and there is no job guarantee for those folks because the company can decide that it is going to do something differently. She agreed that there certainly is a benefit in hiring temporary people because all of the benefits are paid for by the company they work for as opposed to this company. She indicated that over the years [businesses] have used those kinds of companies quite a bit, and they are still being used. She remarked that the North Slope very often contracted work out to temporary-hire companies. She added that if contracting out is what is under discussion here, and she thinks it might be, then there certainly is an advantage in identifying both kinds of jobs which could be provided by some manpower company. Number 2346 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that he had read lines 14 and 15 on page 2 in answer to Representative Kerttula's concern. He said it seems those statements would remain in the judgment of the agency; therefore, legal assistants would be considered non- inherently or inherently governmental as the agency judged, so he does not think the problem would be created that Representative Kerttula foresees. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said HB 444 defines what inherently governmental activities means, which she thinks is just going to be extremely difficult to figure out. She sees how HB 444 is going to go in big circles, and she thinks the sponsor is trying to get correct information from the agencies. If HB 444 means staff versus decision-making responsibilities, then it should be stated clearly. She commented that she thinks that HB 444 is going to cause big internal arguments about what is or is not inherently governmental. She mentioned that HB 444 just will not work with attorneys being hired by the state but not staff because a big problem will be created of people coming on and off the job. She was just seeking clarity and is afraid that HB 444 will cause confusion for the agencies. Number 2267 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON remarked that he has reviewed Section 44.64.050 on page 4, line 29, as the principle purpose behind HB 444 in that it would provide, contrary to almost every signed labor contract with the unions, an alternative way of privatizing positions in state government. He recognized that HB 444 directs the administration, and OMB as its backup, to list every position that works for it following the description in legislation. Every job is to be listed that does not fit within this inherent government activity, and then it will be declared a free position outside the labor contract's control. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON directed the committee to page 4, line 9, where it can be seen that there is a challenge and an appeal section wherein individuals can appeal the fact that their job has been listed outside of the governmental realm and is susceptible to be literally bid out. He directed the committee to go on down to the procurement-listed activity because in his way of thinking that is the nut of HB 444. Now that government has this list of non-inherently governmental employees, all of those positions are no longer in a protected class if the administration, the legislature, or anybody else wanted to contract out the positions. He asked if he is reading HB 444 correctly. Number 2147 CHAIR JAMES agreed that Representative Hudson is reading HB 444 correctly. It seems to her as if that is the issue, and as painful as it might be to discuss this issue, she thinks it is extremely important. She acknowledged that whenever dealing with people, their lives, and their ability to make a living, it is very sensitive; therefore, the committee needs to make sure that it is doing its job in that respect. MS. DEAL remarked that unions are generally opposed when services are transferred to the private sector. However, when unions have the chance to bid at the same level and with the same criteria as private industry, they do not oppose. She added that HB 444 creates more efficient, effective government and the quality of service that is being performed goes up. Number 2067 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY, Alaska State Legislature, said last year the U.S. Army came down [to Juneau] and gave a briefing to legislators [regarding FAIRA]. He said that HB 444 is not going to take everything away and all union contracts are going to be off. He did not want to sound like he was into privatization here and reiterated that what the Army did was allow anybody who had been displaced by FAIRA to have first right of refusal to work for the new entity who was now taking over the federal job. He said that all HB 444 does is to identify non-inherently governmental jobs, but it is not saying that [those jobs have to be privatized]. He is just asking the agencies to identify within their own agency what is inherently governmental. MS. DEAL explained that the gist of HB 444 is to have non- governmental activities listed; that is all it is so it is not [targeting] any one person's job, but it lists a type of activity that is performed. She commented that no out source or privatization is required rather it is the agency's decision if it would like to take building maintenance or electrical work and out source it. Number 1966 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON mentioned that the explanation is nothing novel or new because he out sourced when he was commissioner of the Department of Administration. He indicated that much work temporary in nature was put out to contract, and that provision is in labor contracts. He remembered writing that provision into the contract, and the unions did not like it. The administration had written into the contract that management could contract out services anytime it wanted, and the union agreed, providing that management could show that contracting out cost less than having a state employee do the work. He remarked that the level of privatization that already goes on in state government is fairly large. If HB 444 is only trying to identify what government is doing, then that goes along with what the legislature does every year in examining every line of the budget. Every budget that comes before each subcommittee requires a mission and measurement provided by the director of that budget. He assumed that if there are things in the budget that should be privatized, nothing in the labor contracts (and the committee can ask the union people here) would deny the state's opportunity to do that. He said that the state already has the power requested by HB 444. Number 1879 CHAIR JAMES stated that it is very difficult to find job qualifications to compare what and how people do their jobs. She said that HB 444 would provide the job qualifications, and as painful as it might be, this would be a good idea. It is her personal belief and opinion that a private industry could not be found to provide the services that many state employees currently do at the same wages. She explained that HB 444 [information] would be available to the general public, whereas the public does not have a clue as to what goes on in government now. She commented that all the public knows is that government is a big bureaucracy that costs a heck of a lot of money, and the public thinks it is unnecessary. If HB 444 did nothing more than inform the general public about what goes on in government, it would be worth the money. Number 1792 MS. DEAL said that the basis for HB 444 is to create a list of activities and to provide it to the public for them to review. She indicated that OMB on the federal level wants all government activities on a list because the public does not know where to go to figure out what the government is doing or where to go for information. She agreed that it is almost impossible for a layman to read the budget even when missions and measurements are provided by departments. PAMELA LABOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, testified that the Chamber is in support of HB 444. Over the interim the Privatization Commission reviewed a number of issues regarding privatization, and it was unanimous among all the subcommittees that understanding what is involved in state agencies (who does what jobs and what the costs are) is very difficult to find out. She noted that lack of knowledge made it really impossible for the Commission to determine what the costs were and what could be privatized and what could not or even what the jobs were. MS. LABOLLE explained that HB 444 would go a long way toward creating understanding and making knowledge available to the public about what jobs state agencies do, and which of those can only be done by state agencies. She commented that HB 444 leaves it up to state agencies if they want to procure other sources for doing the job. In answer to Representative Kerttula's concern, the federal government is listing its job activities, and Ms. LaBolle considers the state to be a microcosm compared to the federal government. If the federal government can figure it out, she would think that the state could figure it out; it is better to do it now while the state is relatively small than to wait 20 years when the state has become a much larger government trying to wrestle with this problem. Number 1552 CHAIR JAMES said that there is definitely a difference in the way things are done between the private sector and government jobs. She noted that leaders in government bureaucracy are elected and are politically motivated; therefore, being politically motivated they want to do a good job because that gives them credibility. Government leaders change every four years or at the maximum eight years, so there is no real interest in getting to the bottom line of these issues because it never appears on the radar screen. She commented that with HB 444 the legislature can set in motion rules and regulations that the administration would follow which would naturally give the needed information to make those decisions, as well as let the rest of the state know. She mentioned that she thinks that HB 444 is one of the best pieces of legislation that has come before the committee, and she is very impressed. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked the sponsor if he saw HB 444 as having potential to produce many time-consuming activities for departments or would HB 444 provoke litigation. Number 1351 MS. DEAL indicated that she saw that in federal reorganization alone, the federal government immediately saw a cost savings. She recognized that there is always the chance of possible litigation, and that is what the appeal process hopefully would take care of. The example she has been tossing around in her head is about legislative staff. She asked if legislative staff are inherently governmental or not. Some people would say that legislative staff are inherently governmental because they gather information to help elected officials who are core governmental units. Other people would say that legislative staff are non- inherently governmental because they do not make decisions or push the buttons. Therefore, she does not know the answer to Representative Green's litigation question, but she does acknowledge that litigation can occur. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he was not thinking as much of making a list as defending the list. He noted that the first pass through is done through the OMB and the department, and then an appeal can be made to the department on the decision. His concern is whether HB 444 ties up somebody in the department and asked Ms. Deal if she had seen any indication of that on the federal review. Number 1233 MS. DEAL commented that challenges are made by unions and by the private sector. CHAIR JAMES mentioned that the difference between inherently governmental and non is a little cloudy to her because what really is important is who is doing the job and how much time it takes to learn the position. If the activity is not core government activity, the state could stop doing it; if it needs to be done, the private sector will pick it up. She acknowledged that HB 444 does not just identify job classifications but also identifies what the position does and net result of the activity. She remarked that a service activity or an informational position can be identified and then it can be ascertained if someone in the private sector could do the same thing. She added that HB 444 is not about contracting out necessarily, but it could be part of that, and she thinks it gives people who are managing the government a much better handle on what government should be doing. The legislators would also have a better understanding of whether or not they would want to make policy regarding activities listed under HB 444. Therefore, HB 444 is not really a privatization issue, but it certainly opens the door to decide what is the best way to do a job. Number 1070 MS. DEAL stated that HB 444 is a road map. She reiterated that HB 444 starts the process here and can go into many different directions. She said that privatization is a broad word, and there are many forms of privatization such as transferring a job to a different level, department, putting it on a volunteer basis, or putting it out to the private sector. She explained that out sourcing or contracting out is totally up to the agency who is the policy maker. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN assumed that the committee is in the stage of deliberating HB 444. CHAIR JAMES said there was one more person to testify. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that he would hold off. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON mentioned that historically the big battle in government has always been between union and non-union exempt service employees because exempt service employees can be hired off the street at the will of the person who is doing the hiring. Every department head, including himself when he was commissioner, wanted to have as many exempt positions as possible. He indicated that having exempt positions meant that he did not have to go through the union list, and the union knows this. The manager wants to have flexibility, and HB 444 will go one major step further because it will potentially produce a list of people throughout state government who are not really in a protected service whatsoever. He emphasized that the people will be in the union and in a job but when they take the job they will have to know that the job is up for bid anytime someone wants to come along. If HB 444 becomes law, many government jobs will be at risk of out sourcing without any union protection. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated he is nervous about the fact that every time the legislature meets, it gives departments new responsibilities, takes away old ones, moves responsibilities around, and gerrymanders how government is supposed to function by virtue of the budgeting process. He noted that if HB 444 passes, many jobs that people thought were stable will now be at risk because they will fall into the non-inherently governmental. In the meantime employees bought their houses, committed to their children's education and everything else, thinking they had stable jobs. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON agreed with Ms. Deal that HB 444 lists the jobs at this time but the list is not being prepared just to have something to do. He informed the committee that the list is being prepared so that government has a definition and many defined jobs will be susceptible to page 5, line 6 "when a state agency decides to obtain a private person to perform a listed activity they use competitive sealed bidding." At that point, the job comes under the purview of a sealed bidding process, which might be good or not. He acknowledged that some elements of HB 444 are good, but page 5, line 6, makes him think about many of his neighbors who are going to be in jobs that are potentially at risk. Number 0709 CHAIR JAMES remarked that she does not think that every line in HB 444 is perfect but she is not judging that at this point in time. She is looking at HB 444 strictly from a policy point of view. Passage of HB 444 is very remote, however, she thinks that the discussion taking place is very good and the idea is good. Any idea like HB 444 so far afield from where government is right now takes much time and deliberation to figure out what the consequences would be, but she thinks the theory is excellent. Government does not shrink very well by itself; rather it has a tendency to grow over time because the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. State government is not large like the federal government, but there are similar things that happen in state government as in federal government wherein the state does not know what is happening in every department. If she were governor, she would love to have HB 444 as a mandate because it would tell her exactly who is on her payroll, who should continue to do what they are doing and who should not, and what better ways there might be to do that job. She noted that she thinks that HB 444 is an excellent tool, and she can understand that the unions would have some trepidation; however, when the time comes for union negotiations, the legislature would not be fighting the battle over union contracts if HB 444 was in place. She explained that HB 444 is an eye opener for the public, the legislature, and the administration. She commented again that the theory of HB 444 is excellent. Number 0473 MARCO PIGNALBERI, Legislative Assistant to Representative Cowdery, Alaska State Legislature, mentioned that he wanted to address Representative Hudson's concern about subparagraph (D) on page 5, lines 6-11. He indicated that it was superfluous language, and it has already been discussed to take it out. What that subparagraph says (and it has been misconstrued) is that if the agency is going to go out to contract, it must follow the procurement statute as it is. He emphasized that the subparagraph adds no additional burden on labor contracts or anything else. If the paragraph is taken out, the content of HB 444 would not be changed. CHAIR JAMES remarked that the subparagraph is talking about replacing what is being done by government with private sector, but to do that a comparison must be done and cost savings must be demonstrated. She asked if it was true that these requirements are part of union contracts. MR. PIGNALBERI replied in the affirmative. He added that language in union contracts requires feasibility studies and cost analysis prior to privatizing state jobs. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked what line that was on. MR. PIGNALBERI said he was looking at subparagraph (D) and HB 444 does not change the requirement to follow the union contracts rather the sponsor is saying that if an agency contracts out it must follow the state procurement code. He noted that agencies have to follow the code anyway, so the subparagraph could be taken out because it really is redundant. Number 0336 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked why (a) was on page 4, line 29, referring to a "listed activity." MR. PIGNALBERI replied that the reason "listed activity" is in there is to do cost comparison of all reasonable and fair costs because what the private sector always wants, and what the legislature wants, is to know what it costs to perform a certain activity. He explained that when something goes out for bid, the manager knows what the private sector is going to charge because that is listed in the bid response. What is not known is how much it is costing the state; also the question of how to deal with indirect costs must be solved. He mentioned that HB 444 will require that fair and reasonable costs, or most people will interpret it as indirect costs, must be considered when putting something out for bid. Number 0236 CHAIR JAMES indicated that she wanted to provide an example of what Mr. Pignalberi was talking about by relating what happened when she tried to get the Taylor Highway opened this year. She related that there is a very aggressive person who lives in her area who does road work, so she asked him to get money to open the highway because there was no money in the city budget to do it. She said that the man did talk with the Department of Transportation (DOT) people, found out what was in the budget to open the highway, and came back and told her that he could not do the work for the amount of pay that was budgeted. Because of that experience, she thinks the result of HB 444 will be that the state will find that many jobs cannot be contracted out, whereas some jobs that the state is doing now really should be done by the private sector. She really likes the concept of HB 444, is excited about it, and sees it as a management tool that could maximize public confidence in state government. Number 0042 MR. PIGNALBERI stated that the difference in views expressed by people on this committee is exactly the strength of HB 444 because it will generate state and public discussion about activities that ought to be on or off the list. Healthy discussion is desirable, and there will be debate because HB 444 is a debate-generating bill. TAPE 00-32, SIDE A Number 0056 JACK KREINHEDER, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Management & Budget (OMB), said that the administration does support considering privatization of state functions where appropriate, but the question is whether HB 444 is a good way to go about it. He had looked through HB 444 and compared it to the federal legislation, and HB 444 appears to be a copy of the federal statute. However, the OMB would question whether this process of doing annual lists of what is inherently a government function is the best way to go about privatization. He directed the committee members to page 2, line 21, where it defines "inherently governmental activity" as an activity that has to be done by a state government employee. He asked the committee who is going to agree on "inherently governmental activity." He just does not see even people in administration, much less the legislature, the public, and so on agreeing on what functions have to be done by state employees. MR. KREINHEDER cited the example of the legislature having its own staff that does payroll, computer services, building maintenance, and print shop and acknowledged that any of those activities could probably be privatized, but legislative leadership and executive management have made the decision that those are core essential functions that the legislature prefers to have done by its own employees for reasons of timeliness or cost effectiveness. Trying to reach agreement and spending much time arguing about what is an inherently governmental activity is a questionable investment of time in the view of the OMB. MR. KREINHEDER said that snow plowing could be contracted out to the private sector. He asked if snow plowing was an inherently governmental activity; probably not. He cited what had happened on the Seward Highway after the avalanche this winter. He noted that DOT did attempt to contract for some private snowplow assistance to come in and it was able to rent the equipment, but it could not find any operators willing to risk their lives to get the highway open. Those are some of the factors that come into this consideration. MR. KREINHEDER commented that one of the sections that is also of concern here is on page 3, line 14, paragraph 2, where it talks about functions that are not inherently governmental activities. He sees that this is modeled exactly after or very close to the federal statute, so apparently the federal sponsor made its own determination from the get go of what was not inherently governmental activity. He mentioned that subparagraph (A) which is about "gathering information or providing advice, opinions, recommendations... to government employees" seems like a very odd one to him because really that is management. He indicated that certainly managing and running state government would fall into that category. MR. KREINHEDER said that one of the previous speakers had mentioned legislative staff that do provide information and recommendations to legislators. He certainly could not envision legislative staff being privatized, but conceivably the legislature could contract out for non-government employees but managing and running state government is clearly a governmental function. He acknowledged that management cannot be contracted out but there are a number of employees who provide information and recommendations. MR. KREINHEDER reminded the committee that subparagraph (B) is a list of functions that apparently the federal bill sponsor decided were not government functions and (reading between the lines here) should be privatized. He added that building security, mail operations, facilities operations, and motor vehicle fleet management were listed as areas that need to be reviewed but OMB would object to saying that, for example, facilities operation and maintenance is not a government function. He said that his view of this is that such operations would have to be considered on their merits and not by default by tossing it into this definition. He reiterated that OMB is supportive of looking into privatization where it makes sense, but questions whether HB 444 is a good way to do it. MR. KREINHEDER apologized that the committee did not get a fiscal note for HB 444. He promised to provide a fiscal note by this afternoon. He thought the fiscal note would probably be an asterisk because the lists themselves will be done by departments under varied time commitments. He said that once the lists are put together, he does not know that they would vary much from year to year, so the major time commitment would be the first year. The challenge and appeal section is a little uncertain because anybody can challenge and appeal the list. Naturally, it is hard to say how many challenges and appeals there will be. He explained that challenges and appeals could be very time consuming, so he thinks there will probably be an asterisk on the fiscal note. Number 0719 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN acknowledged that the fiscal note will probably have to be an asterisk because OMB does not know how many challenges there will be. He commented that he understands that OMB will review the first pass [on the list] and either it would not agree and there could be a problem, or subsequently somebody else could appeal and there would be a review. He asked Mr. Kreinheder if he was familiar with what is happening in the federal government, so that he can be guided as to what the probability of appeals and how strenuous those appeals might be. MR. KREINHEDER replied that he will certainly review federal government results; however, he is not sure that the federal experience would necessarily match Alaska. He remarked that he had never heard of this federal act (FAIRA), and he does not know how many of the committee had heard of it before it came to their attention. He did not envision many citizens petitioning the federal government about FAIRA, whereas at the state level it is a little more visible. Number 0814 CHAIR JAMES said that she does not see HB 444 as being privatization in view of her understanding that privatization is not the same as out source. She added that she thinks privatization and out source are two different issues. She stated that she does not see HB 444 as out source, but she might see it as what she calls true privatization in that the state might identify some things that it ought not to be doing and somebody else should pick it up. However, that it would require statutory change to privatize because the state has already dictated by statute that many jobs must be done by state employees, so it would take cooperation between the administration and the legislature. She sees HB 444 as opening a door to cooperation between the administration and the legislature, but she is not sure about the language in this bill. She noted that she thinks the thought and theory in HB 444 is really a good idea, and the committee needs to discuss it more. Number 0930 ANDREE MCLEOD testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She noticed that the public has been absent from this discussion, and as a member of the public, she would appreciate any and all efforts to define what her state government provides. She explained that the list that would come forth from HB 444 would give the public a clue as to what is going on, then the public could make a better informed decision about its role in providing revenues in the form of taxes. She commented that generating discussion is nice, but the state's fiscal future demands action, and the public will be asked to pony up and pay taxes in the future. She asked the committee to do whatever it takes to provide the public with the most succinct information. CHAIR JAMES indicated that Ms. McLeod's testimony is exactly what many other folks all over Alaska would say, including her district, and that is why she thinks that putting the whole issue on the table in the best way should be the goal of the legislature. She emphasized that then the legislature could go from there with informed folks, including legislators and the administration, on how best to deal with these issues. Number 1020 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if he was hearing correctly that Chair James does not want to move HB 444 out. CHAIR JAMES replied that she thinks there are problems with some of the language, and the committee should review it a little more. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that if the committee reviews it any more, HB 444 is not going to go anywhere this year. CHAIR JAMES answered that she does not think that HB 444 is going to go anywhere anyway. Number 1066 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON recommended that Representative Cowdery and Mr. Pignalberi seriously review page 5 at the B provision because he thinks that "competitive sealed bidding" should be removed and replaced with language as written in union contracts. He explained that if that change is made, HB 444 will face much less concern from labor unions. CHAIR JAMES asked if Representative Hudson was asking the committee to put a union contract in a statute. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied that the union contract speaks to privatization, and it simply is a series of standards. He commented that he thinks it is already in paragraph (A) anyway for the most part and he is just saying that as long as "competitive sealed bidding" is in HB 444, he is not going to be interested in this legislation. He does not think that the lion's share of state employees will have any interest in HB 444 either. He indicated that paragraph (A) is one area wherein some common ground could be found. Number 1147 CHAIR JAMES told the sponsor that if he is really interested in passing HB 444 on to Finance, the committee can bring it up again on Thursday (4/13/00), and the committee can work on it between now and then to see if there is any language that needs to be changed, however, it is up to the sponsor. She asked if the sponsor was disappointed that she is not going to move HB 444 today. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY replied no. CHAIR JAMES informed the committee that HB 444 has resulted in a good discussion and it is a great idea. She emphasized that legislators should do whatever they can to make the general public understand what government is all about. She remarked that legislative jobs would be much better if the public knew exactly what was happening, so that they could weigh their decisions based on the same information that legislators have. She acknowledged that in many cases legislative information is not fully available [to the public] and she thinks that HB 444 would make it available. [HB 444 was held over.] ADJOURNMENT Number 1249 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 |
---|