Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/11/2002 08:06 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 11, 2002
8:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Coghill, Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Hugh Fate
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Alaska Air National Guard Brigadier Generals
Colonel James Robinson - Fort Richardson
Colonel Timothy Scott - Eielson Air Force Base
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the Alaska permanent fund.
- MOVED CSSSHJR 14(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31(STA)
Urging the United States Congress to permit the use of tax
exempt bonds to fund loans for veterans who served after 1976.
- MOVED CSSJR 31(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 458
"An Act relating to periods of probation for state employees;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 180(FIN)(efd fld)
"An Act implementing pay differentials based on geographic areas
for certain state employees and for members of the Alaska State
Defense Force; relating to cost-of-living differentials for
state aid to municipalities."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 180(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 487
"An Act relating to fireworks; and providing for an effective
date."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 14
SHORT TITLE:CONST. AM: PERMANENT FUND
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CRAWFORD
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/14/01 0316 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/14/01 0316 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
04/17/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/17/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/19/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/19/01 (H) Heard & Held
04/19/01 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/28/01 (H) STA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/28/01 (H) <Bill Postponed>
03/22/02 2643 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
03/22/02 2643 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/22/02 2643 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
04/04/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/04/02 (H) Heard & Held
04/04/02 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/11/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SJR 31
SHORT TITLE:TAX EXEMPT BONDS TO FUND VETERANS LOANS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) WARD
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/30/01 1357 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/30/01 1357 (S) STA
02/07/02 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/07/02 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/07/02 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/12/02 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/12/02 (S) Moved CSSJR 31(STA) Out of
Committee
02/12/02 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/13/02 2176 (S) STA RPT CS 5DP SAME TITLE
02/13/02 2176 (S) DP: THERRIAULT, PHILLIPS,
STEVENS,
02/13/02 2176 (S) DAVIS, HALFORD
02/13/02 2176 (S) FN1: ZERO(S.STA)
02/21/02 (S) RLS AT 11:00 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
02/21/02 (S) -- Meeting Postponed to
2/22/02 --
02/22/02 (S) RLS AT 10:30 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
02/22/02 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/25/02 2299 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2/25/02
02/25/02 2300 (S) HELD TO 2/27 CALENDAR
02/27/02 2321 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/27/02 2321 (S) STA CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
02/27/02 2321 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
02/27/02 2321 (S) COSPONSOR(S): PHILLIPS,
OLSON, DAVIS,
02/27/02 2321 (S) ELTON, THERRIAULT, ELLIS,
WILKEN,
02/27/02 2321 (S) DONLEY, LEMAN, LINCOLN,
KELLY, STEVENS,
02/27/02 2321 (S) COWDERY, TAYLOR, HALFORD
02/27/02 2322 (S) PASSED Y19 N- A1
02/27/02 2325 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/27/02 2325 (S) VERSION: CSSJR 31(STA)
02/27/02 2321 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSJR
31(STA)
03/01/02 2427 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/01/02 2427 (H) MLV, STA
03/14/02 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/14/02 (H) Moved CSSJR 31(STA) Out of
Committee
03/14/02 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
03/15/02 2546 (H) MLV RPT 6DP
03/15/02 2546 (H) DP: MASEK, KOTT, GREEN,
MURKOWSKI,
03/15/02 2546 (H) HAYES, CHENAULT
03/15/02 2546 (H) FN1: ZERO(S.STA)
04/11/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 458
SHORT TITLE:STATE EMPLOYEE PROBATIONARY PERIOD
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HUDSON
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/19/02 2311 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2311 (H) STA
04/11/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 180
SHORT TITLE:STATE EMPLOYEE/ DEFENSE FORCE PAY COLAS
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/09/01 1014 (S) FIN
04/09/01 1013 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/17/01 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
04/17/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
04/17/01 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/17/01 1115 (S) FIN RPT 3DP 5NR
04/17/01 1115 (S) DP: DONLEY, GREEN, LEMAN; NR:
KELLY,
04/17/01 1115 (S) AUSTERMAN, HOFFMAN, OLSON,
WILKEN
04/17/01 1115 (S) FN1: (CRT)
04/17/01 1115 (S) FN2: (ADM/ALL DEPTS)
04/26/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
03/13/02 2419 (S) RETURNED TO FIN COMMITTEE
03/14/02 (S) FIN AT 9:30 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
03/14/02 (S) Moved CS(FIN) Out of
Committee
03/14/02 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/15/02 2428 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 2NR NEW TITLE
03/15/02 2428 (S) DP: DONLEY, AUSTERMAN,
WILKEN, LEMAN,
03/15/02 2428 (S) WARD; NR: HOFFMAN, OLSON
03/22/02 2489 (S) FN3: (ADM/ALL DEPTS)
03/22/02 2489 (S) FN4: (CRT)
03/26/02 (S) RLS AT 11:00 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
03/26/02 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/27/02 2542 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/27/02 2542 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED Y15 N5
03/27/02 2543 (S) ADVANCED TO 3RD READING
FAILED Y14 N6
03/27/02 2543 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
3/28 CALENDAR
03/27/02 2539 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1OR 3/27/02
03/28/02 2558 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
180(FIN)
03/28/02 2558 (S) PASSED Y14 N3 E3
03/28/02 2558 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
03/28/02 2558 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF RECON HELD TO
4/2
04/02/02 2592 (S) RECONSIDERATION HELD TO 4/3
04/03/02 2613 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y8 N11 E1
04/03/02 2613 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD
READING
04/03/02 2613 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1
UNAN CONSENT
04/03/02 2615 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD
READING
04/03/02 2615 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y13
N6 E1
04/03/02 2616 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) FAILED Y13
N6 E1
04/03/02 2619 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/03/02 2619 (S) VERSION: CSSB 180(FIN)(EFD
FLD)
04/04/02 2793 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/04/02 2793 (H) STA, FIN
04/11/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
JAMES ROBINSON, Colonel, Appointee
as Brigadier General
Alaska Air National Guard
(No address provided)
Fort Richardson, Alaska 99505
POSITION STATEMENT: As appointee to the position of Brigadier
General in the Alaska Air National Guard, provided background
and answered questions.
TIMOTHY SCOTT, Colonel, Appointee
as Brigadier General
Alaska Air National Guard
(No address provided)
Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As appointee to the position of Brigadier
General in the Alaska Air National Guard, provided background
and answered questions.
SENATOR JERRY WARD, sponsor
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 423
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SJR 31.
MELANIE LESH, Staff
to Representative Bill Hudson
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 502
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 458 on behalf of the sponsor.
DAVE STEWART, Personnel Manager
Division of Personnel
Department of Administration
PO Box 110201
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0201
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 458.
MARILYN WILSON, Staff
to Senator Dave Donley
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 518
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 180 on behalf of the Senate
Finance Committee.
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 506
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions on SB 180
on behalf of the Senate Finance Committee.
ALISON ELGEE, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Administration
PO Box 110200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0200
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 180.
PAUL LYLE
665 Aspen Heights Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 180, especially
Section 4.
PAM HARTNELL
413 Lignite Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 180.
CHRIS CHRISTIANSEN, Deputy Administrative Director
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
820 West Fourth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2005
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 180.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-39, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:06 a.m. Representatives
Coghill, Stevens, Wilson, and Crawford were present at the call
to order. Representatives James and Hayes arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Alaska Air National Guard Brigadier Generals
CHAIR COGHILL announced the first order of business would be the
confirmation hearings for appointees the position of Brigadier
General, Alaska Air National Guard. He invited Colonel Robinson
to provide opening remarks and answer members' questions.
Number 0197
JAMES ROBINSON, Colonel, Appointee as Brigadier General, Alaska
Air National Guard, testified via teleconference. He said he is
being appointed to the position of chief of staff and
representing the Assistant Adjutant General and the Adjutant
General of the Alaska National Guard. He explained that he will
be involved in long-range planning of the future of the Alaska
Air National Guard, and he will be involved in looking at future
"follow-on" airplanes, new weapons systems, and new missions.
He noted that the staff will also handle personnel affairs on
one of the "flying wings."
CHAIR COGHILL asked Colonel Robinson if he would be involved in
any of the bargaining units.
Number 0317
COLONEL ROBINSON replied that the chief of staff is strictly a
military position. If it comes down to a military issue, he
would be involved, but there are other professionals who are
more familiar with that in the HRO [human resource office], and
they will be handling most of the bargaining units.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if the Alaska Air National Guard's mission
would expand to help the U.S. Air Force.
COLONEL ROBINSON noted that the key to Alaska is its
geographical position in the world. He said that as the
political situation changes, more forces may be brought to
Alaska. Alaska has the farthest deployed forces in the United
States. It is almost deployed into the PACAF [Pacific Air
Forces] theater with Hawaii. In that respect, he said he thinks
missions may be expanded. He pointed out that new weapons
systems, follow-on airplanes, and search and rescue planes are
being looked at. He said the future is bright.
Number 0593
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked him if he would be involved in
managing the Clear Air Force Base radar site.
COLONEL ROBINSON replied that if the guard takes over that
position, he would be involved. He will be working on a staff
that oversees that. He explained that there are two flying
wings that are relatively autonomous. The Clear station would
"hook up" with the 168th Air Refueling Wing [ARW], which would
be Colonel Tim Scott's wing. If personnel issues "flow up"
through the wing, he would be involved in that.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked him about the missile defense system
in Fort Greely. She understands that there will be some
involvement with the Air National Guard there.
COLONEL ROBINSON said that the guard may be involved in some
support functions such as aircraft, personnel, or security that
could support that field, but the overall program would be run
by the army guard.
COLONEL ROBINSON told the committee that he won't be flying
airplanes as part of this job. He will be a staff guy.
CHAIR COGHILL asked the committee if there was any objection to
forwarding this confirmation to the [joint session of the House
and Senate]. There being no objection, the confirmation for
Colonel Robinson was advanced.
CHAIR COGHILL invited Colonel Scott to provide opening remarks
and answer members' questions.
Number 0835
TIMOTHY SCOTT, Colonel, Appointee as Brigadier General, Alaska
Air National Guard, testified via teleconference. He explained
that once the COE [certificate of eligibility] goes through and
all the approvals are in place, in about one year's time he will
rotate from being the wing commander of the 168th ARW down to
the 176th [Wing] at Kulis [Air National Guard Base (ANGB)]. He
explained that the unit in the 168th ARW has 750 people, and the
Kulis ANGB unit has about 1,200 to 1,300 people. Kulis ANGB has
different aircraft and is a larger unit because it is a "stand
alone," which means it provides its own fire protection,
services, and aerial port for loading and offloading the 130
aircraft. There is an increased level of responsibility
commensurate with the rank. He has spent two years as wing
commander and twelve years total with this unit, which aligns
him for going to an increased level of responsibility.
CHAIR COGHILL asked about the different airplanes.
COLONEL SCOTT answered that Eielson Air Force Base has the KC-
135R, which are the air refueling aircraft. Kulis Air National
Guard Base has the C-130 aircraft, which are transport aircraft;
HH-60 helicopters used for search and rescue; and HC-130
aircraft, which can carry a limited amount of cargo but are used
primarily for in-flight refueling of the helicopters.
Number 1005
CHAIR COGHILL asked how closely he would work with the Coast
Guard.
COLONEL SCOTT explained that it's an indirect connection that
goes through the 11th [Air Force] Rescue Coordination Center
located at the state headquarters at the armory in Anchorage,
which is the clearinghouse for all rescue operations in Alaska.
Even though it is an indirect connection, it is an important
relationship, he commented.
Number 1172
CHAIR COGHILL asked the committee if there was any objection to
forwarding this confirmation to the [joint session of the House
and Senate]. There being no objection, the confirmation of
Colonel Robinson was advanced.
HJR 14 - CONST. AM: PERMANENT FUND
Number 1180
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14, Proposing
amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating
to the Alaska permanent fund. [SSHJR 14 had been amended on
4/04/02.]
Number 1232
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, sponsor, reiterated from his testimony
from an earlier hearing that Alaska is the only state in the
Union where the bottom 25 percent didn't lose ground to the top
25 percent in income over the last ten years, because of the
permanent fund dividend. He acknowledged that the dividend has
a good purpose and is a huge part of the state's economy. The
permanent fund and the dividend both need to be protected, SSHJR
14 is a good way to do it, and it is recommended by the
permanent fund board. He encouraged the committee to support
it.
Number 1330
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she doesn't like the legislation, but
she indicated that she doesn't have a problem moving the
resolution on to the House Judiciary Standing Committee. She
said she isn't sure if this will be a priority before session
ends.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Representative Crawford to explain
how he got his statistics on the 25 percent of the bottom and
top levels of income. The statistics she has seen said that the
poverty level has increased. She said she doesn't know if the
dividend made the difference, except there are more people
living in Alaska in poverty, who may have come here because of
the dividend. There is good anecdotal information to support
that. She said she favors protecting the dividend statutorily,
not constitutionally.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said there are some people who think the
whole permanent fund belongs to them, and she disagrees with
that assumption. She commented that she agrees that the money
belongs to the state and to the people collectively, and what is
done with the money is a decision for the legislature. She
expressed concern about the extreme amount of poverty in the
state and said that problem should be solved outside the
permanent fund and the permanent fund dividend, so people have
the opportunity to have a good job and take care of their own
needs. This is a difficult issue because it is a political hot
button. It needs to be dealt with and has to make good sense
over the long term.
CHAIR COGHILL said he still struggles with some of the issues in
the resolution but is willing to move it on to the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
Number 1628
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS agreed to move the resolution out but
expressed concern about the future of the permanent fund.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES moved to report SSHJR 14, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSSHJR
14(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
SJR 31 - TAX EXEMPT BONDS TO FUND VETERANS LOANS
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31(STA), Urging the United
States Congress to permit the use of tax exempt bonds to fund
loans for veterans who served after 1976.
Number 1775
SENATOR JERRY WARD, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, presented
SJR 31. He explained that those who served in the United States
military prior to 1976 were eligible for low-income homes and
other programs. Because of a change in the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) code in the 1970s, veterans who served after 1976
do not receive the same benefits as the military personnel who
served prior to 1976. There is overwhelming state and national
support for this legislation. He said he hopes that this
legislation will encourage veterans to stay in Alaska or move to
Alaska.
Number 1988
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that this legislation is timely and
she supports it.
Number 2090
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS agreed that this is only fair and
equitable for the people who have served after 1976.
Number 2110
SENATOR WARD acknowledged that the anti-military sentiment has
changed since the mid-1970s after the Vietnam War.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked Senator Ward about the federal
legislation.
SENATOR WARD said that the U.S. House of Representatives has
passed it through the committee and is awaiting final action.
The U.S. Senate is waiting. Since [the terrorist attacks on
September 11, 2001], there is a tremendous amount of focus on
the veterans and their families. There will be veterans'
legislative packages that will go through this year, and this is
one thing being considered. He said he never understood why the
IRS was so insistent on not allowing the same benefits after
1976, but it is not opposing that this year. The attack on
America has caused a lot of these issues to be brought up.
CHAIR COGHILL explained that 1976 was the time that those who
were drafted into the military would be out of the service. The
military then went to an all-volunteer basis, so this resolution
would affect a diminishing number of people.
Number 2433
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CSSJR 31(STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSJR 31(STA) was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 458 - STATE EMPLOYEE PROBATIONARY PERIOD
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 458, "An Act relating to periods of probation for
state employees; and providing for an effective date."
Number 2474
MELANIE LESH, Staff to Representative Bill Hudson, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 458 on behalf of Representative
Hudson, sponsor. She said that Representative Hudson sponsored
this bill at the request of the Department of Administration.
This is an adjustment to allow some flexibility into the
statutory sections that currently limit the probationary period
to one year.
CHAIR COGHILL asked why the probationary period needs to be
extended.
MS. LESH explained that currently there are several classes of
employees whose probationary period is greater than 12 months;
this would just allow that period in statute to be extended if
it is collectively bargained. Right now it is being falsely
limited.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if this would align things with current
practice.
Number 2580
DAVE STEWART, Personnel Manager, Division of Personnel,
Department of Administration, explained that through collective
bargaining, lengths of probationary periods have been negotiated
with various bargaining units representing state employees.
Sometimes due to circumstances beyond control, the state, as
employer, felt it necessary to extend a probationary period. In
a recent court case, a superior court judge decided that the
language in AS 39.25 was restrictive enough that extensions of
probation by mutual agreement with the union weren't legal, so
that longstanding practice has been stopped.
MR. STEWART said in answer to the question, there are numerous
situations in which an employee's probationary period might need
to be extended. Often in cases of illness when a period of
service or observation of service isn't sufficient to make a
decision, it is in the employee's interest to extend beyond the
12-month limit. The Alaska Police Standards Council allows a
14-month period of probation for employees to complete the
academy [Public Safety Academy, Sitka], which allows for
variations in the start dates of the academy's programs.
Number 2688
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked how long the 12-month period has been
there and what the rationale is for it.
MR. STEWART replied that the 12-month period has been in statute
since the adoption of the personnel Act. Alaska Statute
39.25.150(7) requires the Division of Personnel to adopt
regulations allowing for a probationary period up to 12 months.
The difference between shorter and longer probationary periods
is something that has been negotiated through the collective
bargaining process. Positions in range 13 and below have a 6-
month probationary period; positions above range 13 have a 12-
month probationary period. It was believed that 12 months of
service would allow proper observation during the extension of
the selection process for even the most complex jobs.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked for the full meaning of the probation
period.
MR. STEWART answered that the probationary period is an
extension of selection during which either the employer or
employee can end the employment relationship.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked when the employee benefits start.
MR. STEWART answered that the benefits start either on the day
of employment or the 31st day of employment depending on what's
been negotiated. Health insurance benefits begin on the 31st
day of employment; that isn't contingent on permanent status.
What depends on permanent status is the idea that one has become
permanent in the state workforce in that particular job class
and has established an anniversary date for a merit increase.
Number 2821
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if there is any job security once
someone reaches permanent status.
MR. STEWART explained that permanent status grants the employee
a right to not be removed from that position without just cause.
If the position is phased out, it is a negotiated separation and
is different.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what would happen if, through
cutbacks, the money was not available for a position held by a
permanent employee.
Number 2933
MR. STEWART replied that the collective bargaining agreements
contain language that provides a process for reduction in force,
both for permanent and probationary employees. Permanent status
does not grant any additional rights in the face of a reduction
in force, layoff, or position elimination.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what the difference is for people not
under collective bargaining.
MR. STEWART explained that the employees in the partially exempt
service would be the non-represented [non-union] individuals.
Their reduction in force would be controlled by their personnel
rules, and they have layoff rules by seniority.
TAPE 02-39, SIDE B
Number 2989
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked Mr. Stewart to go over the reasons
an employee may want to extend probation.
MR. STEWART explained that there are two groups of reasons.
First are the cases of individuals whose completion of probation
depends upon finishing a course of study, such as trooper
recruits, airport safety officers, and any of the public safety
positions that require completion of the academy. In order to
become permanent in their job classes, they must complete the
academy. There have been cases where individuals have been
injured at the beginning of training and have been unable to
complete the course of study for periods up to 18 months. In a
couple of instances, there was no choice but to release
employees from that job class because they couldn't be retained
as probationary employees, since the probationary period
couldn't be extended. They were rehired later and successfully
completed the training.
MR. STEWART noted that the second group of individuals are those
who were gone on some type of family leave during the
probationary period and were away from work for 6 months in the
middle of a 12-month probationary period. The family leave Act
doesn't allow employees to continue service accrual or service
toward probationary completion. It puts the merit anniversary
date on hold for every 23 days of leave without pay, it advances
the merit anniversary date, and it doesn't allow for an
extension of probation.
Number 2872
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked how many employees this legislation
covers.
MR. STEWART said he is not sure of the answer. Over the course
of the last two years, 20 to 30 letters of agreement have been
written to extend probation for employees over the course of a
service year. The legislation is designed to align statute with
current practice. Probationary periods have been extended for a
long time, but now the superior court says it can't be done, and
the department would like to continue to do it.
MR. STEWART also explained that there is no provision for
extending probation beyond 12 months for non-covered [non-union]
employees. The exempt and partially exempt employees would not
be extended under this change.
Number 2704
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she has supported collective
bargaining for state employees, and they are entitled to a
certain amount of civility. She said that she is troubled that
now there would be another separation between the union and non-
union employees, and she doesn't appreciate that division in the
rights of employees to be treated fairly.
Number 2621
CHAIR COGHILL asked why exempt and partially exempt employees
are not included.
MR. STEWART said that the way the statute and regulations are
written affecting non-union employees, the situation just hasn't
come up nearly as often as it has with employees under
collective bargaining. He will look into how that might be
changed. It would require looking at how probationary periods
are set in all the non-union job classes. It might be fairly
simple to expand to include the non-union employees.
CHAIR COGHILL stated that as a matter of policy, he thought it
would be a good thing to include.
Number 2561
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked who the non-union employees are.
MR. STEWART answered that there are a number of employees in the
exempt service under Title 39. Those employees are exempt
because they are exempt from the personnel Act. There are
approximately 800 people in the partially exempt service that
are not covered by collective bargaining but are covered by the
personnel rules.
CHAIR COGHILL announced that HB 458 will be held over to look
into these issues.
SB 180 - STATE EMPLOYEE/ DEFENSE FORCE PAY COLAS
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the final order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 180(FIN)(efd fld), "An Act
implementing pay differentials based on geographic areas for
certain state employees and for members of the Alaska State
Defense Force; relating to cost-of-living differentials for
state aid to municipalities."
Number 2460
MARILYN WILSON, Staff to Senator Dave Donley, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SB 180 on behalf of the sponsor, the
Senate Finance Committee, co-chaired by Senator Donley. She
read the following sponsor statement:
Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 180 adopts the
most recent study to determine geographic differential
payments for cost-of-living differences paid to state
employees who are not union members. The current
statutory formula has not been updated since June 1976
and unfairly discriminates against some state
employees while unfairly benefiting others.
The geographic differential calculation utilizes a
percentage above a specific measurement baseline. In
Alaska, Anchorage is the only federal measurement of
the cost of living. Therefore, Anchorage is used as
the baseline measurement for determining the cost of
living in the various election districts. This
legislation will affect employees in the executive
branch of government in partially exempt service or
not covered by union contract, and members of the
Alaska State Defense Force whenever they are called to
active service.
Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 180 [affects]
employees hired on or after the bill goes into effect.
Current employees will remain under AS 39.27.020.
Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 180 will ensure
all new state employees receive fair pay adjustments
based on a new fairer cost-of-living analysis.
Fiscal notes indicate that immediate savings in FY 03
will be approximately $55,000, increasing to
approximately $370,000 by FY 08.
Number 2292
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked what the cost differential is based
on.
Number 2254
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY, Alaska State Legislature, co-chair of the
Senate Finance Committee, sponsor of SB 180, answered that the
Department of Administration put together the study, and he
doesn't know how the most recent study was developed. All union
employees in the state are covered under that study. The
legislature did pass the adoption of that study for all state
employees about three or four years ago, but it was vetoed by
the governor. He pointed out that the statute uses the original
redistricting plan at statehood.
Number 2168
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked when SB 180 takes effect.
SENATOR DONLEY answered that it begins at the beginning of the
next fiscal year. It is not retroactive. It would apply to the
new non-union employees. The vast majority of state employees
are already under the new cost-of-living differential. He
commented that the good news is it starts to save the state
money.
Number 2106
CHAIR COGHILL asked Senator Donley to explain the amendment.
SENATOR DONLEY explained that the Department of Administration
proposed an amendment, but he didn't agree with all of it, so he
adapted part of it. The original amendment from the department
read [original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 4. AS 39.27.020 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) The pay step differentials in this section
apply to a person who has been employed by the state
prior to July 1, 2002 and remains continuously
employed by the state in the same geographic
differential location, unless the pay step
differential in AS 39.27.021 would result in higher
compensation in which case AS 39.27.021 applies. A
person who begins state employment for the first time
on or after July 1 2002, is subject to AS 39.27.021
whenever that person is employed by the state.
[The original written amendment also included crossed-
out wording from Section 4 of CSSB 180(FIN)(efd fld)
that was being deleted in the amendment.]
[The department's explanation follows:]
This amendment does two things:
1) clarifies that the grandfathering protections of
applying the old differential to existing employees
only remain while the employee remains continuously
employed in the same geographic differential area;
instead of being based upon the initial date of hire
of the employee. Under the language as it currently
exists in SB 180, an individual who was employed by
the state in 1990 for one year and has not worked for
the state since that time could return to state
employment under the old differential calculation.
The construction of Sec. 4 in the current version of
SB 180 would also mean that an employee who has spent
their entire career of state employment in Anchorage,
for example, would be entitled to the old geographic
differential if they accept a transfer to Fairbanks.
2) Allows employees in districts where the
geographic differential is amended upward to receive
the benefit of the new differential.
Number 2032
SENATOR DONLEY noted that he agreed with the department's
concern that people would "form shop," whereby state employees
who were grandfathered under the old, higher cost-of-living
differential would be able to move to a new area where the old
cost-of-living differential was higher than the new cost-of-
living differential and thus increase their salaries. He had
crafted language in his amendment to prevent that. He explained
that he didn't agree with the second part of the department's
amendment because it would change the bill from a "cost-savings
bill" to a "cost-generating bill."
SENATOR DONLEY reiterated that most state employees are under
the new standard.
Number 1929
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed concern on the issue of fairness.
Fairness is what drives her decision on everything, she stated.
Saving money is important but not if it is not fair. She said
she disagrees with the cost of living calculation when it says
the cost of living is the same in Fairbanks as it is in
Anchorage; it certainly is not. She would like to see exactly
how the cost-of-living is calculated. She said she wouldn't
object to this bill, but she was not pleased with it. She
doesn't mind saving money, as long as it is being done fairly.
She doesn't delineate between the exempt and the employees
covered by collective bargaining. She said, "Fairness is fair."
SENATOR DONLEY said that this bill is trying to do that. It is
trying to put the maximum number of state employees under the
same system that the vast majority of employees are under now.
He said that he would also be interested in how the calculation
is done, but it might take a little work.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she doesn't believe that the cost of
living should be a negotiated issue with the union. It is what
it is, and the number should show it.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
provided by Senator Donley, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
Sec. 4. AS 39.27.020 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) The pay step differentials in this section apply
to a person who has been employed by the state prior
to July 1, 2002 and remains continuously employed by
the state in the same geographic differential
location. A person who begins state employment for
the first time or who previously had been employed by
the state prior to July 1, 2002, is subject to
AS 39.27.021 whenever that person is employed by the
state.
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 1625
ALISON ELGEE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Administration,
testified that the administration supports SB 180 and has
introduced similar legislation in the past. This bill brings
the non-union employees, who are governed by the statutory
geographic differential, into alignment with those employees
covered by collective bargaining. In 1986, which was the last
time a complete cost-of-living differential study was conducted,
the unions all adopted the new differential. There have been
efforts since that time to change the statutory structure to
bring things into alignment, but those have not been successful.
MS. ELGEE explained that there are four districts under this
proposal where the cost-of-living differential would go up. The
department has analyzed just the executive branch, but there are
employees in Bethel, Kodiak, Barrow, and Kotzebue who would
actually see an increase under the new differential. The other
part of the amendment the department suggested was to allow
those employees in those areas to benefit from the new
differential from an equity standpoint. They would be paid the
same as the employees in the same areas covered by collective
bargaining or the same as any new employee who begins service
after July 1. When the new differentials were adopted under the
collective bargaining agreement, all employees went to the new
differential if it benefited them, and their salaries were
frozen from any loss if their differential went down. She asked
the committee to consider that.
MS. ELGEE said the cost analysis of only the executive branch -
the court system has a different configuration of employees -
showed that the cost in the first year is practically neutral in
the projections. It costs about $8,000. By the third year, the
anticipated savings would be identical under either version of
the amendment, whether those employees in those rural districts
are allowed to go up or not, because there is quite a bit of
turnover in those districts.
Number 1427
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked whether if it went up, there would be
the same high turnover.
MS. ELGEE replied that it might mitigate the turnover to a
degree in some of the more remote sites, but in exit interviews,
the reason why the turnover exists in those areas is more
because of the working conditions.
Number 1302
PAUL LYLE testified via teleconference on his own behalf, not on
behalf of the Department of Law, where he works as an assistant
attorney general. He expressed support for SB 180, especially
for Section 4 as originally crafted in this bill: to
grandfather state employees in Fairbanks into their current pay
system and still allow them to get any increases that might come
along in the future, should the legislature determine that that
is appropriate. He had not seen Amendment 1, so he couldn't
testify on it. [It was faxed to him.] Assuming that it retains
the full grandfathering for employees currently in the
geographic differential, he doesn't have any problem with the
amendment.
SENATOR DONLEY told Mr. Lyle that the amendment keeps the part
in the bill that he was interested in.
MR. LYLE said he certainly supported it, then. The bill will
save the state money, but it will also help with retention. He
urged the committee to support the bill.
Number 1049
PAM HARTNELL testified via teleconference on her own behalf, not
on the behalf of the Department of Law, where she works as an
assistant attorney general. She explained that she is a long-
time state employee and expressed support for the bill and the
amendment with the grandfathering clause in it. It keeps faith
with the expectations and the promises that were made to
professional people who have worked for the state for a long
time. She agreed that it would help with retention of long-time
employees. She urged the committee to support the bill.
Number 0941
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, Deputy Administrative Director, Office of the
Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, testified that the
Alaska Court System takes no position on this legislation. It
is generally agreed that the geographic salary differentials set
forth in statute have gotten "out of whack" with actual cost-of-
living differences. This affects some court employees
positively and some negatively. The court system is currently
the largest entity in state government without a labor union.
Therefore, the court system has the largest number of employees
impacted by this legislation. There are approximately 240 court
employees who live in a community with a geographic salary
differential; 170 of them work in communities where the current
differential will be reduced by this legislation, and 70 of them
work in communities where the current differential will be
increased. He said that the Senate thought that since current
employees have assumed financial obligations, such as house and
car payments, it would be unfair to reduce the level of pay that
those employees had come to expect.
Number 0818
MR. CHRISTENSEN pointed out that the current version of SB 180
also does something that he said the court system thinks is
extremely unfair: it grandfathers in those employees who work
in communities where the salary differential goes up. For
example, the current salary differential in Barrow is about
31.5 percent. This is about 10.5 percent less than the amount
of the union contracts and substantially less than the actual
cost-of-living differential. He noted that SB 180 will increase
the differential by 10.5 percent for new employees to a total of
42 percent, but it leaves current employees under the existing
differential. This means that new, untrained employees in
Kodiak, Barrow, Bethel, and Kotzebue will be paid more than the
experienced employees who are already there. In some cases, new
employees will be paid the same amount as their supervisors.
Number 0731
MR. CHRISTENSEN said he has heard that this is not really a very
big deal because existing employees get longevity increases and
are thus making more than new hires. He disagreed with that
argument for two reasons. The first reason is simple fairness.
In Barrow, Bethel, and Kotzebue, for example, the differential
is 10 to 10.5 percent. That is the difference between a range
10A and a 10C. A new range-10 employee would make as much as a
person in his/her third year at a range 10 who had already been
trained and performed the job satisfactorily. It also means
that a new range-10 subordinate would be making the same amount
as a range-12 supervisor. The second reason is that the high
rate of turnover in rural Alaska means the court system doesn't
have a lot of employees with enough longevity to make as much as
a new hire.
Number 0662
MR. CHRISTENSEN noted that in Barrow, Nome, Bethel, and Kotzebue
there are twelve range-10 employees, who even with their current
level of longevity will still make less than any newly hired
range 10 employee. In those four communities, there are seven
range-12 employees, who even with longevity will be paid less
than any newly hired range-12 employee.
Number 0575
MR. CHRISTENSEN pointed out that the initial savings of the
current version of the bill are a false savings. His current
employees who believe they're being treated unfairly have one
option: to unionize. He explained that back in the mid-90s
they had a labor union for three years. It was started when the
legislature funded a pay raise for all the union employees in
state government but did not fund the same pay raise for all the
non-union employees. The employees decertified the union three
years later when the legislature gave the non-union employees
the same raises the union employees were getting.
Number 0497
MR. CHRISTENSEN said he is not saying that the union is a good
or bad thing. He is just saying a union is an expensive thing.
He asked the committee to adopt the amendment that was proposed
by the administration to treat his rural employees fairly. He
noted that doing so will allow the state to save ever increasing
amounts of money beginning the third year after the legislation
is passed.
Number 0418
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that it is very bad for morale
when the newly hired employees make more than those with
experience. This is a very important point because it is a big
issue of fairness.
Number 0340
SENATOR DONLEY asked Ms. Elgee to confirm that the last time
salaries were increased, the certified and non-certified [non-
union] employees were treated the same way.
MS. ELGEE explained that in that piece of legislation, the
differentials were the same as those proposed in SB 180; the
transition language was slightly different. People's salaries
were frozen instead of being grandfathered in.
SENATOR DONLEY said the problem with that was the folks under
the old one in the "higher areas" didn't think that was fair
because they didn't get raises until their current salaries
"caught down" to where they would be under the new geographic
differential. To be fair to those folks, they were allowed to
continue to grandfather in and continue to get raises from where
they were, and that's what created the problem to the other
folks that were on the down side. This bill resulted to try to
accommodate the people who testified today. Given the current
budget situation, he said he doesn't believe the legislature
should be passing bills that are going to cost the state more
money, especially if the new geographic differential is going to
save the state money.
SENATOR DONLEY said that he empathized with the four areas that
would stay where they are. He said that nobody will take a pay
cut; they will continue to get their merit increases, and the
difference will work out over time. He would hate to see a bill
intended to save money, cost the state more money. He noted
that the union employees weren't able to elect which option
would benefit them the most.
Number 0064
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Senator Donley how he would feel if
he were one of those employees. People know what's fair, she
told him.
TAPE 02-40, SIDE A
Number 0046
SENATOR DONLEY commented that this wasn't the original piece of
legislation; it would have saved a lot more money and would have
been exactly the same as what the union employees have. He had
worked on an agreement with the Senators from Fairbanks, and
this was the compromise that was reached that still saves the
state money and pays this in over time.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES reiterated that she still sees a fairness
issue on it.
SENATOR DONLEY remarked that he doesn't think it's fair that
currently, 80 percent of state employees who are unionized and
20 percent who are not unionized are under another system. The
existing system is not fair either. As far as the argument that
the union employees got something that the non-union employees
didn't get, he suggested that most of that had to do with
medical benefits. Medical benefits are a big cost-driver in
negotiations, and the non-union employees benefit from the
negotiations of the union employees in that area. They are not
paying union dues, but they are always granted the same medical
insurance that the union people go out and fight for. The non-
union employees are actually beneficiaries of the union efforts.
They aren't really being hurt at all.
Number 0337
SENATOR DONLEY reiterated that this is not his first choice, but
it is a reasonable compromise that he can support.
Number 0460
MR. LYLE said he read the amendment and is pleased with it. He
argued that partially exempt employees are not treated the same
way as union people. One of the reasons why the grandfathering
has been requested is because the partially exempt employees
don't have the opportunity to negotiate increases. That is
entirely up to the legislature. He said they know that those
increases are not going to be forthcoming, and they understand
that. But if there is some thought of going back to a freeze,
they would be against that, because unions have an opportunity
every three years or so to negotiate increases, and partially
exempt employees do not. Although there seems to be an opinion
that partially exempt employees always get those increases, that
is not correct. Partially exempt employees were decoupled from
the union on several increases. He expressed support for some
changes but not if some people's pay would be frozen.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CSSB 180(FIN)(efd fld), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection,
HCS CSSB 180(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD expressed concerns about some of the
things Mr. Christensen brought up, and said he would like to see
them addressed before this goes to the House floor.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0657
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
9:48 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|