Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 106
03/31/2007 10:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB179|| HB191 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 179 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 31, 2007
10:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Andrea Doll
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Craig Johnson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 179
"An Act relating to insurance for public employees, teachers,
and certain retired public employees and teachers and to
supplemental employee benefits; relating to teachers' and public
employees' defined benefit retirement plans, to teachers' and
public employees' defined contribution retirement plans, to
employee and employer contributions to the teachers' retirement
system and the public employees' retirement system, and to the
administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System of
Alaska and the deferred compensation program for state
employees; establishing in the Department of Revenue the
teachers' retirement system past service cost liability account
and the public employees' retirement system past service cost
liability account; relating to benefits of, references to
federal law in, and investments in the teachers' retirement
system and the public employees' retirement system; modifying
the jurisdiction of the independent office of administrative
hearings as related to retirement and related personnel
benefits; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 179
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE/TEACHER RETIREM'T SYSTEMS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLY
03/05/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/05/07 (H) STA, FIN
03/29/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/29/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/31/07 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE KELLY
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor of HB 179, reviewed the
bill's main objectives.
LARRY SEMMENS
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 179.
LYDIA GARCIA
Interim Executive Director
National Education Association of Alaska (NEA-Alaska)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the 13,000 members
of NEA-Alaska in opposition to HB 179.
ROD L. BETIT, President/CEO
Alaska State Hospital and Nursing Home Association (ASHNHA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the 80/20 split
proposed in HB 179.
GAVIN D. CHARRIER
Local 6137 Alaska Public Employees Association/American
Federation of Teachers (APEA/AFT)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself and the
Local 6137 APEA/AFT during the hearing on HB 179.
JIM DUNCAN, Business Manager
Alaska State Employees Association Local 52
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the approximately
8,200 general government unit employees in Alaska in opposition
to the provisions of HB 179 related to the increase in employee
contribution of 5 percent.
MICHAEL E. LAMB, CPA, CGFM, Chief Financial Officer
Fairbanks North Star Borough
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered suggestions during the hearing on
HB 179.
DUANE MORAN, President
Anchorage Council of Education
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that he takes significant issue
with the portion of HB 179 which proposes a [5 percent] increase
in employee contributions.
RICK SCHIKORA
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself during the
hearing on HB 179, in support of Representative Kelly's efforts
to "get everybody to come to the table."
GARY HUTCHINSON
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself during the
hearing on HB 179.
JASON AVERY
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in
opposition to the 5 percent increase in employee contributions
proposed in HB 179.
DAN WAYNE, Attorney
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
179.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 10:07:44 AM. Representatives Roses,
Coghill, Johansen, Gruenberg, Doll, and Lynn were present at the
call to order.
HB 179-PUBLIC EMPLOYEE/TEACHER RETIREM'T SYSTEMS
[Contains mention of HB 191.]
CHAIR LYNN announced that the only order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 179, "An Act relating to insurance for public
employees, teachers, and certain retired public employees and
teachers and to supplemental employee benefits; relating to
teachers' and public employees' defined benefit retirement
plans, to teachers' and public employees' defined contribution
retirement plans, to employee and employer contributions to the
teachers' retirement system and the public employees' retirement
system, and to the administration of the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Alaska and the deferred compensation
program for state employees; establishing in the Department of
Revenue the teachers' retirement system past service cost
liability account and the public employees' retirement system
past service cost liability account; relating to benefits of,
references to federal law in, and investments in the teachers'
retirement system and the public employees' retirement system;
modifying the jurisdiction of the independent office of
administrative hearings as related to retirement and related
personnel benefits; and providing for an effective date."
10:09:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE KELLY, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 179, reviewed that the bill's main purpose is to
address the $10 billion unfunded liability of the Public
Employees' Retirement System (PERS) and Teachers' Retirement
System (TRS). He noted that PERS is currently funded at 65
percent, while TRS is currently funded at 60 percent. The bill
proposes that the state pick up 80 percent of the unfunded
liability obligation, while the employers pay 20 percent of the
obligation. Those in the plan would contribute 5 percent toward
current period costs.
10:12:52 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked Representative Kelly to confirm that the 5
percent would not be used as "a penalty to the new employees to
pay for the sins of whatever caused the unfunded liability in
the past."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY confirmed that is true.
10:13:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked where the monies from the 80-20 split
would go.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied that those monies are reserved with
a present value for future payments over the lifetime of the
employee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated his understanding that currently
there are two pools of money: one is generated as a result of
those called, "active employees." A contribution is made by the
employer and the employee on behalf of the employee. He
continued:
And so, what you're saying is that at this point, that
5 percent would add to the ... percentage that the
employee that is actively working currently pays. And
if my numbers serve me correctly, ... it's about 8.69
percent, as I recall, so this would bring it up to ...
13 [percent]?
10:16:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY answered that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES continued:
So, that's this pool of money for the active
employees. The only way any money gets into this
other pool over here - ... [regarding] the ones that
are drawing benefits - is at the time they retire, the
money moves from the active pool over to the inactive
or the retired pool where the benefits are drawn from.
Is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said that's roughly correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES continued:
And at the time that money is transferred, there's an
actuarial calculation made for each of the those
employees that retires, and that actuarial calculation
is based on the average of their highest three years
or whatever system they're in, and along with that
[go] all the actuarial tables that determine
longevity, ... et cetera. So, [what] goes with that,
then, is the cost of the medical retirement system for
whichever plan they fall under. And that amount of
money is transferred to this inactive or retired pool.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY confirmed that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES continued: "So, we've defined where the 5
percent would be; it would be in the active pool. Where would
the 80/20 split for the unfunded liability ... go?"
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY answered:
That split would go to fill the hole between the 60
percent funding and 100 percent funding, which is the
present value of those benefits over time. So, it
goes into that bucket or into the past service cost
bucket.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked, "So, it goes into the retired one?"
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said the ARM Board has a pool of money
which it invests to generate revenue. He said the pool of money
to pay retirees is not fully funded because of unanticipated
costs and increased costs of medical, for example. Regarding
the pool of money for active employees, he deduced, "They're not
drawing benefits, so there's isn't shorted." He indicated that
when those in that group retire, there will be an unfunded
liability because there wasn't enough money generated into the
system. He continued:
So, there's an unfunded liability here and there's an
unfunded liability here. That unfunded liability and
the payments for those are the responsibility of the
ARM Board. So, do we have a third pool of money, or
does the ARM Board money sit entirely over here with
the retired side?
10:18:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY explained:
The accounts established here reside in the Department
of Revenue, but ... it is the responsibility of the
ARM Board to determine what comes in the front end and
what goes out the back, ... and to manage the money in
the middle.
10:18:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said the Department of Revenue is
responsible of all kinds of accounts, one of which is the ARM
Board. He clarified that he wants to know where the 80/20 would
go.
10:19:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said the 80/20 formula would be used to
restore the unfunded liability.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES summarized that the more that goes into
the system, the more it will defer any increases to the unfunded
liability. He said, "I think what I hear you saying is: The
80/20 is to address what we already know is the unfunded
liability; the increase in the 5 percent is to help offset any
additional increases to what that liability would be as the cost
of doing business."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded that that is essentially correct.
He indicated that the unfunded liability is in a constant state
of flux. For example, the next actuarial change relative to
life expectancies will "put another hit on the system."
10:22:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "The 5 percent could go into
either pot. Is that correct?"
10:22:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded that it is clear there would be a
problem with the 5 percent going into the unfunded liability
pot, because that is a result of mistakes made in the past;
therefore, it has to go towards offsetting the cost of the
current period.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the House Special Committee
on Ways and Means calls the two factors the "reserve account"
and the "active account. He said there is another aspect to the
issue, as well. He offered his understanding that the 5 percent
would apply to both the defined benefit (DB) plan and the
defined contribution (DC) plan.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY clarified that that is actually not the
case; [the 5 percent] applies only to the PERS' and TRS' DB
plans.
10:26:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY, in response to Representative Gruenberg,
defined anticipated cost as the normal cost rate - the payment
of benefits accruing to employees in the current period. He
stated, "It does not relate to the period behind you. Nor does
it relate to those who came in under the defined contribution
plan."
10:27:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that in a DC plan, the
employee and the state employer each contribute a set amount,
thus he questioned what unanticipated cost there would be.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY indicated that comparing the DC and DB
plans is like comparing apples to oranges. He reiterated that
the discussion [about the 5 percent] is strictly about the DB
plan.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concluded, "So these people are paying
an additional 5 percent to cover unfunded costs for somebody
else."
CHAIR LYNN noted that that had been his previous question.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY explained that the active employees in the
current period are paying those costs that are accruing to them
for future periods. The unfunded liability, he explained,
relates to the DB plan and affects the people in that plan. He
said, "We don't ask the retired folks to come to the table on
this, because they are no longer in their productive period."
He relayed that there are many people receiving benefits, and
the cost of that coverage has gone up dramatically.
Representative Kelly said what he is attempting to do - as much
as he would like not to have to - is ensure that the very people
who benefit and who are still actively employed help with the
overall cost. He talked about bringing all parties to the
table. He noted that in the past, about half the cost of
benefits was paid by all the beneficiaries; however, that number
has slipped to one-sixth. Representative Kelly said he thinks
his proposal is reasonable, and he said he would even encourage
unions to become involved. He concluded, "And so, the only
place that's available - and it might even be difficult - is in
the current cost rate, not in the unfunded liability portion.
You can't mix the two."
10:33:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said it seems that HB 179 would ask for
an extra 5 percent from active employees to contribute to their
own retirement. He indicated that he thinks the 80/20
requirement of the bill is problematic. He said the state has
promised to have a retirement system. He stated, "So, at the
end of the day, we could end up with 100 percent of the cost."
He said employees agreed to pay a certain rate toward funding
the retirement of their employees, while those employees have
also agreed to pay into their own retirement. He offered his
understanding that "that has ... been different from employer to
employer." He continued:
So, help me if I'm misunderstanding this, but the
80/20 that you have here, or the other numbers that
are figured on how to blend that, is to say there's
going to be winners and losers here, because some
people have contributed very well, and are very sound,
and are not contributing up to the 20 percent as
employers. There are others who have not done so
well, and we're going to end up picking up a big chunk
of theirs.
So, I guess what I'm asking is: [Is] the 80 percent
really our responsibility, or do they really in fact
bear 100 percent of the responsibility, and we're
actually going in saying, "No, we'll pick that up,"
because we know at the end of the day it's a state
full faith and credit issue?
10:35:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY clarified that TRS has a single rate; PERS
has 160 different rates - one for each employer. He said he
thinks Representative Coghill's comment regarding the state's
bottom-line responsibility is noteworthy. He said HB 179 is not
the only option to consider, but it is one that "just might
work." He said he has been chastised as a conservative for
"putting the state numbers so high." He remarked that
municipalities would think the number is too low; they want
85/15. Regarding municipalities, he related a story of
Fairbanks selling its utilities. Regarding that story, he
concluded:
They did things which they thought at the time were
responsible for the most part, as did the employees
who were involved. So, I'm not saying that there
isn't a tale of woe behind almost every place you
point your finger, but I'm saying that this tries to
cut through that, not have the law suits, [and] get
all three of the parties to the table in a fair manner
....
10:39:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked Representative Kelly to confirm that
the aforementioned 5 percent would pertain only to the DB plan,
which includes Tiers I, II, and III of [PERS] and Tiers I and II
of TRS.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES directed attention to a chart on the third
page of a memorandum in the committee packet from Senator Kim
Elton, [which shows normal cost and accrued liability]. He
illustrated that the PERS total for the Tier 3 DB plan, shown on
the chart to be 10.83 percent, would increase with the addition
of 5 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY first said the total obligation of the
current period does not change, but then amended his response to
say that it does, however, "ramp up." He referred to comments
that he said Representative Roses had made on a previous day
regarding cost-containment measures. Regarding the 5 percent,
he used a 17 percent rate as an example. He said:
Let's say that a year from now it's going to be 17
[percent]. That wouldn't change; that would not
become 22 [percent]. ... For the employer, it would
reduce that rate initially, and of course, over time,
that is going up.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY concluded that he thinks the answer to
Representative Roses' question is no.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked, "So, the increase to the employee
does not show up in this normal cost that we have from Buck
Consulting, when they're looking at what percentage is being
paid in."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said the answer to that is yes. He
continued:
It would show up in this fashion: Let's say that
today, just to pick up a number, ... the rate is 7
percent, by the employee, and that the total is 17
[percent]. So, the employer is picking up this ...
extra ... 10 [percent]. If the employee steps up to
the plate for 5 [percent], the 17 doesn't change, but
the impact initially on the employer is to bring that
total cost down.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES calculated that with the 5 percent added,
the employer normal cost would show an increase, though not the
full 5 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded no. He explained:
It would stay exactly the same, assuming there was no
upward pressure at that moment you freeze it. Call it
17 [percent], the employee ... would be picking up a
share that is currently in the employer's
calculations, and that relieves some pressure on them,
relative to this total cost.
10:43:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES, regarding the proposed 80/20 split,
remarked that only 1 of the 160 employees in PERS is the State
of Alaska. The other 159 in that retirement system include
school districts and the university system, for example. He
emphasized that although they operate as separate entities, the
vast majority of their operating expenses and funds come from
general fund appropriations from the State of Alaska. He asked
Representative Kelly if he thinks that is a fair assessment.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY answered yes. He offered an example.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated:
The major gain we're going to have by doing an 80/20
split is really only going to have the net result on
those communities that have their own taxation base to
where they can pick up a portion of that 20 percent.
Because [for] all of those school districts and all of
those areas and all of those employers that get
everything through a general fund, you can call it an
80/20 split if you want, but the state's paying 100
percent. So, the only ones we're really talking about
are those entities that have some ... type of
individual revenue production other than general
funds.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY indicated that Representative Roses'
statement is accurate.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES remarked that the individuals representing
the small pool [of entities with their own revenue production]
are the same individuals who come to the offices of the
legislature asking for increased revenue; therefore, he
suggested, "Isn't the state also picking up a percentage of
that?" He stated that he understands the significance of the
issue and applauds Representative Kelly for tackling it. He
said if the legislature does not find a fix, it will be holding
up all the rest of the funding for every other entity that has
not been addressed in the budget. He said, "The thing I'm
having the hardest time dealing with is it appears to me to be a
very small percentage of people that we're talking about that
were even going to be able to pick up that 20 percent
themselves. The state's really responsible for almost all of
it."
10:47:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded that "that number is
identifiable." He said he does not disagree with what
Representative Roses said. He described [the unfunded
liability] as a complicated issue to solve. He said HB 179 is
different than other approaches because it focuses on "how you
split it up on the rate." He mentioned other proposed
solutions. He concluded, "I've tried to pick the one area -
that's the normal cost rate - we just might be able to agree
upon."
10:50:55 AM
LARRY SEMMENS testified. He stated his appreciation of
Representative Kelly's work on HB 179. He noted that he is the
finance director at the City of Kenai and a member of the ARM
Board. Last year, when Representative Roses was a member of the
ARM Board, both short-term and long-term recommendations were
sent to the legislature. The short-term solution was to put
more money into the systems to halt the growth of the unfunded
liability. The long-term solution was embodied in House Bill
375, a bill which passed unanimously. Mr. Semmens said
Representative Kelly has inserted parts of House Bill 375 into
HB 179, including the past service liability accounts and a
split between the state and employers. He noted that in House
Bill 375, that split was 85/15, and in HB 179 it is 80/20.
MR. SEMMENS said that from the standpoint of both municipal
employers and the Alaska Municipal League (AML), priorities are
stability, affordability, and predictability of the rates, and
[HB 179], at 80/20, certainly addresses the issue of
affordability. He noted that last year AML had a target rate of
20 percent. Using the 80/20 calculation to the current PERS
rate of approximately 40 percent results in an approximate 20
percent rate for employers. Mr. Semmens stated he is confident
that although AML's official position is 85/15, the 80/20 split
would be endorsed after an official meeting with its membership.
He concluded, "... If we can come up with a long-term stable
rate ... in the neighborhood of 20 percent, I'm confident that
employers will welcome that."
MR. SEMMENS said he has not studied the technical fixes
recommended by the administration. He encouraged the committee
to focus on the normal cost rate, which is rising. He said,
"Employees may be willing to take a share of that."
10:54:51 AM
LYDIA GARCIA, Interim Executive Director, National Education
Association of Alaska (NEA-Alaska), testified on behalf of the
13,000 members of NEA-Alaska in opposition to HB 179. She
questioned why time is being spent on a bill that is not only
unconstitutional, but also so wrong for the State of Alaska.
She continued:
Governor Sarah Palin has stated on numerous occasions
that a pension is a promise. NEA-Alaska agrees with
the governor that the state promised employees a
specific pension for a specific contribution. It was
not public school employees who decided to reduce the
employer contribution early this decade. Why would
the state want to put any liabilities on the backs of
the employees? [Martin Luther] King was fond of
saying, "A promise made is a debt unpaid." The State
of Alaska made the promise to its employees; the state
needs to pay the debt.
MS. GARCIA said HB 179 proposes to cut the pay of all public
employees by 5 percent, which she said would affect every single
public employee, including teachers, police officers, and
firefighters. She stated that educators making $15,000-$20,000
a year can't afford to pay an additional $750-$1,000. She
reminded the committee that NEA-Alaska, the Anchorage Education
Association, and the Anchorage School District have recently
finished up to two years of "intense, arduous bargaining." She
continued:
The raises of 3-4 percent over the next few years are
fair and will hopefully keep inflation at bay. I
shudder to think of the passage of HB 179 and telling
our members that their 3 percent raise is actually a 2
percent cut in pay.
MS. GARCIA noted that two years ago, Chair Lynn was one of the
leaders involved in the fight to maintain the defined benefit
program for public employees. She emphasized the importance of
returning Alaska to a defined benefit program for its public
employees. She said there are several other pieces of
legislation addressing the issues of retirement and the unfunded
liability. She asked that the committee not allow HB 179 to
pass out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
MS. GARCIA, in response to Chair Lynn's request that she explain
why HB 179 is unconstitutional, cited Article 12, Section 7, of
the Constitution of the State of Alaska, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
SECTION 7. Retirement Systems.Membership in employee
retirement systems of the State or its political
subdivisions shall constitute a contractual
relationship. Accrued benefits of these systems shall
not be diminished or impaired.
10:59:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that HB 179 includes many
types of legal issues; however, neither it nor any of the other
pension legislation is slated to be heard in the House Judiciary
Standing Committee. He noted that three of the members of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee also sit on the House
Judiciary Standing Committee, and he emphasized the importance
of considering all the legal issues related to HB 179. To all
those who had testified or were yet to testify, he stressed the
necessity of legal opinions and case citations to back up
statements. He said without such documentation those statements
would not be helpful to the committee. He said he is not just
talking about Article XII, Section 7, but is also referring to
other issues, such as the impairments of collectively bargained
contracts.
11:01:06 AM
CHAIR LYNN confirmed that he did oppose Senate Bill 141 last
year. He said he wished that a bill such as HB 179 had been
available then. He talked about the balance of extricating the
state from the unfunded liability while simultaneously
protecting the rights of the workers. Employees and retirees
must be the bottom line in the issue, he posited.
11:02:19 AM
MS. GARCIA, in response to Representative Gruenberg, said she
would be happy to provide the legal opinions and information
related to her statements.
11:02:52 AM
ROD L. BETIT, President/CEO, Alaska State Hospital and Nursing
Home Association (ASHNHA), noted that he is representing 37
member facilities from around the state. He noted that most of
those facility representatives were in town the previous day for
a legislative update. He continued as follows:
[They] took up this piece of legislation and asked
that I report to you that they greatly appreciate
Representative Kelly bringing this piece of
legislation forward to deal with the piece on unfunded
liability between the state and employer funding of
that ... hole. They understand that hole has to be
filled, but they've in good faith participated at
rates that they felt were appropriate for those years.
The difference between the 35 or 40 percent rate and
the 20 percent is just astronomical on our members,
particularly our five, small hospital members that are
also community hospitals. Petersburg, for example:
the difference would be $800,000 a year - not just one
year, but we're told for the next quarter of a century
- to dig out of this hole. They have a patient census
of 1.5 patients per day. The rate increase to come up
with that kind of money would just be enormous - in
the 40-50 percent range.
I would ask that this be given consideration and that
you do give support to the 80/20 split. We think it's
a fair way to try to recover from the damage of the
past and to spread that burden in a more (indisc. --
sneezing) way, but in a way that's sustainable for the
employers that are ... contributing to this problem.
11:04:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that the committee also needs
legal research regarding "the interplay between this legislation
and any applicable federal legislation." He asked Mr. Betit to
comment.
MR. BETIT responded that ASHNHA is not speaking to any legal
aspect of HB 179, nor is he speaking to any components that deal
with employee contributions to the current Public Employees' and
Teachers' Retirement Systems. He clarified that he is speaking
solely to the policy question of how much of the past ills - the
unfunded liability - should be borne by the state and how much
by the employer.
11:06:01 AM
GAVIN D. CHARRIER testified on behalf of himself and the Local
6137 Alaska Public Employees Association/American Federation of
Teachers (APEA/AFT). He relayed that he is a 34-year resident
of Alaska who has been employed by the Ketchikan Gateway Borough
as an airport equipment mechanic and aircraft rescue
firefighter, contributing 7.5 percent to PERS. He continued:
As a 19-year collective bargaining negotiator for our
employee group, Local 6137 of the [Alaska Public
Employees' Association/American Federation of Teachers
(APEA/AFT)], historically Ketchikan is noted as being
one of the highest cost of living regions, while also
being the lowest political ... subdivision in the
state. Over the years our members have suffered
substandard wages in lieu of a generous benefit
package that we have collectively been able to
maintain through negotiations with the Ketchikan
Gateway Borough.
PERS/TRS retirement is considered to be one of those
benefits that is under constant erosion, such as Tier
I, II, III, IV, and now a proposed increase in
contribution rates, with nothing more other than
status quo in return. If employee contribution rates
are successfully increased to 5 percent from the
current 9.6 school district, 7.5 police/firefighters,
and 6.75 of all others, to a 14.6, 12.5, and 11.75
percent, respectively, then this will certainly create
a financial hardship for many of those current
substandard ... wages barely enough to make ends meet.
PERS/TRS employees have had no option but to
contribute every pay period to their retirement
account. The explanation that I've been given is that
the employer, on the other hand, doesn't have to
contribute a plug nickel into the Tier I, II, or III
employees' account until the day comes when that
particular employee retires and starts drawing their
hard-earned retirement at the PERS Board designation's
percentage amount calculated at 2 percent for ...
their first ten years of employment, plus 2.5 percent
per year for all years after ten, times the average of
the three highest consecutive years of salary.
With the creation of Tier IV employees last year,
there is no new money coming in to help offset the
deficit retirement account balance. When the retiree
draws their monthly retirement check from ... PERS,
PERS sends simultaneously [to] the employer their
portion of what they owe the account to proportionally
refund that retirees' retirement at what has already
been determined by the PERS Board as previously
mentioned.
... I believe it's time for the employers to ... take
fiduciary responsibility, step up to the plate, and
begin actively participating in matched funding
PERS/TRS Tiers I, II, and III defined benefit groups
upfront, alongside the employees' contributions bi-
monthly as ... they currently are with the newly
created Tier IV defined [contribution] employee group.
11:09:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked Mr. Charrier to confirm his
indication that school districts and municipalities don't pay
anything into the system until the employee retires.
MR. CHARRIER said that has been his understanding after phone
calls to representatives of PERS. He said he knows there are
different political subdivisions of the state that fund the
account readily and generously, while others seem to postpone
their payments into that account until the employee retires.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES suggested the possibility that two issues
are being mixed together in this discussion. He clarified:
There's an account that is for the active employees,
where the employee and the employer pay into that
account. Then when that employee retires, the money
and all of the obligation that goes with that
retirement then transfers from that active account
into the retired account. So, what you're referring
to, I think, is the process by which the active funds
move over to the retired or the inactive funds. But
the municipalities pay it in each month the same as
the employee does; it's into that active account
rather than the retired account. So, I think what
you're stating is partially correct, but the
municipalities and school districts pay in every month
[the] same as everybody else does - it just doesn't
move to that account with the employee until they
retire, but the money's already there.
11:11:36 AM
JIM DUNCAN, Business Manager, Alaska State Employees Association
Local 52, on behalf of the approximately 8,200 general
government unit employees in Alaska, testified in opposition to
the provisions of HB 179 related to the increase in employee
contribution of 5 percent. He said he opposes the increase both
for PERS and TRS employees, even though he does not represent
the latter. He stated that that provision is unconstitutional.
He discussed an attorney general's opinion on the matter,
written in April 2005, [included in the committee packet], which
outlines that there is a requirement in the constitution that
makes it unlawful to impair benefits of the retirement system
once someone has entered into that system. He related that
there have been six court cases on the issue, to date, and the
court has found for the employee each time.
MR. DUNCAN said back in 1986, when he was a Representative in
the House, the employee contribution rate did increase; however,
that happened at the same time as an enhancement of benefit -
the automatic pension adjustment. He said if the committee
moves forward with the bill, he would expect litigation.
MR. DUNCAN reviewed that House Bill 475 was introduced last
year, which included "fix it" provisions for the already passed
Senate Bill 141; however, House Bill 475 never made it through
the Senate and emergency regulations had to be adopted as a
result. He stated:
And based upon information provided to the [Internal
Revenue Service (IRS)] that legislation had passed,
the IRS found the defined contribution plan to be
compliant. The provisions were never passed; they
were put into place by emergency regulation. It is my
position that it was not appropriate to do that by
emergency regulation, and so, whether or not the
provisions are in place ... is still subject to
challenge."
MR. DUNCAN suggested that if the committee wants a solution to
the retirement and benefits system, it should return to the Tier
III defined benefit plan. He concluded, "The Buck Report shows
that the Tier III defined benefit plan is not causing a problem,
is not really causing an undervaluation. In fact, it is the
same cost if not less costly than the defined contribution
plan."
11:15:46 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked Mr. Duncan what he would think of HB 179 if the
5 percent provision were not in it.
MR. DUNCAN replied that the Alaska State Employees Association
stands ready to assist the legislature in making its policy call
as to whether the split should be 80/20 or 85/15, but he noted
that his preference is for the latter.
11:16:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to a memorandum from
Legislative Legal and Research Services, dated January 29, 2005,
[included in the committee packet], which he pointed out only
refers to a 1981 case. He requested that Mr. Duncan have his
legal staff review the memorandum and respond to it.
Furthermore, he said he looks forward to getting a legal
memorandum from Mr. Duncan. Finally, he said he is concerned
about the effect of the 5 percent change on currently existing
collectively bargained agreements.
MR. DUNCAN stated that although he has great respect for the
attorneys who work in Legislative Legal and Research Services,
the legislative counsel who wrote the January 29 memorandum is
"absolutely wrong in that memo" and "did not give full
consideration to the provisions that are referenced in the
attorney general's opinion." In response to Representative
Gruenberg's third statement, he said it is clear that a 5
percent increase in an employee's contribution rate equals a 5
percent decrease in pay. He stated, "We are trying to negotiate
a collective bargaining agreement for this point, but have not
yet reached an agreement. We hope to in the near future." Mr.
Duncan said over the past 10-15 years, employees have seen their
take home decrease, because the wages of state employees have
fallen 17 percent behind the increases in the consumer price
index (CPI). Conversely, the federal government and private
sector has kept pace [with the CPI].
11:19:34 AM
MICHAEL E. LAMB, CPA, CGFM, Chief Financial Officer, Fairbanks
North Star Borough, noted that he is a co-chair of the AML
revenue finance subcommittee. He thanked Representative Kelly
for his "tenacity and dogged determination to help in crafting a
final solution to the multiple PERS and TRS issues." He said
the proposed legislation includes some necessary components. He
said he thinks the following needs to be combined to come up
with a solution that would work long term and would embrace the
previously mentioned components of predictability, stability,
and affordability: some of the language from HB 179, some of
the governor's cost-sharing language, some of the DB/DC salary-
base language, some of House Bill 13's pension obligation bond
language - also supported by the governor, and some of the House
committee substitute proposals.
MR. LAMB stated that HB 179 recognizes the need for technical
corrections made as a result of Senate Bill 141. Furthermore,
it recognizes the existence of a consolidated cost-sharing
system and the need for legislative language that "reflects
that." He spoke of "an outcome where all member employers
should be assigned a single, uniform rate," and he said that
should include the State of Alaska as employer. He said there
must be a rate that is predictable and palatable to everyone's
budget.
MR. LAMB emphasized that the aforementioned 85/15 split was
intended so that 85 percent of the bill was "pulled away" and
"treated like a mortgage payment," with the balance of the
liability - the 15 percent - shared "across all member
employers, including the state," so that the state's budget also
had a benefit rate that was affordable. He said the 80/20 split
proposed in HB 179 is not quite structured like the "80/15
shared solution." "Accordingly," he said, "the resulting member
employer rates end up too high after known, future-year,
unfunded obligation increases are factored in."
11:23:58 AM
MR. LAMB, in response to a request for clarification from
Representative Coghill, emphasized that the key element in this
discussion is about the rate, which he said has to be
affordable. He stated, "If the rates in the past had been set
appropriately, ... the only rate that we would be talking about
today is the normal cost rate, which is 14.48 [percent] for
[fiscal year 2008 (FY 08)]." He said he thinks many people are
saying that the state is "bailing out in helping other member
employers pay for their unfunded obligation." Mr. Lamb offered
his perspective that it is those member employers - with every
dollar paid above the 14.48 percent normal cost rate - who are
actually helping pay down the obligation that was created by the
state's setting rates incorrectly in the past. He concurred
with Representative Roses that the State of Alaska's budget is
the source of funding not only for its own employees, but also
for the University of Alaska and school districts - especially
rural schools. The goal, he said, needs to be to find a rate
whereby all member employers pay as much as they can, so that
services are provided, without going bankrupt.
11:27:55 AM
DUANE MORAN, President, Anchorage Council of Education, which is
affiliated with the Alaska Public Employees'
Association/American Federation of Teachers, noted that he is a
PERS Tier III employee. He expressed appreciation for
Representative Kelly's efforts in introducing HB 179, but said
he takes significant issue with the portion of the bill which
proposes a [5 percent] increase in employee contributions. He
asked the committee to consider the law of unintended
consequences: A 5 percent, after-tax cut in wages would result
in an unintended movement from the active employee pool to the
retired pool. The $10 billion short-funding is over a 20- to
25-year period, he said. He indicated that a rapid increase in
current costs will also increase the liability. He agreed that
predictability and certainty are important in labor
negotiations, because, "If there's a change this year on the
employee contribution, what's to say there wouldn't be a change
next year?" Mr. Duran concluded:
There's a difference between having skin in the game
and a pound of flesh, and a 5 percent, after-tax pay
cut would be more than a pound of flesh.
11:30:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if a 5 percent deduction would
have the same effect as a 5 percent tax on employees.
MR. DURAN answered, "Absolutely." He revealed that many
employees have said they are at the point where if they were
faced with a 5 percent cut in wages, they would leave state
employment, work for the private sector, and collect the
insurance benefits of their pension now rather than in four to
five years. He mentioned HB 191, which proposes a $1,500 bonus
for employees currently eligible to retire to continue working,
while HB 179, he observed, would cut salaries by 5 percent. He
questioned what message the legislature is trying to send.
11:31:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES offered the following point of
clarification:
I think I heard in your testimony that this would be a
5 percent after-tax deduction, but ... actually, the
way it's proposed, it's a 5 percent prior to tax. So,
... the net result is not a 5 percent decrease in pay.
It would be more like two and three-quarters to three
and a quarter, depending on a person's wage. But
nonetheless, the impact that you're talking about
would be ... [that] take home pay would be reduced.
MR. DURAN recollected that he had heard the term 5 percent
"after-tax" during Representative Kelly's testimony.
11:32:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, responding to Mr. Duran's previous
statement regarding a pound flesh, asked him to think about the
"$10 billion tax that's going to be sent to the people of Alaska
to keep your retirement whole." He asked that Mr. Duran "put
that in balance."
MR. DURAN remarked that he does not think any of the current
members of the legislature were a part of the decision-making
processes in the 1960s. He said mistakes were made by "a lot of
different groups of people," but "employees did not have that
contribution to those mistakes."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded, "We could argue about it, but
the fact is: neither did the children who are going to pick
this bill up."
CHAIR LYNN disclosed that he has a son and daughter-and-law who
are under TRS in Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said everybody on the committee probably
has some [relatives in PERS and/or TRS].
11:34:35 AM
RICK SCHIKORA, testifying on behalf of himself, said he thinks
Representative Kelly is doing a good thing by attempting to "get
everybody to come to the table." He said it sounds like the
80/20 split may work. If Mr. Duncan is correct that the
proposed 5 percent increase is unconstitutional, he said, then
perhaps there are other options. He said DB consultants have
told him one option is to "change the go-forward rate of the
multiplier." He offered further details.
11:37:14 AM
GARY HUTCHINSON, testifying on behalf of himself, told the
committee that he has six years' experience as a public official
for his local municipality and understands the impact that the
unfunded liability has had on his school district and local
borough. He thanked Representative Kelly for his efforts. He
stated, "I have trouble understanding how in the world we can
reach into any savings account that belongs to all Alaskans and
take $8 billion out to fund this pension plan that we cannot
afford, without fixing it prospectively." He said some of the
ideas of "the prior speaker" are "in the right direction." He
continued:
Certainly I understand [Representative] Kelly's
interest in increasing the employee contribution to
buy another 5 percent is designed to try and mitigate
the fact that the plan would not be fixed under this
scenario, and that there would be accruing unfunded
liabilities, and that the 5 percent is designed to be
directed toward that. That is a step in the right
direction, but I think we need to also step back, look
at this plan that is auguring into the savings
accounts of all Alaskans at an alarming rate, and ask
ourselves, "Is this a pension plan that we can afford
in the future?"
MR. HUTCHISON said when he served in public office two years
ago, the deficiency then was $5.7 billion, and he said it is
stunning that it is currently measured at $10 billion. He
stated:
I am not in favor of the 80 percent bail out if there
is not some adjustment to the plan so that
prospectively there isn't additional, unfunded amounts
accruing to the tax payers. I'd be more in favor of
65 percent, or lower, as the governor's proposed.
11:39:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that some municipalities have
limited their taxes so much that they are not contributing as
much as some of the other municipalities, and he said, "We're
trying to do a one-size-fits-all for municipal contributions."
He asked Mr. Hutchinson how the state should handle that
situation.
MR. HUTCHINSON said he is not currently an official.
Notwithstanding that, he expressed his own opinion favoring a
cost-sharing approach, which he said treats PERS more like TRS.
He said, "That's a fair way of dealing with this plan, and I
think it would be more politically palatable." He surmised that
Representative Gruenberg is probably referring to rural areas
that don't contribute, ultimately resulting in the state's
picking up the tab "one way or the other." He said the issue
needs to be about fixing the state's retirement plan. He
stated:
It would be better to have more costs ... flow through
to the municipalities and the tax payers if no
adjustment to this plan occurs, making it a more
affordable plan prospectively, because the higher cost
that would trickle down to the municipalities, trickle
down to the tax payers, would be a means of educating
the general public of the severity of this problem.
11:42:30 AM
JASON AVERY, testifying on behalf of himself, said he is a
member of the Alaska Public Employees Association and works for
Fairbanks North Star Borough Parks and Recreation Department.
He said he is a PERS Tier III employee and has worked for the
borough for 10 years. He stated:
I understood when I graduated from college that as a
public employee, I'd probably be making less money
than I would be in the private sector, but would have
more stable benefits and a decent retirement to look
forward to. I'm proud of what I do, but with each
year I feel the public employees are falling farther
and farther behind in the pay that we receive and the
retirement benefits we were promised. I support
statutory changes that will protect employers from
having to pay ever increasingly unsustainable rates to
the retirement system, and I understand that leaving
the current system as it is will cause great harm to
Alaska's schools and local governments.
I believe that the state is responsible for paying at
least 80 percent of the unfunded liability, as it's
the state's responsibility for the mistakes made by
the investment in actuarial companies that [it] hired,
and that the remaining 20 percent be covered by the
employer. I do not believe that the public employees
of this state should be expected to pay an additional
5 percent of their hard-earned paychecks to pay for
mistakes that they did not make. Furthermore, I feel
that the so-called fix of creating a Tier IV with
[Senate Bill] 141 has made it very difficult to
recruit qualified, new employees, and gives no real
incentive for those employees to stay in the State of
Alaska as a defined benefit system has in the past.
11:45:00 AM
DAN WAYNE, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services, as
the attorney assigned to HB 179, and in response to Chair Lynn
and Representative Gruenberg, said there may be a constitutional
issue with the proposed 5 percent increase. In response to a
follow-up question from Representative Gruenberg, he said he
does not have a copy of the legal opinion to which Mr. Duncan
previously alluded.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like Mr. Wayne's opinion
regarding the aforementioned legal opinion in the committee
packet and the attorney general's opinion, once Mr. Wayne has
had a chance to read both.
11:46:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY, regarding the legality of the bill, said
he is aware of the challenge relative to the past service rate.
The opinions of Legislative Legal and Research Services and the
attorney general address the normal cost rate, which is the
current period. He said some say the reported $10 billion
unfunded liability is actually closer to being $12 billion. He
warned that the state's retirement system could cost $900
million a year for the next 25 years before being solved. He
emphasized the enormity of the problem which the state faces.
He said he met with the new attorney general [Talis Colberg],
who is aware of HB 179 and has questions to answer for the
sponsor. He concluded, "Hopefully we can find a way to make
sure that everyone's trying to lift their fare share."
11:48:25 AM
CHAIR LYNN stated concern over the potential unconstitutionality
of the proposed 5 percent provision. He said there may be
battling opinions between the previous attorney general and the
current one.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he intends to get answers to the
constitutional question, but it is not his intention to "drop
the plan to bring all three players to the table."
11:49:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY, in response to a question from
Representative Gruenberg, said he hopes that Attorney General
Colberg can be forthcoming with an answer regarding the question
of constitutionality.
11:50:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated:
If I've led anybody to believe that I have all the
answers to these questions, I've certainly misdirected
people, because I don't have all the answers; I don't
even know all the questions. All I know is that we
have serious issue to deal with and we have to get a
handle on it right away or that [$12 billion] will be
[$15 billion].
... One of the comments that somebody online made is:
"You know, when I looked at it a few years ago, it was
$2.5 billion and now it's [$10 billion]. How did you
get to that point?" Well, it's simple: we didn't
address the problem. And if we don't address the
problem now, it's only going to get worse.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES expressed appreciation of Representative
Kelly's willingness to bring something for the committee to
consider. He recognized that any proposed legislation will
offer parts that people like and other parts that are not liked.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said there are two parts of the bill that
concern him: First the proposed 5 percent increase in employee
contributions. He said he will not talk about the legal issue,
but wants to talk about the standpoint of what the 5 percent
does:
The only responsibility I see that the employee has in
this is the fact that through their different
negotiations they've gotten salary increases, and as a
result of those salary increases, they have a higher
retirement. I've heard some people say, "Well,
they've negotiated themselves some very fine medical
benefits." Well, that's not true. The medical
benefits they have now [have] nothing to do with this.
The medical benefit that adds to the unfunded
liability is the medical benefit they would get when
they retire; it has nothing to do with the active
medical benefit. So, people need to understand that:
that's got nothing to do with the state - that's
everything to do with their local negotiations
process.
So, the only real part that the [employees have]
played in this is the desire to have an increase in
their wages. The serious problem I have with the 5
percent: it almost in some ways becomes retroactive,
even though there's an effective date that takes it
forward. And the reason I say it becomes retroactive
is: anyone that has signed a negotiated agreement for
salaries - ... three-year contracts - ... can't change
those. Had they known before they signed that
contract and negotiated that contract that there was
potential for a 5 percent additional employee
contribution that they had to make, they maybe would
have negotiated differently, because that's really the
only part that the employee has any control over.
Everything else is controlled by the state: where the
ARM Board sets the rate; whether the legislature funds
the rate; whether they decide, when the actuary says,
"You need to pay 7 percent," and we decided we're only
going to pay 5, the actuary said, "You need to pay 11,
we decided to only pay 5." That ARM Board is [a] ...
quasi employee of the state.
And so, clearly, the major responsibility of where we
are is the stakes, regardless of how we got there -
and [there are] 47 different versions. But the 5
percent seems to me to be the one that we do have some
control over right now. And I don't want to sit here
and debate this thing for six weeks and try to kill it
in committee, because the fact of the matter is we've
got six other bills out there that are dealing with
the same issue. And they're all going to be
consolidated in the [House] Finance Committee. The
Senate's going to do the same thing, and then we're
going to have to ... form a group that's going to look
at trying to solve the issues between the two. But I
have a very hard time moving this thing forward. And
I'll debate the 80/20 when it gets somewhere else -
maybe even on the [House] floor - if it ends up in
that version. But the 5 percent is the one that I'm
having the most concern with, as well as the legal
part, because I think it's a little excessive, and
I'll tell you why:
... If I get overridden on this, and everybody else
thinks that this is a good thing, I would like to see
it ... instituted in a progressive manner, so that we
start out with something that's a little more
manageable - [for example] if it were a 2 percent and
then it went to 3.5 percent, and then it went to 5
percent, or, even if we didn't do anything with it, if
we passed it at the 5 percent, put the effective date
on the 5 percent at least three years out, because
nobody has a contract that lasts more than three years
- so the people at least knew where they were going to
be when they were negotiating their salaries, instead
of making it retroactive to something they have ... no
capability of changing.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked Representative Kelly for his
response.
11:55:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he does not disagree with
Representative Roses. He said everyone is working hard on this
issue. He said he thinks "these things" will sort out "as we go
forward." He offered an example of a situation when everybody
came to the table to solve a problem. He said there are
Alaskans who are not at the negotiating table and he is trying
to represent them. He agreed that the employees have done
nothing wrong, and he stated that he is not trying to pick on
them. He said it is the legislature that sets the percentages.
He relayed that he would like to see all people involved lifting
their fair share.
12:00:03 PM
CHAIR LYNN offered his understanding that the amount of the
percentage does not make a difference in whether or not it is
unconstitutional.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said that is "right on target." He asked,
"Is it not a significant enhancement to the plan to take both of
them from 60 and 65 percent funding to 100 percent health and
full funding? ... I would submit that that is an enhancement
and that the court might just take a look at that."
Representative Kelly pointed out that the current benefits were
established long before a variety of medical innovations became
available that also increased the cost of health care benefits,
and the rates have remained unchanged.
CHAIR LYNN remarked that the court system is unpredictable.
12:02:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said the most predictable part of the
unfunded liability is related to the pension, and he agreed that
the most unpredictable part is related to the cost of medical
benefits. He said he knows the bill needs to be advanced, but
he said he is likely to offer an amendment for a graduated
employee contribution increase, as well as an amendment to
postpone "the application of that process for three years out so
that any existing contracts that just got negotiated ... won't
be affected." He noted that delaying the 5 percent would cause
an increase in the unfunded liability, but that impact would be
minimal compared to the potential negative impacts.
12:04:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said the money that the employees would
bring to the system would be $100 million a year. He said he
would not debate Representative Rose's amendments out of respect
for the committee.
12:05:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN closed public testimony. He expressed
appreciation of Representative Kelly's eloquence and his
tackling of the matter.
12:05:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he had to leave, but did not want
to miss voting on this issue.
12:06:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES requested holding the bill until
[Tuesday's] meeting.
12:07:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL expressed her appreciation of Representative
Roses' input on the bill, as both a former math teacher and
former member of the ARM Board, and she stated support of his
request to hold the bill.
12:07:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he was prepared to make a motion to
move the bill out of committee. He stated his concern regarding
holding the bill in the House State Affairs Standing Committee
is that it could slow down the conversation in the House Finance
Committee. He said he would be "game" to hold the bill to the
next week as long as no political games are being played.
CHAIR LYNN said he will not allow any political games to be
played concerning this or any other bill heard in the House
State Affairs Standing Committee. Furthermore, he stated his
intent to hear HB 179 first thing at the committee's next
meeting.
12:09:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he would be willing to move his own
bill back that's slated for Tuesday's schedule if that would
help.
12:09:52 PM
CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 179 was heard and held.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
12:10:43 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|