Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/03/2000 08:04 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 3, 2000
8:04 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
HOUSE BILL NO. 230
"An Act granting certain dispatchers in police or fire
departments or for the state troopers status as peace officers
under the public employees' retirement system; and providing for
an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 230(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 315
"An Act relating to elimination of the Alaska Administrative
Journal and instituting public notice requirements on the Alaska
Online Public Notice System; amending public notice publication
requirements for certain regulations; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HB 315 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 230
SHORT TITLE: PERS BENEFITS FOR POLICE/FIRE DISPATCHERS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
5/07/99 1228 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
5/07/99 1228 (H) STA, FIN
2/03/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 315
SHORT TITLE: ONLINE SYSTEM REPLACES AK ADMIN JOURNAL
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/24/00 1988 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
1/24/00 1988 (H) STA
1/24/00 1988 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
1/24/00 1988 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
1/24/00 1988 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
2/03/00 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
PATRICK HARMAN, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 230.
GUY BELL, Director
Division of Retirement & Benefits
Department of Administration
PO Box 110203
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0203
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 230.
BILL CHURCH, Retirement Supervisor
Division of Retirement & Benefits
Department of Administration
PO Box 110203
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0203
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding HB 230.
JEAN BOWMAN
Palmer Police Department
423 S. Valley Way
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 230.
DUANE UDLAND, Chief
Anchorage Police Department
Municipality of Anchorage
PO Box 196650
Anchorage, Alaska 99519
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 230.
BETTY CONKLIN, Jail Officer
Sitka Police Department
100 Lincoln Street
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 230.
TAMRYN BOND
Valdez Police Department
PO Box 307
Valdez, Alaska 99966
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 230.
NANCY BUCKMASTER, Animal Control Officer
Sitka Police Department
PO Box 6081
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 230.
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
PO Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 230.
KAREN CHILDERS, Communications Supervisor
Juneau Police Department
4103 Blackerby St.
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 230.
PAM PROVOST
Anchorage Police Department
PO Box 772534
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 230.
CONNIE HETTINGA
Anchorage Police Department
19120 Lakina
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 230.
JULIE KRAFFT, Director of Member Services
Alaska Municipal League
217 Second St.
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 230.
KIM MARTIN
Juneau Police Department
210 Admiral Way
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 230.
JOSEPH CROSS, Communications Supervisor
Dillingham Police Department
PO Box 889
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 230.
JOHN LINDBACK, Chief of Staff
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
PO Box 110015
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0015
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 315.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-3, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives James, Green, Smalley and
Ogan. Representatives Hudson, Kerttula and Whitaker arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 230-PERS BENEFITS FOR POLICE/FIRE DISPATCHERS
Number 0013
CHAIR JAMES announced the first order of business is HOUSE BILL
NO. 230, "An Act granting certain dispatchers in police or fire
departments or for the state troopers status as peace officers
under the public employees' retirement system; and providing for
an effective date." She indicated there was a proposed committee
substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute for HB 230, version 1-LS0958/D, Cramer,
1/11/00, as a work draft. There being no objection, proposed
CSHB 230, Version D, was before the committee.
Number 0126
PATRICK HARMAN, Legislative Administrative Assistant to
Representative Kott, read the following sponsor statement:
House Bill 230 will require all dispatchers under the
Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), who elect to
change from a 30-year retirement to a 20-year
retirement, to pay the employees' and the employers'
contribution of the costs to that 20-year retirement
conversion.
Approximately 263 employees of PERS employers would be
affected by this legislation. Of that number,
approximately 45 are state employees. The cost to each
employee for the employee contribution would be
approximately $450 per year of service under the PERS
system. The cost for each employee for the employer
contribution would be approximately an additional $450
per year of service under the PERS system. That would
mean a total cost of approximately $900 per year for
years of service under the PERS system for each
employee that elects to change retirement terms. Under
this legislation, there would be no cost to the
employer and all costs would be paid by the employee
when he or she voluntarily elects to make this change
in their own retirement system.
MR. HARMAN explained that the citizens who approached
Representative Kott regarding HB 230 are willing to pay for the
service they are requesting. Due to the nature of their jobs
[most of them are police dispatchers], they suffer such high
levels of stress and burnout that very few of them can endure
until retirement at 30 years of service. Mr. Harman expressed
the concern of legislators that other state employees would like
to be included in the scope of HB 230, but HB 230 has a very
narrow title and only deals with dispatchers. If the legislature
wants to consider other classes of employees, it will have to be
done on a case-by-case basis.
Number 0315
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked how the legislature is going to stop
other state employees from requesting relief from job-related
stress in the same manner as the dispatchers. The case can be
stated that many people feel that their jobs are stressful, he
pointed out. He wants to make sure that HB 230 remains revenue-
neutral. If people retire early - such as under the 20-year
retirement - somebody has to work in their place. After a while,
more people are retired than working. He asked how that
situation can be revenue-neutral.
Number 0399
MR. HARMAN suggested that is a matter of public policy. If an
employee retires, another person is hired to fill the open
position. Since state employees who want a 20-year retirement
rather than a 30-year retirement are willing to pay for it, he
does not see a difficulty in calculating the cost. There are two
aspects of being revenue-neutral in this case: one is the
operating budget and the other is a long-term fiduciary
responsibility [making sure the fund stays solvent] that the
state would incur on retiring employees. The intent of the
proposed CS is to have both of those aspects be neutral.
Number 0481
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern that the committee does
not have a fiscal note for the proposed CS. He said he wants to
know whether the proposed CS is truly revenue-neutral.
Number 0563
CHAIR JAMES asked for clarification regarding an employee's
retirement contribution on a 20-year or a 30-year retirement
program, in relation to the state's contribution for the
employee.
Number 0707
GUY BELL, Director, Division of Retirement & Benefits, Department
of Administration, said the proposed CS shifts dispatchers into
the police-fire service category, thus allowing them the option
of using prior PERS service and full payment of actuarial cost to
meet police service retirement requirements. Therefore, the
proposed CS is revenue-neutral because the employees make full
actuarial payment for the police service category designation.
Once police-fire service category is authorized, the employee
begins to contribute 7.5 percent, instead of the normal 6.75
percent rate, to the retirement system.
Number 0917
BILL CHURCH, Retirement Supervisor, Division of Retirement &
Benefits, Department of Administration, indicated it is difficult
to predict the actual cost in the future. Both the Municipality
of Anchorage and the State of Alaska have separate rates of
retirement contribution for police-fire. The fiscal note for the
proposed CS indicates the difference in the contribution rate.
CHAIR JAMES indicated that her previous question to Mr. Harman
had been answered satisfactorily by officials in the Department
of Administration. She inquired as to the benefits of an
employee remaining 20 years as opposed to 15 years, since
employees feel 30 years [in this type of employment] is too long
to wait. Chair James also inquired as to the benefits of having
experienced folks on the job. Those are cost items that the
committee members realize exist, but there is no way of measuring
their cost.
Number 1080
MR. CHURCH reviewed the history of the police-fire category. In
1962, the definition of fireman or policeman included employees
who were firemen, policemen, guards at public institutions, and
fire wardens. In 1975, correctional officers/superintendents and
fish and game biologists/technicians were added to the police-
fire category. That was the first time the category departed
from just including those employees involved in fighting fire and
crime. In 1983, the legislature changed the statute definition
by removing fish and game employees from the police-fire
category.
MR. BELL explained that two other groups are seeking
authorization by legislative mandate to join the police-fire
category: correctional institution employees who are not
correctional officers, and youth correctional counselors employed
by the Department of Health and Social Services. Allowing these
groups and the dispatchers to join the police-fire category will
increase that category by 30 percent. He noted that all teachers
are part of the "20 and out" retirement plan.
Number 1294
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if teachers also pay a higher employee
retirement contribution rate, as do police-fire employees.
MR. CHURCH answered that teachers pay 8.65 percent into their "20
and out" retirement plan because they belong to a different
category than police-fire employees.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if current dispatcher employees would
pay the higher police-fire rate retroactively if the proposed CS
passed.
Number 1335
MR. BELL replied by reading the following from the proposed CS:
"an employee who was employed as a dispatcher ... may convert the
credited service for that position to credited service as a peace
officer by claiming the service as a peace officer before the
member is appointed to retirement." He said an employee can make
that choice at any point before retirement and pay the cost.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the employee also paid interest
when paying for the cost of joining the police-fire category.
MR. BELL answered yes. He directed members to page 2, which
states: "When the member claims this retroactive credited
service, an indebtedness of the member to the system shall be
established. The indebtedness is equal to the full actuarial
cost of the conversion of the credited service ...." He
explained that the actuarial cost means principal and interest,
and it applies to both the employer and employee portions.
Number 1435
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned that Administration officials had
indicated that the police-fire category was originally intended
for those people who are risking their lives in the line of duty.
He acknowledged that dispatchers suffer high stress in their
jobs; however, are they risking their lives? In addition, he
asked for an Administration opinion as to how many other groups
of employees would also claim high stress as reason for joining a
"20 and out" retirement program.
MR. BELL recognized that there is a risk for dispatchers and they
do work high-stress jobs. Other state and local city employees
also experience high stress, both emotional and physical. He
agreed that other groups could come forward and make the same
argument as the dispatchers. There is history in other states of
other groups being included in the police-fire category.
Number 1580
CHAIR JAMES admitted that she has been negative regarding 20-year
retirements because it seems like a loss of expertise at a young
age. However, people can have three or four careers in one
lifetime. She believes every job is stressful, but it is
difficult to measure because it depends on who is being measured.
She agreed that stress does shorten lives and is a valid issue.
She is pleased that the dispatchers requesting the additional
benefit are willing to pay for the added cost, she concluded.
Number 1735
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA voiced her understanding that the only
cost to the state under the proposed CS would be an increased
employer rate to match the higher employee contribution rate.
MR. BELL affirmed that.
CHAIR JAMES reminded the committee that employees who qualify
under the proposed CS are not just state employees. Private
employers will also be obliged to pay their employees at the
higher rate. She surmised that the legislature would hear from
some employers regarding this issue because it is, in effect, an
unfunded mandate.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked whether there is an identifiable
impact on retirement funds. He always understood that police,
fire, and correctional employees were given a "20 and out"
retirement because of the risk to life in their jobs, he said.
This is the first time he has heard about stress as being a major
factor in deciding on retirement. He wondered if there are other
job positions in the state where employees might reasonably come
forward and claim stress as a reason for being included in a "20
and out" retirement program instead of remaining with the current
30-year program. He recognized that "20 and out" does not cost
the general fund anything but again asked if there are costs to
the retirement fund.
Number 1931
MR. BELL answered that theoretically, as the proposed CS is
written, it will not negatively affect the retirement fund
because the person who is given the "20 and out" option must pay
the full actuarial cost and thus effectively make the PERS fund
whole. If a large number of people were placed in the police-
fire category, it would cause higher employer contribution rates
in the future to all employers in that category. He stated that
the retirement system pays for the higher cost by collecting an
extra contribution from the employee.
Number 2029
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he believes almost any state employee
who works in a stressful situation could make the same case as
the dispatchers. He asked why not revert to a 20-year program
for everybody if it does not cost the state any money and if the
employee is willing to pay the difference.
MR. BELL answered that if the 20-year program were applied to
everybody in state service, fund rates of the program would
increase significantly.
CHAIR JAMES mentioned a policy question of expertise on the job.
She asked if more folks who are dispatchers will stay longer on
the job to reach "20 and out." She recommended retaining
employees on the job for a longer period of time because good,
experienced employees are valuable, providing they do not become
stressed and unproductive. She agreed that there is much stress
everywhere, whether people are in a workplace or not. She
acknowledged that sometimes stress levels demand a job change.
Therefore, she envisions being able to carry one's retirement to
the next job; she believes portable retirement systems are
extremely important in today's system. On the other hand, the
legislature is committed to keeping government costs under
control because that is what the public wants. She cautioned
that the public is watching the outcome of HB 230 because even
though they can sympathize with the dispatchers, the public also
suffers stress in their jobs and yet do not have the luxury of a
"20 and out" program.
CHAIR JAMES continued. Each year the legislature deposits money
into the state retirement system to cover change in actuarial
costs to make the fund sound, she noted. It is clear to her that
actuarial money earns interest for the retirement fund; however,
if the national economy worsens, she thinks the legislature will
be required to deposit extra money into the retirement fund to
cover costs for additional people under the proposed CS. She
feels that those kinds of extra costs are immeasurable, she
concluded, and so the committee must make a policy call.
Number 2317
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA expressed her understanding that more
people being added to the retirement fund would result in more
money being deposited that could be used for investment. It is
her opinion that if the investments are good, it results in a
gain for the retirement fund.
Number 2335
MR. BELL agreed. He stated that the retirement fund is now
earning 8.25 percent on actuarial money; therefore, employer
rates have decreased because of the good return. The PERS board
tries to keep employer rates as flat as possible. Inevitably, he
believes markets will change resulting in losses, which will be
felt by the retirement fund. Obviously, the PERS Board desires
to protect the retirement fund and beneficiaries as much as
possible.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that Alaska has become an older state
demographically. He wondered if the aging population has an
affect on actuarial tables and what the Division of Retirement &
Benefits sees in the future. He surmised that money flowing into
the retirement fund now will start to flow out at an increased
rate because of the aging population.
Number 2422
MR. BELL replied that the number of retirees in Alaska is going
to double over the next ten years, and the Division of Retirement
& Benefits does take the aging factor into consideration when
determining actuarial values. He agreed with Representative
Green that there will be cash flow issues because the Division of
Retirement & Benefits will be paying out more money.
CHAIR JAMES announced that the committee will hear public
testimony regarding the proposed CS.
Number 2485
JEAN BOWMAN, representing the Palmer Police Department, testified
via teleconference from Palmer. She read the following
statement:
My name is Jean Bowman and I have been a dispatcher at
Palmer Police Department since May 1991. We dispatch
Palmer City Police, Wasilla City Police and Matanuska-
Susitna Borough fire and ambulance services.
Dispatchers should be included in the 20-year
retirement due to the stress level and job burn out
rate.
We are the personnel behind the scenes which make us a
unique, integral part of the support mechanism to law
enforcement. We are the "first," first responders. We
are the first to receive the call, prioritize when the
call is dispatched, we ascertain all pertinent
information to assist the officer responding to the
call, we run records check on involved parties for
officer safety, relaying this information while he or
she is responding.
Officers handle one call at a time, while dispatchers
are handling the call they sent the officer to, as well
as continuing to answer incoming calls such as business
lines to include 911 calls. Some are trained as
emergency medical dispatchers [EMDs]. When the 911
call comes in, we have a zero-minute response time. By
using protocols, an EMD can begin providing medical
assistance immediately, only seconds after a call is
received. We are also able to do both functions of
evaluating emergency medical calls and caring for the
patient until responders arrive.
By the end of a shift, we have been exposed to anything
from directions to a location, to someone committing
suicide while talking on the phone with you, domestic
violence (DV) in progress, or a mother screaming and
crying that her six-month-old child has stopped
breathing. Dispatchers deal with situations that are
considered emergencies by the callers. We have to keep
our personal, human emotions at bay and handle the call
and continue to take phone calls and dispatch officers
without any indication of stress. We don't have the
luxury of walking away to regroup before the next call.
Day in and day out, we deal with the most diverse types
of people, from nice to obnoxious.
What is critical-incident stress? Dr. Jeffrey Mitchell
defines it as any situation faced by emergency services
personnel that causes them to experience unusually
strong emotional reactions which have the potential to
interfere with their ability at the scene or later;
generates unusually strong feelings in the emergency
service workers.
Who are emergency services personnel? Emergency
service workers consist of those individuals in service
to their communities (volunteer or career) as
firefighters, police officers, emergency medical
service, nurses, dispatchers, emergency management
personnel and others.
Overall and over time, our jobs are extremely
stressful. Burnout is a syndrome of physical,
emotional and mental exhaustion brought on by severe or
chronic stress directly related to a job.
MS. BOWMAN said that personally she could see herself working as
a dispatcher for 20 years, but not for 30 years, due to the
stresses.
Number 2659
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Bowman about her work week
schedule.
MS. BOWMAN answered that her work schedule is a 40-hour work week
of five 8-hour days, but she is on call. If an employee calls in
sick or weather conditions are hazardous for travel, a dispatcher
may have to work an 18-hour shift.
Number 2704
DUANE UDLAND, Chief, Anchorage Police Department, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage, noting that he also represents the
Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police. He believes the
dispatcher position has been overlooked. In his experience, the
Anchorage Police Department must recruit and screen dispatchers
at the same level as they do for police officers because the
training required for a dispatcher is about the same as for a
police officer. He believes "20 and out" would be helpful for
many agencies in retaining qualified dispatchers.
MR. UDLAND informed members that he has noticed that his
department has lost many successful dispatchers when they realize
that they have 30 years of this type of work ahead of them before
they can retire. Loss of trained dispatchers results in a real
dollar cost to the Anchorage Police Department. Although
dispatchers do not risk physical danger like police officers do,
the psychological danger is just as great. Furthermore, while a
police officer might respond to one or two emergencies while on
duty, dispatchers deal with emergencies continually.
MR. UDLAND emphasized the importance of making the proposed CS
completely revenue-neutral. He had already heard that the
[Alaska] Municipal League would oppose HB 230 because they
believe that any cost passed on to municipalities is an unfunded
mandate. He suspects his own city [Anchorage] might oppose a 2.5
percent increase in employer contribution rate to a "20 and out"
retirement program, he added.
Number 2825
BETTY CONKLIN, Jail Officer, Sitka Police Department, testified
via teleconference from Sitka. She said that because Alaska is
made up of small communities, service people in the small
communities perform many tasks, though they may have only one
job title. She has seen dispatchers in Sitka help out in the
jail, for example. She, in turn, has had to dispatch when
circumstances warranted.
MS. CONKLIN said she wants the proposed CS to include uniformed
public safety personnel. She believes the original intent of "20
and out" was not just for stress, but for risk to life and [risk
of] injury. She felt that she could get "beaten up" by a
telephone caller just as she could get "beaten up" in the jail.
She believes all uniformed public safety personnel - including
dispatchers, jail officers, and animal control officers - are at
risk. She asked that the committee consider passage of HB 230.
Number 2896
TAMRYN BOND, Valdez Police Department, testified via
teleconference from Valdez. She said she is concerned about the
correctional officer issue. Valdez Police Department dispatchers
are called upon sometimes to search jail cells and perform female
strip searches and urinalysis tests. She agreed with the witness
from Sitka that dispatchers in small communities perform other
duties besides dispatching. She felt most dispatchers would not
reach 30-year retirement because of the burnout factor. She
believes the police department could retain more dispatchers by
offering a 20-year retirement program and still could maintain
cost-effectiveness.
Number 2950
NANCY BUCKMASTER, Animal Control Officer, Sitka Police
Department, testified via teleconference from Sitka. Even
though assigned to animal control duties and managing the animal
shelter, she still takes 25 percent of the calls that come in to
the police department. She wants the proposed CS to read "all
uniformed public safety personnel."
TAPE 00-3, SIDE B
Number 2951
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety,
testified he had been employed by the Anchorage Police Department
from 1968 to 1988. He agreed with Mr. Udland's testimony about
the difficulty of the dispatcher's task. He does not recall ever
attending a 30-year retirement for a police dispatcher, he noted.
He shares the dispatchers' concerns because of the kinds of calls
they receive every day; he believes it would be hard to work for
30 years in that environment. He reminded the committee that the
difficulty of the dispatcher job requires the police department
to continually recruit and train new dispatchers. Many
dispatchers who have reached journeyman grade move on to other
PERS positions because it just takes too long to qualify for
retirement, while enduring difficult job conditions. He said the
proposed CS is worthy of consideration by the legislature.
Nevertheless, he is aware that others feel that they also merit a
20-year retirement based upon their job conditions. He
acknowledged that it is a policy call for the committee to decide
upon.
Number 2848
CHAIR JAMES asked a hypothetical question as to whether Mr. Smith
would prefer to speak with a newly hired dispatcher or a seasoned
dispatcher when he calls 911.
MR. SMITH answered that he would prefer to speak with an
experienced person. On the other hand, he would not want to deal
with someone who does not care anymore.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired as to the average tenure of a
dispatcher.
MR. SMITH said he did not know the tenure, but he guesses it
might be between five and ten years. He acknowledged that there
are some dispatchers approaching 20 years in the occupation.
Number 2769
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if "20 and out" would really benefit
the dispatchers for retention purposes if they feel burnout at
about five to ten years.
MR. SMITH said he did not mean to imply that at five to ten years
dispatchers are ready to "bail out." He thinks that if
dispatchers can see a large light at the end of the tunnel (20-
year retirement) rather than a pinpoint of light (30-year
retirement), then they are likely to remain on duty.
Number 2699
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if keeping a hardened, less empathetic
dispatcher for ten more years just to reach "20 and out" would
create more of a problem for public safety departments.
MR. SMITH said he hopes it would not create a problem.
Individuals are all different, but hopefully the majority of
dispatcher employees would perform well in their jobs and care
about what they do until they reach retirement.
Number 2630
KAREN CHILDERS, Communications Supervisor, Juneau Police
Department, testified in favor of HB 230. She read the following
statement:
Public safety dispatching is a job like no other. The
nature of the job requires technical, communication,
multitasking and interpersonal skills, to name only a
few. What separates this job from others requiring the
same skill is that a dispatcher must have the ability
to disengage their emotions in order to do what needs
to be done.
During my 15 years as a dispatcher, I have experienced
many stressful and heartbreaking incidents. I recall
grieving, in a bathroom stall while on break, for a
woman who found her baby drowned in her pool -
hysterical and begging over the phone for me to save
her child. I recall pulling my car off the freeway on
the way home so that I could purge the scream that I
had been holding in since that suicidal man died in my
ear - I was unable to keep him talking "long enough."
On a daily basis, dispatchers deal with the worst of
life's realities. They talk with people who are angry,
scared, intoxicated, suicidal, mentally ill, victims of
domestic violence and child abuse. Occasionally, the
incomprehensible occurs - a call that "hits home." I
took the phone call when my brother-in-law committed
suicide. Two years later, I was working the radio when
my own husband shot and killed himself. I remained on
the radio, conducting business as usual, until I could
be relieved. The possibility of a dispatcher dealing
with an emergency involving friends and family is
highly probable in Alaska - which, with the exception
of Anchorage, is made up of small communities.
True dispatchers are capable of doing this job because
it satisfies something inside them. They do it for
reasons that you can't understand until you help save a
life or catch a bad guy. In my 15 years of service as
a dispatcher, I can count my "thank yous" on one hand.
But I didn't do it for the "thank yous." I did it
because I was doing something that I loved. I was a
lifeline to many people and what I did mattered - and I
didn't need a thank you to know it.
I am now the dispatch supervisor for the Juneau Police
Department and no longer have the hands-on
responsibility of a dispatcher. I have nothing to gain
personally from HB 230. Professionally, as the person
responsible for hiring qualified people to do this
difficult job, I stand to gain in my ability to attract
quality dispatchers and retain the experienced ones.
Good dispatchers are difficult to replace, as it not
only takes someone who is able to do the job, but
willing to do the job. Twenty years of cumulative
stress involved with this job is long enough. Yet, 20
years is also short enough to make it attractive as a
career choice and rewarding for those who have already
dedicated many years of service.
With HB 230, the State of Alaska has an opportunity to
do the just and equal thing; not to discount
dispatchers as clerical help, but instead to recognize
dispatchers as an integral member of the public safety
and law enforcement team. Alaska now has the
opportunity to show their support for these front-line
workers. Remember, while you are spending the holidays
with family or sleeping safe in your home, they are
three digits away, and they are always there.
Number 2429
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if it would be better for a dispatcher
to have a shorter day shift or work week rather than to work the
long haul of 40 hours per week for 20 years. It seems to him
that it would be better if a dispatcher had a chance to recoup,
he added.
MS. CHILDERS said a 20-year retirement would have been attainable
for her had the opportunity been available. At 15 years' service
as a dispatcher, she left her job. She enjoyed doing her work
but had too much "emotional baggage" to continue. It was
difficult under the circumstances to maintain an enthusiast
outlook.
Number 2316
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he is in favor of the proposed CS
because the dispatchers work hard seven days a week and on
holidays.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON agreed with Chair James about portability
of retirement. Although portability is not the subject of HB
230, it is certainly related to the policy issue behind HB 230.
He believes that if a dispatcher worked well for five years, then
started suffering burn out, the idea of retirement portability
would allow that employee to take a break by finding another job,
he said. Eventually, a dispatcher would reach retirement in
whatever job was chosen. He also believes that other people with
stressful jobs need relief. Therefore, the legislature should be
prepared to entertain the requests of other employee groups.
Number 2117
PAM PROVOST, an employee with the Anchorage Police Department
(APD), representing public safety dispatchers, testified in favor
of HB 230. She said she started employment with the APD in April
1979. As time went by, she noticed that the dispatcher turnover
rate was extremely high, so she gathered statistics about this
problem. She read her testimony as follows:
House Bill 230 was introduced by Judiciary Committee on
May 7, 1999 to include the classification of
"dispatcher" in Alaska Statute AS 39.35.680(28). The
case for including dispatchers into the 20-year
retirement provision is three-part:
Job-related stress is not on par with clerical
positions; our retirement considerations should not be
either.
Twenty-year retirement will motivate dispatchers to
work toward a pension, allowing agencies to retain
experienced dispatchers.
There will likely be zero cost to the State of Alaska
since employees will make up the PERS contributions for
both the employee and the employer.
Two statewide telephone surveys were conducted this
past year in a joint effort by Anchorage area
dispatchers from the Anchorage Police Department,
Anchorage Fire, Alaska State Troopers and Anchorage
Airport Police. Some of the significant findings were:
253 full-time dispatchers are in 30-year PERS
14 full-time dispatchers are in 20-year PERS
92% of the surveyed dispatchers said they would
remain employed in their respective
dispatch centers for 20 years but not for
30 years.
The Anchorage Police Department has experienced ongoing
workplace turbulence, as demonstrated by the high
turnover rate within the communications center. As of
December, 1999, eight employees had retired from the
communications center: three on medical and the other
five on aged-based retirement. Of the five age-based
retirees, only two maintained employment beyond 20
years in the communications center.
Thirty-six percent of all personnel assigned to the
communications center either quit or transfer to less
stressful positions within PERS.
Forty percent of all new hires in the communications
center at APD do not successfully complete the training
phase of employment.
Only four percent of those who leave the communications
center do so with a PERS pension.
The Alaska State legislature appears responsive to the
needs of the PERS membership, as evidenced by the
retirement change granted to adult correctional
officers in 1990. PERS was designed to provide a sound
retirement plan to all its members, yet the current 30-
year system fails to encourage employment longevity in
the communications center. The criteria for retirement
eligibility would appear to have undermined the PERS
original intent. A revision to AS 39.35.680(28) to
include all communications center personnel in 20-year
PERS would further the likelihood of reversing the high
turnover in the stress-laden and highly complex work
environment.
There are similar efforts being made in other states.
Texas has a 20-year retirement for dispatchers.
However, the individual public safety agency can opt
out of that requirement. Utah has a 25-year dispatcher
retirement. However, agency participation is optional.
California is attempting to gain access to a 20-year
retirement. However, there are three distinct
retirement systems operating on a statewide basis,
which unduly complicates the retirement issue. Arizona
is currently drafting state certification for public
safety dispatchers and plans to go forward with a 20-
year retirement effort in the near future.
MS. PROVOST explained that APD wants a mechanism to retain
trained, experienced employees. She asked the committee to
equate the $20,000 cost of training a dispatcher to the actuarial
contribution by the state when voting on a 20-year retirement
plan for dispatchers.
Number 1834
CHAIR JAMES emphasized that the highest cost of payroll for any
business is the training and retention of employees.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired as to the average tenure at present
of a dispatcher.
MS. PROVOST answered that APD does have 1995 statistics, but none
current. In 1995, dispatcher tenure was 5.3 years. Currently at
APD, 68 percent of the dispatcher workforce has less than five
years' experience. Out of a squad of 54 dispatchers, APD has
four who reached their 20-year anniversary.
Number 1707
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he understands that APD would have an
easier time recruiting if a 20-year retirement was in place.
MS. PROVOST answered yes, adding that APD would like to minimize
the need for training episodes so as to reduce stress for fellow
dispatchers.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he understood that dispatchers can
carry their PERS credit to another PERS-type job. He asked if
public safety personnel can carry their retirement credit to a
PERS job.
Number 1520
MS. PROVOST answered that public safety personnel are members of
a different retirement system than PERS; the two systems cannot
convert.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented that he does not see an advantage
for dispatchers if they give up portability of PERS. If
dispatchers are authorized a 20-year retirement along with public
safety personnel, they lose PERS portability. He asked if that
is what dispatchers really want.
MS. PROVOST explained that the conversion from PERS to a 20-year
plan would be handled the same way as when probation and parole
officers converted year-by-year service in 1990 from a 30- to a
20-year plan.
Number 1384
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if a "20 and out" program can be
switched over to a "30 and out" program.
MS. PROVOST answered no because the two programs stand alone.
She said the APD is looking for career dispatchers who want to
complete their retirement program, not people who are in the job
to obtain three high[-retirement] retirement years and move on to
something else.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON explained that if dispatchers are
authorized a "20 and out" program, there is no place for them to
go after they complete the 20 years. They can move from one
position to another within the "20 and out" program, but they
cannot move from a "20 and out" to a "30 and out" program.
Currently, a dispatcher can move into any other PERS position.
He hoped that dispatchers understood the advantage they would be
relinquishing by joining a "20 and out" program. He suggested
that perhaps the committee needed to make an amendment so that
dispatchers can keep portability of retirement.
Number 1181
CHAIR JAMES suggested Representative Hudson's argument would
defeat the purpose of the proposed CS. She said she understands
that APD has spent money training the dispatchers and wants them
to stay.
CONNIE HETTINGA, public safety dispatcher for the Anchorage
Police Department, testified in favor of HB 230. She said she
has been employed with APD since June, 1981, and has worked with
the dispatcher training program since 1983. She believes that by
passing HB 230 dispatcher work would become professionalized and
sought after as a career goal. She stated that it is important
to the community that professional people be on duty because
dispatchers work with highly technical equipment and issues.
Also, dispatchers are required to deal with constant change in
technology, to know how to use multiple computer programs, and to
know how to operate various communications equipment.
Consequently, she feels that dispatchers are essential workers.
Number 0918
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY inquired as to the frequency of required
overtime and how soon a dispatcher would be advised that overtime
was required.
MS. HETTINGA answered that in her experience, she may get only
one hour's notice to work overtime because the next shift
employee has called in sick or another emergency has arisen.
Dispatchers have to be prepared to fill the dispatcher position
at any time and are on recall.
JULIE KRAFFT, Director of Member Services, Alaska Municipal
League (AML), testified against HB 230. She said the purpose of
her testimony is to reiterate the AML policy statement in
opposition to any legislation that increases the cost of PERS or
the Teachers' Retirement System due to increased benefits. Their
issue is financing. She understands from Mr. Bell's explanation
that HB 230 would increase employer costs. If the proposed CS
made HB 230 revenue-neutral, then AML would have no objection to
HB 230 since AML's goal is to keep tax levels down.
Number 0699
CHAIR JAMES explained that there is a proposed CS for HB 230
before the committee. She believes it is the responsibility of
the legislature to provide services for the public that the
public wants and needs at the least possible expense. She
reminded the committee that one testifier today had explained how
much it costs to train dispatchers; therefore, Chair James said
she is convinced that a savings in training dollars and retention
of employees will result from HB 230, even though there will be
increased employer costs due to the retirement fund contribution
rate. She suggested AML's opposition due to a cost increase
should be reconsidered in the light of real savings outweighing
employer cost.
MS. KRAFFT responded that the proposed CS has been sent to AML's
revenue and finance subcommittee for discussion. She suspected
that AML's policy committee may come to the same conclusion as
Chair James, she said, especially after listening to testimony
about the difficulties that dispatchers endure in their jobs.
However, at the present time AML must follow its policy.
Number 0368
KIM MARTIN, police officer, Juneau Police Department (JPD),
testified in favor of HB 230. A police dispatcher at JPD for
eight years, she agreed with previous testifiers that the
dispatcher position should be a career. She wants people to make
a commitment to the job and to keep the experience for the sake
of public safety. Ms. Martin explained that police dispatchers
deal with secondary traumatic stress. She recounted how
dispatchers work in an enclosed room, stuck to a telephone
headset and a computer. She feels that not being able to move
during an emergency situation definitely affects the dispatchers'
health because they go through all the emotions of traumatic
stress and yet have no way of defusing stress as police officers,
who can take action, do.
Number 0129
JOSEPH CROSS, Communications Supervisor, Dillingham Police
Department, testified via teleconference from Dillingham, saying
he has observed firsthand the stress levels that dispatchers
endure. He believes that extremely high stress levels and a 30-
year retirement plan causes high turnover. Even though working
conditions are good in Dillingham, the 30-year retirement plan
causes about one opening per year; indeed, he has a dispatcher
position open right now because the previous dispatcher found a
better position. His dispatcher training program takes 12 weeks;
he agreed with previous testifiers that dispatcher training is
costly. He envisions that the 20-year retirement plan would be
positive for dispatchers.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to move CSHB 230, version 1-
LS0958/D, Cramer, 1/11/00, from committee with recommendations
and the attached fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB
230(STA) moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
TAPE 00-4, SIDE A
Number 0020
HB 315-ONLINE SYSTEM REPLACES AK ADMIN JOURNAL
Number 0454
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HOUSE BILL
NO. 315, "An Act relating to elimination of the Alaska
Administrative Journal and instituting public notice requirements
on the Alaska Online Public Notice System; amending public notice
publication requirements for certain regulations; and providing
for an effective date."
JOHN LINDBACK, Chief of Staff, Office of the Lieutenant Governor,
read the following sponsor statement for HB 315:
The Alaska Administrative Journal has served as a
compilation of public notices from state agencies, the
great majority of which are also required to be
published in the print or broadcast media.
Alaska Administrative Journal subscribership has
dramatically declined with the advent of state
government making information available to the public
on the Internet. When Lt. Governor Ulmer first took
office, there were about 125 paying subscribers ($90 a
year). Subscribership has dropped to nine out-of-state
businesses. On June 4, 1999, Governor Knowles signed
Administrative Order 183, which requires all state
agencies to post statutorily required public notices on
the new Online Public Notice system. The system
provides the public with a convenient way to find all
public notices in one place on the state web page. The
Online Public Notice website is organized in a similar
format to the Alaska Administrative Journal.
This legislation would eliminate the requirement that
the Lt. Governor's Office produce the Alaska
Administrative Journal and replace it with a
requirement that the Lt. Governor provide oversight of
the Online Public Notice system. It requires agencies
by statute to post their public notices in the Online
Public Notice system.
The legislation has a zero fiscal note. It replaces
one responsibility with another.
MR. LINDBACK noted that one reason for Administrative Order 183,
which establishes the Online Public Notice system, was that state
agencies were publishing notices on their separate web pages,
making it difficult for an ordinary citizen to navigate through
every public notice posted. Using the Alaska Administrative
Journal as a model, the Online Public Notice system would put all
state public notices in one place. Mr. Lindback emphasized that
everything contained in the Alaska Administrative Journal is now
published on computer by the Online Public Notice system. Since
September 15, 1999, the web site has been visited 15,000 times -
an average of 100 visits per day. He noted that HB 315
eliminates all references in state statute to the Alaska
Administrative Journal and inserts references to the Online
Public Notice system.
Number 0723
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he thinks it is a great idea but asked
why the fiscal note is zero.
Number 0774
MR. LINDBACK said he believes it takes the same amount of time to
prepare the Online Public Notice system as it does to publish the
Alaska Administrative Journal. Therefore, the fiscal note for HB
315 is zero.
Number 0780
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if anyone's interests will be hurt by
HB 315 because not everyone has a computer connected to the
Internet. He wanted to know how those people or businesses will
get access to the Online Public Notice system.
MR. LINDBACK answered no. Currently, only nine companies
subscribe to the Alaska Administrative Journal; all the other
subscribers have switched over to the Online Public Notice system
to retrieve public notices in which they are interested. Mr.
Lindback reminded the committee that all libraries in Alaska have
computers for public use, so anyone who wants to monitor the
Online Public Notice system can get access at the libraries. He
said all state agencies now use the Online Public Notice system.
Number 0899
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the Office of the Lieutenant
Governor had advised subscribers or solicited their opinions
regarding the proposed change.
Number 0948
MR. LINDBACK answered that the Office of the Lieutenant Governor
had advised people that the Alaska Administrative Journal would
be published online at no charge to the reader. At present, a
subscription to the journal costs $90. People have also been
advised about the new Online Public Notice system, which contains
the same information as the Alaska Administrative Journal. By
passing HB 315, the Office of the Lieutenant Governor hopes to
eliminate double posting of public notices.
Number 0990
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that the Alaska Administrative
Journal subscribers were depositing $90 per year into the general
fund. Since there were 125 subscribers, that means about $9,000
will no longer be contributed to state accounts receivable.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the governor has executive authority
to mandate this kind of request without going through the
legislative process.
MR. LINDBACK indicated the governor cannot delete a statute.
Number 1109
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented that the Alaska Administrative
Journal is mandated by statute.
CHAIR JAMES agreed that deleting the Alaska Administrative
Journal does require a statutory change.
Number 1234
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to move HB 315 with individual
recommendations and the attached [zero] fiscal note. There being
no objection, HB 315 moved from the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
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 |
|---|