02/05/2002 08:02 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 5, 2002
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Coghill, Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 361
"An Act relating to pilot pay programs to attract and retain
exceptional state employees; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 344
"An Act increasing fees for driver's licenses, instruction
permits, and identification cards; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 331
"An Act relating to appointment of persons to positions that
require confirmation by the legislature; and providing for an
effective date."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED TO 2/12/02
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 361
SHORT TITLE:PILOT PAY PROGRAM FOR STATE EMPLOYEES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)KOTT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/28/02 2079 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/28/02 2079 (H) STA, FIN
01/28/02 2079 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
02/05/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 344
SHORT TITLE:INCREASE DRIVER'S LICENSE FEES
SPONSOR(S): RLS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/18/02 2008 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/18/02 2008 (H) STA, FIN
01/18/02 2008 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
02/05/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 361 and HB 344 on behalf of
the sponsor.
DAVE STEWART, Personnel Manager
Division of Personnel
Department of Administration
PO Box 110201
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0201
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 361.
JANET CLARKE, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 110650
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0650
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 361 in support of the
comments of the Division of Personnel; discussed market
pressures and competition for certain job classifications.
BRUCE LUDWIG, Manager
Alaska Public Employees Association/American Federation of
Teachers (APEA/AFT)
211 Fourth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of APEA/AFT regarding HB
361 and the importance of collective bargaining.
MARY MARSHBURN, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
3300B Fairbanks Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Outlined the benefits and advantages of
digital licensing and answered questions on behalf of the
division regarding HB 344.
MARK MEW, Deputy Chief
Anchorage Police Department
Municipality of Anchorage
PO Box 196650
Anchorage, Alaska 99519
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding HB 344; discussed what
digital licensing would do for law enforcement in general and
for the Anchorage Police Department in particular.
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
PO Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on behalf of the
department in regard to HB 344.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-5, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. Representatives Fate,
Stevens, Wilson, Crawford, Hayes, and Coghill were present at
the call to order. Representative James arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 361-PILOT PAY PROGRAM FOR STATE EMPLOYEES
Number 0042
CHAIR COGHILL announced the first order of business, HOUSE BILL
NO. 361, "An Act relating to pilot pay programs to attract and
retain exceptional state employees; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 0114
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff to Representative Pete Kott, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 361 on behalf of Representative Kott,
sponsor. She stated that the pilot pay program was introduced
at the request of the Department of Administration. She read
from the sponsor statement, as follows:
The bill provides options for the State of Alaska in
its efforts to recruit and retain in-demand workers.
Alaska's current ... state employee pay plan is based
entirely on a job classification system that is
defined in law by the principle of "like pay for like
work." This system serves the state well in
maintaining pay equity, but it doesn't allow the state
to respond to the current competitive job market.
This legislation authorizes the Personnel Board to
adopt regulations defining pilot pay programs for
positions that a state agency has difficulty filling,
as well as recognizing exceptional employee
performance. Payments made under this legislation
would not be considered "base pay," nor is it included
in retirement calculations. Any HB 361 bonuses would
not be a part of collective bargaining during the
pilot pay period. Further, the departments must
absorb the expenses within their budgets.
MS. SYLVESTER noted that the pilot pay program options include
payment of a recruitment bonus; "excellence bonuses" and
retention bonuses; or other bonuses or incentives that the board
determines will help a state agency compete for high-demand job
fields or for employees who perform exceptionally. She
continued reading from the sponsor statement:
Last year the Alaska Legislature passed HB 242 - the
retiree return - which partially addressed the issue
of critical skill or knowledge loss through
retirement. To date, 64 valuable retirees have
returned to work ... for 26 employers statewide. Now,
the State of Alaska seeks an additional tool in order
to maintain a high-quality, public-employee workforce.
MS. SYLVESTER noted that the pilot pay program would sunset on
July 1, 2007.
Number 0351
DAVE STEWART, Personnel Manager, Division of Personnel,
Department of Administration, came before the committee in
support of [HB 361]. He said the division produced a third-
quarter workforce profile in January, based on executive-branch
employee statistics effective the close of business, December
30, 2001. Based on those numbers, he noted, 6 percent of the
workforce was eligible to retire immediately. Fives years from
that date, another 16.7 percent of the workforce will be
eligible to retire, he added. Mr. Stewart said nearly 200 job
classes are reported by hiring managers and state agencies as
difficult to fill because of inability to offer a competitive
salary. He reported the following statistics:
In the next five years, 90 percent of the state
correctional superintendents will be eligible to
retire, 81 percent of the public safety lieutenants,
64 percent of the natural resource managers, 60
percent of the supervisory (indisc.-coughing) nurses.
50 percent of the ships' masters for the Alaska Marine
Highway System will be eligible to retire.
Number 0554
MR. STEWART affirmed that he would provide a written copy of the
statistics. He then continued:
30 percent of the eligible nurses will be able to
retire within five years. The state law requires that
the state pay plan follow the premise of "like pay for
like work." That means that similar work is paid the
same, no matter where that work occurs.
Internal equity, that is, aligning job classes by the
"like pay for like work," is the basis out of which
salaries are assigned throughout the state's
classification system. Making market adjustments,
adjusting for competitive pressures and market
salaries, requires that the entire class of "like
work" be adjusted, and there are job classes in that
broad base of work that may or may not be experiencing
(indisc.) equipment problems.
MR. STEWART stated that the proposed bill provides some
flexibility in responding to a changing market. He mentioned
pressures in addressing the retention of critical job skills and
job knowledge. He defined recruitment bonuses, mentioned in Ms.
Sylvester's testimony, as "a onetime payment as incentive to
accept employment with the State of Alaska."
MR. STEWART explained that the bill envisions a retention bonus,
which he defined as "a single or multiple payment to current
employees with needed job skills or skill 'sets' in order to get
them to stay with the State of Alaska," at least long enough to
train someone to take another's place.
Number 0625
MR. STEWART defined the excellence bonus as "a payment to reward
state employees who perform beyond normal expectations, or whose
performance is exceptional on mission-critical projects or
work." He paraphrased his written testimony, which read:
This proposal allows the Personnel Board to develop
regulations adopting some, all, or other pilot
programs ... to allow the state to more effectively
compete for scarce or needed job skills and knowledge,
and to retain valuable skills and knowledge in the
workplace.
The proposal defines pilot pay programs adopted under
it as exempt from collective bargaining. By retaining
control over the definitions and duration of pilot
programs, the Personnel Board can most accurately
assess their effectiveness. To have the pay programs
individually bargained could cause an ineffective
program to remain active and only perhaps unused,
while preventing the adoption and trial of more
effective programs.
Number 0752
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked Mr. Stewart if he knew where the State
of Alaska stood in relationship to other Western states
regarding pay scale "in that competitive area." He added, "I
don't know that we're noncompetitive; I'd like to see some
statistics that tell me that we're noncompetitive."
MR. STEWART responded that [the Division of Personnel] has
salary-comparison information for nurses and engineering job
classes, which he offered to provide.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if there had been any similar
circumstance in which this "type of crunch" had occurred in the
past, or if it was the first circumstance. He also asked what
Mr. Stewart attributed its occurrence to.
Number 0849
MR. STEWART answered that for years, the State of Alaska has
enjoyed "probably" a steady stream of applicants for most of its
job classes. Some specialty skills, such as particular
[computer] programming skills or those for the very technical
job classes, have required lengthy or out-of-state recruitment.
He mentioned the constant change in technology within the field
of analyst/programmers; he said competition throughout the
country for those computer programmers, as well as for skilled
nurses and licensed engineers, is keener now than ever before.
MR. STEWART reported that [the Division of Personnel] finds it
often takes six months to get four or five people to compete for
a position. He reiterated that he would leave a spreadsheet for
the committee that shows approximately 200 job classes and their
average length of recruitment. He confirmed that this is a new
phenomenon.
Number 0957
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Stewart if he had any statistics
indicating how the previous RIP [retirement incentive program]
may have exacerbated the problem.
MR. STEWART replied that he did not, but would investigate her
question. He noted that [the Division of] Retirement and
Benefits has a number of people who have retired under the early
incentive program and who are exempt from the HB 242 retiree
return, but it has not done a comparison on those.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Stewart if he had noticed a
change in the number of openings in the specialized areas, as
opposed to jobs that merely require a high school education.
She commented that many state jobs have become more specialized
than in the past.
MR. STEWART answered that many jobs, including local clerical
jobs, have become more technical, but applicants for those jobs
lack those skills. For example, Mr. Stewart said, he began
working for the state 17 years ago as a clerk typist, and didn't
have to know Microsoft Office. Now almost everyone from
beginning administrative clerks through the director needs
proficiency in that skill.
Number 1079
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES recalled working for the State of Oregon in
the 1950s, when the incentive was benefits, rather than the
"paltry" pay. She asked how that has changed over the years and
commented that it seems wages must be higher than those in the
private sector in order to attract prospective employees. She
added, "Where is the job security?"
MR. STEWART said there were a couple of forces at work,
identified by [the division's] own economist and other
economists. He detailed them, as follows:
One of those is the changing nature of the people
entering the workforce. Fewer people are looking for
that long-term security, long-term association with
employers, in favor of skill acquisition - learn the
skill, move on, use it for someone else, and ...
parlay that new skill set into higher wages.
The other is the general erosion through ... lack of
cost-of-living adjustments and the changing nature of
the benefit plans the state offers. Fifteen, sixteen
years ago, twenty years ago, the state had one
retirement program; the state had one wage base for
all its workers. Currently, there are one or two
contracts that have two-tiered wage scales. We've got
three ... tiers of retirement [with] varying degrees
of medical coverage in each of those three tiers.
MR. STEWART mentioned the private sector's coming back to single
levels of coverage.
Number 1221
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS indicated his understanding that [the
proposed bill] was not a mandate, but merely a tool that could
be used by a department. He mentioned frequent shortages of
personnel in the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). He
stated his understanding that COLA [cost of living allowance] is
untaxed for federal employees. He said there are "several
issues out there that affect our hiring."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted that although the sectional
analysis [in the committee packet] deals quite a bit with the
Teachers Retirement System (TRS), Mr. Stewart had not mentioned
teachers in his testimony. Representative Stevens said he
didn't know if they were included in the aforementioned 6
percent eligible to retire. He stated his belief that [HB 361]
would apply to the employees of school districts, as well as of
the University of Alaska. He asked if this bill is the only
vehicle that would allow school districts and the university to
use this kind of a bonus program.
Number 1291
MR. STEWART responded that the bill, as written, would affect
the state pay plan in Title 39, which does not cover school
districts or the University of Alaska because they are "defined
in the exempt service."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked why the sectional analysis
repeatedly addresses TRS.
MR. STEWART explained that there are employees in the Department
of Education and Early Development who are members of TRS.
Number 1339
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON noted that one reason for the crisis at
hand was because all of the so-called baby boomers [the baby-
boom generation born between about 1947 and 1961] are retiring.
She said the reason for her own move to Alaska nine years ago
was because the wages were so much better than in the Lower 48;
however, the wages in the Lower 48 have risen, but Alaska's
haven't. She asked Mr. Stewart who would make the decisions,
and she mentioned the need for checks and balances.
MR. STEWART named three programs defined in the draft: the
recruitment bonus, the retention bonus, and the excellence
bonus. He explained that the recruitment bonus, based on the
job class, was designed to attract applicants to state
employment, whether they be residents or nonresidents. He
continued:
On nomination of a department's commissioner, or the
Personnel Board, the Division of Personnel would
compile a list of job classes and monitor the
recruitment, as we decide which job classes require
some incentive, or would be eligible for incentive.
... In the pilot pay, ... for vacancies in those job
classes, agencies would be authorized to offer a
recruitment bonus up to a maximum established by the
Personnel Board in ... the program, whether it's 2
percent of the annual salary, 5 percent of the annual
salary - some number that would make the position
competitive. The board would then look at changes in
recruitment - whether that particular recruitment
incentive actually attracted more applicants or
different applicants with different skill sets.
MR. STEWART turned attention to the retention bonus, which would
also be class-based, rather than individually position-based.
Referring to mention by Representative Stevens of ADF&G's job
classes, he said it is a noted problem. He added: "There are
House chair-related and law enforcement-related positions that
have the same sort of retention difficulty. Based on nomination
of commissioners from those departments, the Personnel Board
would entertain authorizing a bonus to ... those classes of
individuals also."
MR. STEWART noted that the excellence bonus would be an
individual award based on nomination by the commissioner. The
process could be as simple as a commissioner's nominating an
individual in a state agency to the Personnel Board for granting
of an award. He added, "We envisioned, however, that a peer
review - members of some of the bargaining units - would
interview nominations for service excellence and make ... final
recommendations to the Personnel Board for those awards, with
limits set, or the other programs defined by the Personnel Board
members."
Number 1578
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Mr. Stewart how many people serve on
the Personnel Board and how they are selected.
MR. STEWART answered that the Personnel Board is allowed up to
three members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the
legislature. He estimated that the terms are five to six years
in length. Mr. Otte, who is in his second year, and Mr. Borg,
who is in his second or third year, currently fill two seats.
Mr. Stewart told the committee that during the two years he has
been with the Division of Personnel, there have been two members
on the board.
Number 1643
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented if [the bill] passes, the board
would become much more important than it has been in the past.
MR. STEWART concurred.
Number 1668
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Stewart to confirm that some
employees in Seattle work for the State of Alaska.
MR. STEWART offered his belief that there are five or six
employees in Seattle.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if there was any difficulty retaining
those out-of-state employees, considering they may or may not be
in an area with "more work or higher pay."
MR. STEWART replied that the employees in question work at the
[Alaska State] Ferry Terminal; he conveyed his belief that the
state is not experiencing higher turnover in that regard than
elsewhere in the state; however, no monitoring has been done
specific to that issue.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that those employees do receive a
permanent fund dividend (PFD), which may be another incentive
for them to stay. [Laughter]
Number 1710
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he felt trepidation anytime
consideration veered away from the collective bargaining
process. He asked Mr. Stewart if he knew how the public
employees unions feel regarding this program.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that Bruce Ludwig was also available to
comment on that question.
Number 1799
MR. STEWART responded, "The earlier conversations with ...
representatives from the bargaining units indicated some
positive interest in this legislative proposal. Recently, there
were concerns about not having it collectively bargained." He
mentioned central monitoring, rather than individual plans, and
the flexibility that a central plan offers; he suggested looking
at those, as well as the peer-review concept for individual
awards and the class-based concepts for other awards.
Number 1823
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES indicated his understanding that there are
approximately 200 job classifications for which job recruitment
is difficult. He asked if evaluations had been done in those
job classifications to determine whether [the State of Alaska]
is not competitive with federal jobs or other jobs out of state.
MR. STEWART answered that some ADF&G and health care job classes
are known to be noncompetitive with private-sector and federal
employers, partly because the federal COLA of 25 percent is tax-
free. Furthermore, the nature of the work tends to draw some
state employees to move into federal or private-sector jobs.
For example, private-sector construction jobs are pulling
engineering staff from the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities (DOT&PF) and other departments that hire
engineering staff, he said. He noted that the like pay for like
work requires broader-based salary increases.
Number 1913
JANET CLARKE, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Health & Social Services, testified in support of
the comments of the Division of Personnel, noting that she would
discuss market pressures and competition for certain job
classifications. She reported that one and one half years ago,
the Division of Administrative Services recognized it was
beginning to have problems in recruitment and retention of
staff, so it engaged a contractor to execute a workforce
development plan. Although the plan is still in progress, the
department has already gleaned significant information that will
help it design its workforce for the next five years. She
offered to provide the report upon its completion.
MS. CLARKE said the department has looked at vacancy rates,
turnover rates, and retirement rates for several of its
positions, as well as "supply." She quoted statistics:
The U.S. Department of Labor predicts that Alaska will
need 40 percent more nurses over the next ten years,
which is about 220 nurses per year. ... The University
of Alaska graduates 60-80 nurses per year. The Alaska
State Hospital Nursing Home Association did a study in
taking into account the aging of the workforce [and]
predicted that Alaska would need 400 nurses per year.
MS. CLARKE said the key problem the department is experiencing
is competing with the private sector. She mentioned a need for
nurses, particularly in public health and at API [Alaska
Psychiatric Institute], where vacancies have resulted in
mandatory, burdensome overtime for nurses. Ms. Clarke noted
that although the legislature authorized a salary increase last
year, the department is currently not competitive. Other
hospitals are providing bonuses and raises above that amount, as
well as contracting with other firms.
Number 2063
MS. CLARKE reported that the U.S. Department of Labor also
ranked Alaska seventh among the states in the need for
additional social workers. She noted that the Division of
Family and Youth Services looks to hire highly qualified social
workers. She mentioned a licensing law that came into effect
last summer and continued problems in "retaining and keeping up
with that demand."
MS. CLARKE told members that during the 2001 anthrax scares and
bioterrorism incidents, the department had a 50 percent vacancy
in the microbiologist staff in its new public health lab in
Anchorage. For several weeks, the lab director was working 18-
hour days to keep up with specimens that had to be tested. She
said the department discovered that many microbiologists could
get positions in other hospitals, or other health fields, and
make $700-800 more per month; although perhaps tempted by the
state's new facility, they'd earn more in the private sector.
Number 2152
CHAIR COGHILL asked if the anticipated recruitment bonus would
be enough to attract people. He indicated Ms. Clarke's
reference to an hourly wage and asked if she could foresee the
department using the incentive bonuses in retaining employees.
MS. CLARKE responded that the department believes the bonuses
would be another tool that would allow it to either recruit or
retain individuals. She stated a need to respond to market
pressure, as well, explaining that bonuses alone would not make
up for the aforementioned salary differential for
microbiologists.
Number 2199
CHAIR COGHILL indicated the need for ongoing training,
mentioning the high-tech world. He also referred to "onward
training" and the need to reward excellence; he asked if that
would be considered.
MS. CLARKE responded that the department currently has the
ability to provide specialized training, which is a tool used to
retain its workforce and move people on a career ladder. She
said one intention of this plan is to help the department
reexamine how it develops career ladders and provides training,
even for employees in entry-level jobs, so they will stay with
the organizations and move up, rather than leave.
Number 2320
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked how the morale of an organization
would be affected when the employer gives a new employee a bonus
to do the same job that an established employee is doing already
for less money.
Number 2345
MS. CLARKE said that issue would have to be developed with the
Personnel Board when these programs are designed. Some
situations exist because of differences between state jobs and
other employment. She said she routinely hears people,
especially in the health care fields, ask why they should stay
[in a state job], even one they like, when they can get paid
more in a non-government position. Ms. Clarke said the question
is why the state can't "react more quickly to both programs and
respond to those market conditions." She concluded that it is
clearly an issue to address with caution.
CHAIR COGHILL thanked Ms. Clarke and noted that she represents
"a section of very large employment in very specialty areas."
Number 2419
BRUCE LUDWIG, Manager, Alaska Public Employees
Association/American Federation of Teachers (APEA/AFT), came
before the committee to testify. He said APEA/AFT - which
represents employees in the state government, the university,
municipalities, boroughs, and school districts - agrees with
most of the concepts embodied in the bill, but disagrees with
removing it from collective bargaining. He said the association
believes collective bargaining casts light on the process; when
it's excluded from the process, it opens the door to abuse, he
said. He added that the Personnel Board is made up of political
appointees, appointed by the governor to serve the governor's
requests and do "what his appointees ask them to do."
MR. LUDWIG explained that in collective bargaining, there is a
process called arbitration. If problems arise, there is a
method for having an impartial third party scrutinize the
problem and ascertain that everything was executed fairly. He
said APEA/AFT believes there ought to be recruitment-retention
bonuses and exceptional-pay bonuses, but the collective
bargaining process should cover those.
Number 2480
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed there is a "huge cavern" between the
bonuses given to people and the collective bargaining process.
She said she is supportive of employees' being treated properly
- and knows there are unions "specifically with that in mind" -
but is embarrassed that a state agency cannot treat people
fairly without a union. Representative James clarified that her
intent was not to destroy the union.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said even with collective bargaining, this
would be a difficult issue. She suggested the state may need a
process every few years to evaluate the market and the value of
jobs. She commented that [the state] has known for nearly ten
years that it's had an "exodus," or "missing ingredient" in its
18- to 44-year-old residents. She mentioned hearing that many
people are ready to retire, but that no replacements are
available. She opined that part of that is a complicated issue
in which the legislature may have participated by focusing on a
single issue, rather than the whole system.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked how the witness would do these types
of incentive bonuses, without creating a long process through
the collective bargaining. She expressed her belief that it
would not be possible to do so.
Number 2602
MR. LUDWIG responded that Workplace Alaska is used by the state
to hire people; once a pilot project, it was polished before
being put in place for the whole workforce. He suggested a
similar situation could exist with pilot projects through the
collective bargaining process. He said statutory authority
would be needed, and he mentioned monetary terms and any type of
increase coming back to the legislature.
MR. LUDWIG stated that the difficulty of recruiting and
retaining [employees] is not unique to Alaska; the national
union has a task force, "the Recruitment and Retention Task
Force." As increasing numbers of baby boomers leave the
workforce, there are fewer people to take their place, he said.
[The entire country] is competing for the same people; until
[the state] trains more people to fill those jobs, it will be
chasing scarce resources, he concluded.
Number 2675
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked how the aforementioned inequities
would be addressed regarding giving a bonus to a new employee to
do a job that the established employee is already doing for less
pay. He also asked what the state could do about teachers, for
example, who come to work for a $10,000 bonus, then leave the
following year - a phenomenon which Representative Stevens said
has occurred in other states.
MR. LUDWIG addressed inequity. He said [APEA/AFT] has had a
difficult time with the University of Alaska's hiring both
classified employees and professors for more money than the
current employees are making, which affects productivity and
results in the loss of employees who look elsewhere for work.
He said [the employer] must proceed with caution while
maintaining the balance of the workforce.
MR. LUDWIG referred to a previous comment by Representative
James and said there used to be a requirement that the Division
of Personnel conduct a salary survey every year; that was one of
the first "casualties" in the mid-'80s, when oil was at $8 a
barrel. He indicated he thought it was not in the statutes to
do every year; he mentioned making it a requirement to [conduct
a survey] every five years. He likened it to doing proper
maintenance on a heater, which will break without that
maintenance.
Number 2770
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS reiterated his question regarding
retention of employees. He asked if there would have to be some
kind of agreement made.
MR. LUDWIG responded that currently [the state] pays people to
move [to Alaska] in some cases. He indicated recruitment is
done "Outside" and mentioned a two-year payback provision; he
suggested a bonus similar to that could be tailored. Mr. Ludwig
said he knew that, in some places, banks were offering no-
interest loans to teachers to teach in inner-city schools, a
benefit that continues each year. He suggested [Alaska] might
try that. He added that perhaps "some kind of a hook " could be
put in those employees so that if they leave early, they would
have to pay back [the bonus or benefit] received.
Number 2875
CHAIR COGHILL asked how Mr. Ludwig envisions collective
bargaining as a part of excellence bonuses - pay incentives for
excellence.
MR. LUDWIG replied that APEA/AFT has been offering something
similar for a number of years. He offered the following:
When we had this mental health lands claim deal going
on, we had some people in the Department of Natural
Resources that put a lot of time and effort into
helping figure that out. It wasn't even their job,
you know; they did it at night. And we paid them
extra money through the vehicle of a letter of
agreement in the collective bargaining process. We
have done that in a couple other instances where
people have done exceptional work.
It recently came to light that that probably violates
not only the collective bargaining agreement, it
probably violates the statute by saying we aren't
coming back to the legislature, because that is the
amendment to the pay plan.
MR. LUDWIG indicated APEA/AFT encourages the legislature to do
something, ensuring that it at least meshes with collective
bargaining.
CHAIR COGHILL offered, "If we exempt the collective bargaining,
then those types of agreements will still be outside of your
ability to do, is how you see it."
MR. LUDWIG answered, "If you pass this, yes."
Number 2889
CHAIR COGHILL asked how Mr. Ludwig envisions the collective
bargaining process working with regard to retention bonuses.
MR. LUDWIG reiterated Representative Stevens' comment about [the
lowered morale of] the rest of the employees, when one person is
hired for more money than other employees are receiving for the
same work. He indicated that by doing so, the employer is
telling existing employees they aren't worth as much.
TAPE 02-05, SIDE B
Number 2918
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES mentioned that before her years as a
legislator, she had challenged the unions to be more active "in
training, in excellence on the job." She asked Mr. Ludwig if
the state employee programs have any type of workshops,
training, or methods of encouragement that would produce better-
performing employees.
MR. LUDWIG answered that he thinks all the collective bargaining
agreements have provisions in them for training. In response to
a follow-up question by Representative James regarding who would
pay for it, he said primarily it would be the state.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she wondered if the unions had any
program that "paid out of their dues."
MR. LUDWIG answered that he does not believe any of the current
state employee unions have apprenticeship programs; the private
sector has them, and they work well. He added, "If a contractor
comes to town, you can go to the hiring hall and you can get ...
very qualified people."
MR. LUDWIG told the committee that [APEA/AFT] has something in
its supervisory unit that is part of the contract and is funded
by an appropriation from the legislature for $50,000 a year.
Through a labor-management committee, APEA/AFT provides
supervisory training to produce bargaining-unit members who are
better supervisors in general.
MR. LUDWIG noted that APEA/AFT also represents blue-collar
workers. The state employs a lot of general maintenance people,
he pointed out, not only in state government, but also for the
university and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. He
suggested it would be nice to have some type of apprenticeship
program or a partnership with the university to create a
scheduled training whereby one could excel in boating
maintenance, for example.
Number 2811
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Ludwig whether his union is just
managing grievances regarding wages and fair treatment, or is
also trying to help its members to be better employees.
Number 2735
MR. LUDWIG replied that any union in the country which has taken
a poll [has discovered that] the number-one concern of members
is getting professional training to help them excel in their
jobs. Mr. Ludwig said, "One of the things that we've tossed
around in this training program is creating a mentor program."
He mentioned private-sector unions and that, for example,
"you're not going to find a better operator than somebody in the
operators' hiring [hall]." He said, "We just need to get the
public-sector unions similar to that, but there are so many
different job classes and so many disciplines that you really
run into difficulties."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed her appreciation of the
conversation and of Mr. Ludwig's response.
Number 2698
CHAIR COGHILL noted that the committee needed to discuss whether
to amend the language in the bill. He asked Mr. Ludwig: "If it
doesn't get amended, how do you feel you'd be shut out of the
discussion?"
MR. LUDWIG answered that all kinds of situations will arise
after it becomes law. Whether it's true or not, people are
going to say someone was hired because of being a friend of the
supervisor or that someone received a bonus because the
supervisor liked that person better than somebody else. He
added, "If you don't have some kind of light on the process,
then it's going to make the process suspect." He expressed
concern that something with the potential to be good would turn
out otherwise.
Number 2651
REPRESENTATIVE FATE referred to testimony regarding baby boomers
[who are retiring] and the increased need [for workers]; he
indicated the creation of a dichotomy. He also referred to
previous testimony about giving bonuses "without that light
being shed," which he predicted would result in an escalated
cost of [running] the state proportionate to the bonuses given.
He mentioned a need to give more bonuses and the argument over
whether those bonuses are given to the right people, for the
right reasons.
Number 2603
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said he would be interested in hearing
from state personnel regarding how arbitration would be handled.
Number 2570
CHAIR COGHILL agreed that the same discussion needs to be held
with the administration. He recommended that [HB 361] not be
passed out of committee until a proposed committee substitute
(CS) was, perhaps, created. He suggested a discussion of merit
pay would be important as well. He asked Mr. Stewart to comment
on collective bargaining.
Number 2516
MR. STEWART responded that the Personnel Board process is a
public process in which bargaining units have always
participated, which is something that [the division] expects.
Referring to the 200-some job classes that are experiencing some
difficulty in recruiting, he asked the committee to consider
that a number of job classes - many of them on the previously
mentioned list - don't exist solely in one bargaining unit. For
example, analyst/programmer positions exist in the confidential
bargaining unit, the supervisory unit, and the general
government unit. He said, "To have individually bargained
incentive programs spanning a particular job class would make
administration of that program complicated, if not impossible."
Engineers exist in supervisory and general government unit
positions, he added.
MR. STEWART referred to the issue of fairness previously
mentioned by Representative Stevens. He indicated one
suggestion is to consider a referral bonus, an existing option
in certain states whereby current employees responsible for
bringing a successful candidate for state employment - whether
or not that individual is eligible for a recruitment incentive -
might be eligible for a referral incentive. He then stated:
The idea behind this piece of legislation is to
provide agencies with a tool to make up the loss of,
or the failure to compete successfully for, specific
skill sets. ... Through the board process, through
that open process, and through work groups established
to deal with the specific bargaining unit issues, I
think that the "light" that Representative Fate was
talking about would be shed on this process,
continually.
Number 2397
CHAIR COGHILL told Mr. Stewart that regulations would have to be
written; certainly, the collective bargaining units would be a
part of that discussion. He asked, "Do you see that as part of
the rule making, coming into what the board might have to view
as safe criteria for the recruitment, or criteria for bonuses?"
MR. STEWART answered that the entire regulatory process is
through the board; it has to adopt the regulations, which are
subject to public comment.
CHAIR COGHILL summarized the following points for the committee
to consider. The bill would allow considerable latitude, and
the committee had not taken a position on that. He noted that
favoritism would have to be addressed. Regarding recruitment
within the ranks and Outside recruitment, he indicated the need
to deal with filling state job vacancies but not ignore those
already in the state workforce. He mentioned criteria for what
is above and beyond a normal work expectation, as well as making
certain that standards for the regular workforce are not set too
low - rewarding what would, in any other job class, be expected.
Number 2307
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she would like to know how other
Western states deal with this issue. She offered that in her
experience of writing regulations, she found the public process
flawed. She concluded that although she could see the need for
this legislation, she was struggling with how it would work
without adding more confusion to the process.
Number 2259
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she views this as a nationwide
supply-and-demand problem: anytime supply is low and demand is
great, one has to pay "somewhere along the line." She offered
that her own town [Wrangell] has not received a single inquiry
for an available pharmacist position. She also mentioned
difficulty in getting nurses to come to her town; she said
nurses who were recruited were paid $45 an hour and wouldn't
work weekends without getting paid overtime, whereas those
already there had to work every other weekend. Representative
Wilson indicated there were morale problems. She said Alaska
needs to deal with this problem and will need money to do it,
but she didn't know where the state would get the money.
Number 2160
CHAIR COGHILL told Representative Wilson there was a zero fiscal
note attached to [HB 361] because "they decided, for a pilot
program, they would work within their departments to work out
whatever retention and excellence bonuses and recruitment
bonuses." He indicated there were incentives to work for the
state back in the 1980s; he mentioned changing to a tier system
because of a lack of money. Chair Coghill opined that the
committee would want to consider a balance in those tiers, to
give incentives when needed and to reduce those incentives when
the need no longer existed. He agreed having people work [the
same job] for different benefits creates conflict.
CHAIR COGHILL requested that Mr. Stewart return with answers to
some questions he might have. He also asked that [Ms. Clarke]
look at issues that may arise and how the [legislation] would be
implemented. He indicated having a collective bargaining
discussion "is going to be a good one." He asked: "Does the
board process give us a broad enough scope to all agencies
through all the different categories that we'll be dealing with?
Is that better, or do the collective bargaining units really
have a niche, and can ... that work in certain ways and should
we install it in this bill?"
CHAIR COGHILL stated his intention to move the bill out of
committee the next time it was heard. He mentioned incentives
and said even the constitution has a merit-based system. He
remarked: "Merit pay is a bigger part of where we're going."
[HB 361 was held over.]
Number 1970
CHAIR COGHILL called an at-ease at 9:08 a.m.
[Because of technical difficulties, this portion of the House
State Affairs Standing Committee minutes was compiled from log
notes and the audio recording made available from KTOO's Gavel
to Gavel, available on BASIS. There is no blank tape because
the machine was on "pause." No log numbers are available.]
CHAIR COGHILL called the meeting back to order at 9:12 a.m.
HB 344-INCREASE DRIVER'S LICENSE FEES
CHAIR COGHILL announced the next order of business, HOUSE BILL
NO. 344, "An Act increasing fees for driver's licenses,
instruction permits, and identification cards; and providing for
an effective date."
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff to Representative Pete Kott, Alaska State
Legislature, told the committee that Representative Kott is the
chair for House Rules Standing Committee, which is sponsoring HB
344. She explained that HB 344 would raise the fees for
driver's licenses by $5, and instruction permits by $10. The
revenues would go into a general fund. The Department of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) would also seek additional funds to implement
"the first-ever overhaul of the driver's license format." The
current laminated license will be converted to a digital license
system, which will bring Alaska up to the national standards, in
terms of security and fraud prevention.
MS. SYLVESTER noted that Alaska is one of four states that have
not yet switched to the digital licensing system. In the wake
of September 11, 2001, there is a demand to "harden" all
licenses, rather than to create a national ID card, she said.
She listed other standards that have been set [regarding]
digitalization as follows: appearance, photo file format, and a
readable media.
MS. SYLVESTER told the committee that the idea [for adopting
digital licensing] was initiated by DMV and by a group called
CHARR [Cabaret Hotel Restaurant & Retailers Association]. She
explained that the cigarette and alcohol industries carry the
burden of ensuring the [validity] of licenses. The present type
of laminated licenses are difficult to read in a bar, she said.
MS. SYLVESTER pointed to examples of digital licenses [included
in the committee packet]. She said that the need for [the ID
checker at a bar] to look for the date of birth on a license and
calculate the age of the ID holder will not be necessary,
because underage ID's will be formatted vertically on the card,
instead of horizontally.
MARY MARSHBURN, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department
of Administration, told the committee that HB 344 would provide
the necessary funds for a much-needed change to digital
licensing. She said that the four states currently without
digital licensing are Alaska, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Rhode
Island.
MS. MARSHBURN said that the advantages of digital licenses are
that they are computer generated, more difficult to alter, have
machine-readable data, are embossed into card stock, and can
incorporate multiple security features. If someone were to
alter the face of a digital license, the information from that
license could still be read by machine. Furthermore, a digital
photo of the applicant is taken, which can be sent to law
enforcement. If a person comes in to report a lost driver's
license, the department can verify that that person is who he or
she is claiming to be. She stated that the biggest [benefit] of
digital licensing [will be to] law enforcement, which can use
the media strip to easily transmit data.
MS. MARSHBURN reiterated that there is support for digital
licensing from industries that sell age-restricted products.
She said that ARBA (Alaska Regional Beverage Association) has
passed a resolution in support of digital licensing and of
raising fees to cover the cost. CHARR had a resolution before
it in the previous week, the result of which had not yet come to
Ms. Marshburn's attention. The Anchorage Assembly currently has
a resolution before it, which she said she anticipates will
pass.
MS. MARSHBURN noted that there are significant benefits to the
public, including greater personal security and protection
against identity theft. Another benefit is that a person who
loses an ID while traveling can obtain a duplicate, because the
image is on file.
MS. MARSHBURN said the one-time cost to the department for
digital licensing is approximately $500,000. The increase to
the cost of the driver's license will be $1 per year, a small
price to pay for security, she said.
MS. MARSHBURN talked about the details on the example licenses
depicted on the handout. She reiterated that the look of the
license for minors will be significantly different than that of
the license for adults.
MS. MARSHBURN, in response to a question by Chair Coghill, said
that the bar code would most likely be used on the back of the
Alaska State license.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if there would be any type of device
that could be used by those responsible for checking IDs that
would allow them to run the ID through like a credit card.
MS. MARSHBURN answered that there are a variety of scanners
available that retail establishments can use to read that data.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked a question regarding making [valid]
changes on a digital license if it were necessary to do so.
CHAIR COGHILL asked Representative Fate to restate his question,
because it was brought to his attention by the committee
secretary that there had been some technical difficulty and the
tape was not recording.
[The foregoing minutes on HB 344 were reconstructed from the log
notes and Gavel to Gavel recording. At this point, the
recording begins again on Tape 02-05, Side B.]
Number 1917
REPRESENTATIVE FATE restated his question. He asked: If the
legislature lowered the drinking age - or voting age - for
example, how difficult would it be to change that on the
[identification] card? For instance, would a new card have to
be issued, or could the software accept the change?
MS. MARSHBURN replied that the answer would depend specifically
on what the change in the law was. Most likely, she said, the
individual would need a new license.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE clarified that he knew the card would
change, but was asking if the computer program could be
rewritten with the existing software to facilitate that change.
MS. MARSHBURN said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE noted that startup costs mentioned by Ms.
Marshburn were approximately $500,000, [the amount] he thought
would be in [a fiscal note]. He explained that he was looking
at costs if changes are made to the system, "recognizing that
each card is going to have to be changed."
MS. MARSHBURN said changes to the computer programming would be
minimal "in terms of cost for work effort."
Number 1817
CHAIR COGHILL pointed out that the $500,000 is not reflected in
the fiscal note; he asked if that was because changing software
was already provided for in [an existing] budget.
MS. MARSHBURN said no, adding, "This is a vehicle for the
revenue to cover the cost." She stated that it was her
understanding that the cost could not be included in the fiscal
note because revenues cannot be dedicated. She said the
$500,000 for the division to do the program would have to be by
budget appropriation in the budget that will come before House
Finance Standing Committee this year; that would be a separate
action by the legislature.
CHAIR COGHILL replied that generally, however, a bill that
requires increased spending requires an accompanying fiscal
note.
Number 1750
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES offered remarks regarding the fiscal note:
I understand not being able to have dedicated funds,
and that doesn't necessarily indicate dedicated funds.
It says [that] you've got a change in revenues of
$900,000, and you don't say where the money's coming
from. Well, you say it's $105,000, which is general
fund program receipts, which should be down in that
part, as well. But, up top, you need to know where
that money's going to go. Are we going to get another
$500,000 that we can spend for anything we want? Or
is there something - some extra cost - we're going to
have to cover? I don't think that means that it's
dedicated.
Number 1705
MS. MARSHBURN indicated the fiscal note could be changed. She
explained that it had been drafted to avoid to appearance of
dedicated revenue. She remarked that the bill itself doesn't
speak to digital licensing.
Number 1693
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she thinks fiscal notes are actually
funded separately, and not all of them are covered; therefore,
it is important to show the costs of [HB 344] and where that
money will go.
MS. MARSHBURN thanked Representative James and said, "We'll do
that."
Number 1650
CHAIR COGHILL asked Ms. Marshburn for the projected cost of
changing equipment. He asked if it would, indeed, be the
$500,000.
MS. MARSHBURN answered that the $500,000 is for the project
development as it relates to software: writing it; providing
it; integrating it to the existing systems; interfacing it with
the other users; and writing the program to develop the license
to the national standards, in order to facilitate the exchange
of data among other user agencies in Alaska and nationally. Ms.
Marshburn noted that the division has an appropriation for
hardware in its capital budget.
Number 1591
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON requested clarification regarding a
segment of the analysis in the fiscal note that read [original
punctuation provided]:
This bill increases the fees for the original issue,
renewal, and duplicates of driver's licenses, and ID
cards by $5. The fee for instruction permits is
increased by $10. The last increase in these fees was
over 10 years ago. The Instruction Permit is valid
for 2 years. Commercial driver's licenses including
school bus permits are not included in the increase.
MS. MARSHBURN replied:
All of the licenses that we issue and all of the
permits that we issue would be converted to digital,
so everyone would benefit. We did not include the
commercial driver's license because that program fee
was established in '92 or '93 and is a relatively
recent fee. It's $100 for the license itself and, on
top of that, it's an additional $25 for the road test.
...
Post-September 11th, there have been some federal law
changes which will pass down an additional fee of $100
- not through the DMV, but through some extra
background checks that we will have to [ensure that]
these people go through, but an additional $100 that
commercial drivers are going to have to pay for the
additional background check, vis-à-vis recent changes
in federal law.
We felt that that cost - basically $200 to $225 for a
commercial driver's license - was sufficient. If we
look at the numbers of commercial driver's licenses in
Alaska, that is a smaller percentage; the majority of
our licenses are the class D licenses - what we call
"regular" licenses - and so we didn't include the
commercial drivers; they're carrying a pretty hefty
burden already.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she thought that was a "good call."
Number 1475
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES mentioned recent problems of people
boarding planes. She said she has been advocating that people
volunteer to carry an ID card that has a background check and
"those kinds of things," and therefore the traveler wouldn't be
patted down [in airport security]. She asked Ms. Marshburn, if
that were allowed, whether it could be incorporated into the
current driver's license or would mean carrying a separate one.
MS. MARSHBURN said she could not give a definite answer, but
said the background checks are conducted by DMV. She noted that
legislation would be necessary, and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) would probably be the approving agency for
something like that.
Number 1385
CHAIR COGHILL opined that tricky questions come up with the
subject of national identification. He said, "This doesn't
become a national ID card, but it certainly is a national
identifier." He mentioned digitizing and that privacy is
becoming a bigger issue.
Number 1362
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if the renewal dates on licenses would
carry over in digital form.
MS. MARSHBURN said that's correct. A person's license would be
converted when it was up for renewal.
Number 1346
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked what security measures were in place
to prevent a [computer] hacker, for instance, from [forging a
license].
MS. MARSHBURN answered that the state security system has a
number of laws and security measures in place already. She said
[DMV's] data and databases, as well as that of the state
troopers, require very high security; that won't change with a
digital license.
Number 1288
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES pointed out that the military also has
those measures, but there still are hackers capable of breaking
into a system, no matter how good it is.
MS. MARSHBURN agreed; however, she mentioned layers of security
within the state's mainframe computer. Within the agency, she
noted, the following security measures are used: patchwork,
audit trails, auditing of computer use, and built-in alarms and
monitors. Although not foolproof or failsafe, those measures
are in place and wouldn't change with a digital system.
Number 1214
MARK MEW, Deputy Chief, Anchorage Police Department,
Municipality of Anchorage, testified via teleconference. He
told the committee he would talk about what digital licensing
would do for law enforcement, in general, but also specifically
for the Anchorage Police Department.
MR. MEW referred to Ms. Marshburn's testimony and said that two
immediate advantages of using the new licenses would be that
they are more difficult to forge and they [make it easier to]
determine age; both are useful to the police department.
MR. MEW explained that a benefit of digital photographs that
meet the national standard would be the ability to use them for
investigative purposes in a photo lineup. Police currently use
photos, rather than "live" lineups. Furthermore, there is case
law requiring that lineups use people with similar hairstyles
and facial features, for example. The police have access to
digital photograph banks, from which they can choose the best
lineup of photos; however, Mr. Mew noted, [Alaska's] photos
don't jibe with those from other states.
Number 1014
MR. MEW brought up the subject of new technology in Anchorage,
through the mobile data project, that he hopes will be
operational by the summer of 2002. The project involves
providing laptop [computers] in all patrol cars that communicate
by radio frequency to headquarters, he explained. It
facilitates writing of police reports, transmittal of data, and
downloading into the police system and state system, with "very
little human intervention." He mentioned criminal-history
checks, automatic vehicle location checks, and real-time checks
in the patrol car by the officer.
MR. MEW explained the twofold use of the driver's licenses.
Regarding data-entry capacity, currently officers handwrite
tickets and accident reports, for example. Most information
used in those reports comes right off of the driver's license.
However, numbers may be transposed, and people's names may be
entered in several ways. For example, someone could write the
name Del Smith, while someone two days later might write Delbert
Smith, and someone else could write Delbert J. Smith. That data
must be cleaned up, he said, because the department does not
want that person showing up in the database as three different
individuals.
MR. MEW explained that if that person's card were scanned each
time with the same name, date of birth, and driver's license
number, then the information wouldn't require correction later.
These corrections create expense for the department. Worse yet,
incorrect information may get passed on to the district
attorney, the court, or [the Department of] Corrections, thereby
creating melee in all of the systems.
MR. MEW said he would like to see Ms. Marshburn's system updated
to fit in with the digitization. He said the aforementioned
example could be avoided by "utilizing licenses such as we're
discussing now." He concluded that the advantages to [the
police force] are great in terms of officer time "upfront";
quality of data; and clerical time "downstream," in terms of
housekeeping in the system.
Number 0742
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, following up a previous question by
Representative Hayes, asked how other people are kept from
intercepting [information in] the system.
MR. MEW answered that there are new Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) standards for security on any system that
interfaces with the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) or
any state system authorized by NCIC, which would include the
Alaska Public Safety Information Network (APSIN). He offered
that those standards would involve 128-bit encryption and
"certain other protocols" that would make it nearly impossible
to monitor and decipher.
MR. MEW said [the police department] has to pass audits in order
to utilize the system, whether it's by radio or hard-line. He
reminded the committee that this is not top-secret, classified
information; there are ways for the public to get the same
information if they to go through "the right channels."
Number 0618
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD expressed fear that the country is
moving toward "a national passport system." He stated that one
basic tenet of [the constitution] is the right to be left alone.
He voiced concern about how much information such as medical
information could be put on the barcode [of a driver's license,
or other type of ID card]. It could be used as a national
tracking system under which people would be required to give
their licenses to the checker at the grocery store or any other
place they went, he warned.
Number 0500
MR. MEW responded that perhaps Ms. Marshburn should address that
concern, because the police wouldn't have anything to do with
what information is put on the card. He added that the focus of
[the police department] is to be able to utilize the same
information already on the card, but in a more efficient manner.
Number 0475
CHAIR COGHILL told Mr. Mew he thought he'd done a good job of
explaining the benefits of a consistent, expedient system and
how the upgrade of technology improves the exchange of
information. He announced that his intention was not to move
the bill out of committee until the fiscal note was received.
He suggested further subjects for discussion regarding HB 344
may include monetary amounts and the concerns expressed.
Number 0359
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), said he has been talking
about digital licensing since he held Deputy Mew's position in
1987. He said he thinks it was then that a demonstration by DMV
was held, which he attended.
MR. SMITH noted that although the bill's focus is raising fees,
he wouldn't be addressing that. He reiterated Mr. Mew's
comments regarding law enforcement's ability to make substantial
use of information that is currently, by statute, on the face of
a driver's license, through the use of barcodes. He told
committee members he appreciated the concern regarding some of
the information that could potentially go into a card, but said
his present interest is information on the face of the license
that is currently required by statute.
MR. SMITH indicated that although the Alaska State Troopers
could see a use for "in-car terminals" in the Fairbanks,
Matanuska-Susitna, and Anchorage areas in the not-too-distant
future, it has no plan in place to use them throughout the
state, because of the "far-flung reaches" that are patrolled.
Considering the short-term applications, he said, he thinks
digital licensing would be beneficial to law enforcement for
many reasons, including, as Mr. Mew mentioned, interfacing on a
national level.
MR. SMITH noted that there is encryption for "across-the-air
transmissions." He expressed certainty that standards will need
to be met for NCIC 2000. He explained that NCIC is the database
that one checks for "wants" or warrants nationally, or for
information regarding stolen property; NCIC 2000 is "just the
latest permutation," whereas he believes the original center has
been in existence since sometime in the 1970s. The DPS, law
enforcement, and the Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police
support the move to a digital license, he said, to increase
security and help determine who should be buying alcohol or
cigarettes.
Number 0096
MR. SMITH, in response to an earlier comment by Representative
James, said he thinks the potential exists for having a card
that could be put through a scanner at an airport security
checkpoint for those who voluntarily have provided the
information; it could involve a photo ID and verification of who
it is. He recalled hearing on the news of a plan to allow
frequent travelers to go through a special line; however, he
pointed out, that causes concern [by other travelers] when some
people go through a shorter line.
Number 0020
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, reevaluating her previous concerns about
the fiscal note, indicated the current fiscal note probably is
correct because "nothing in this piece of legislation ...
authorizes them to go do anything; actually, it just raises the
rate."
TAPE 02-06, SIDE A
Number 0026
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES remarked that the comment regarding
encryption did not make her feel "100 percent comfortable"
because, as Representative Hayes stated, there are people
[capable of hacking into a system]. She stated the necessity of
moving forward and becoming smarter than those people.
Number 0068
MR. SMITH noted that when he first began work involving driver's
licenses in 1968, they were made of paper and partially filled
out by hand. He said the current driver's license is still easy
to change; therefore, using a secure, digitally produced
[license] makes sense. He mentioned people's concerns and the
resulting removal by the legislature of the social security
number.
Number 0142
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES conveyed her concern that [the barcode]
should only provide the information that is on the face of [the
license].
MS. MARSHBURN confirmed that the only information in the barcode
would be that which is on the face of the license.
CHAIR COGHILL expressed shock at discovering the amount of
information a person can find on the Internet about other
people.
Number 0235
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked, with this new digital system, what
the implications are with regard to FBI requirements and
security as it interfaces with passports and international
travel, for instance.
Number 0286
MR. SMITH answered:
Technology is mind-boggling to me and changes every
day. I believe it potentially can be done by linking
them. Right now, I would assume that Deputy Chief
Mew's officers have an in-car terminal they can swipe,
that they can inquire against the Alaska Public Safety
Information Network to determine if there's any
"wants" or warrants or "locates" out for an
individual. It also would, presumably, determine
whether or not there are any national "wants" or
warrants for the individual. It depends upon the
linkages that NCIC does, then, out to other agencies
about whether or not you would want to check passport
status, citizenry status - those kinds of things.
There certainly is a lot of potential to gather a lot
of information about an individual fairly quickly,
which, I believe was Representative Crawford's
concern. It is out there, but electronically it is
able to be consolidated, which I think is a concern to
most people. But I think, technologically, what
you're asking: yes, it could be done, the same as
swiping it at the airport, I assume, if you did one
against the national databases.
Number 0380
CHAIR COGHILL acknowledged this subject of concern, but returned
attention to the focus of the bill, to raise the fees. The
policy call, he said, would be whether [the committee] would
vote to waive the fees; he also mentioned the connection with
the fiscal note. He asked Ms. Marshburn if she wanted to make
any last comments.
MS. MARSHBURN deferred to Mr. Mew to address concern expressed
about the transmission of data.
Number 0524
MR. MEW reminded members that the data under discussion is
currently going out over radio for everyone to hear; names,
driver's license numbers, and identifying features are radioed
back and forth between any officer conducting a records check
and the dispatcher. Switching to digital [licensing] will make
this nearly impossible to monitor, he noted.
CHAIR COGHILL said he appreciated that. He announced that HB
344 would be held over.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0611
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:04
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|