Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
03/31/2009 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB157|| SB126 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 157 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 31, 2009
8:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Pete Petersen
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 157
"An Act amending the State Personnel Act to place in the exempt
service the chief economist and state comptroller in the
Department of Revenue and certain professional positions
concerning oil and gas within the Department of Natural
Resources; relating to reemployment of and benefits for or on
behalf of reemployed retired teachers and public employees by
providing for an effective date by amending the delayed
effective date for secs. 3, 5, 9, and 12, ch. 57, SLA 2001 and
sec. 19, ch. 50, SLA 2005; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 157(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 157
SHORT TITLE: REEMPLOYMENT OF RETIREES; EXEMPT SERVICE
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/27/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/27/09 (H) STA, FIN
03/17/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/17/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/17/09 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/31/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
NICKI NEAL, Director
Division of Personnel & Labor Relations
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 157.
GINGER BLAISDELL, Director
Administrative Services Division
Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 157.
KEVIN BANKS, Acting Director
Central Office
Division of Oil & Gas
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
157.
CAROL COMEAU, Superintendent
Anchorage School District
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 157.
AGNES MORAN
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 157.
HANNAH RAMISKEY
Ketchikan Charter School (KCS)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 157.
DAVID HULL
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 157.
BARB ANGAIAK, President
National Education Association-Alaska (NEA-Alaska)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of a sunset during the
hearing on HB 157.
BRUCE JOHNSON
Member
Association of Alaska School Boards (AASB)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the extension of
the sunset during the hearing on HB 157.
PETE FORD, Southeast Regional Manager
Alaska Public Employees Association (APEA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 157.
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 157.
PAT SHIER, Director
Division of Retirement & Benefits
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
157.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:08:54 AM
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:08 a.m. Representatives Seaton, Gatto,
Johnson, Wilson, Petersen, and Lynn were present at the call to
order. Representative Gruenberg arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 157-REEMPLOYMENT OF RETIREES; EXEMPT SERVICE
[Contains brief mention of SB 126.]
8:09:18 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the only order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 157, "An Act amending the State Personnel Act to place
in the exempt service the chief economist and state comptroller
in the Department of Revenue and certain professional positions
concerning oil and gas within the Department of Natural
Resources; relating to reemployment of and benefits for or on
behalf of reemployed retired teachers and public employees by
providing for an effective date by amending the delayed
effective date for secs. 3, 5, 9, and 12, ch. 57, SLA 2001 and
sec. 19, ch. 50, SLA 2005; and providing for an effective date."
8:09:50 AM
NICKI NEAL, Director, Division of Personnel & Labor Relations,
Department of Administration, noted that the division had
provided responses to the committee's questions after the last
hearing on HB 157 [included in the committee packet].
8:10:43 AM
GINGER BLAISDELL, Director, Administrative Services Division,
directed attention to the last two pages of the aforementioned
responses, which show statistics on retiree positions statewide.
She pointed out that at the beginning of the past sunset period,
there were 227 positions that were hired under the retiree
waiver, and that number has been reduced to 124. She said that
is a good sign that new employees are being brought into the
system, and the retiree positions still existing reflect those
jobs where there are no other applicants that meet the minimum
qualifications or are able to take those jobs.
8:12:54 AM
MS. BLAISDELL stated that HB 157 combines two subjects within
the "personnel Act" for the practical reason of streamlining the
hearing process for the legislature, "as well as for public
testimony." She noted that the two positions in the Department
of Revenue and 23 positions in the Department of Natural
Resources are not tied to the retire/rehire provision of the
bill. Ms. Blaisdell related that if the proposed legislation
does not pass, approximately 124 jobs in schools, local
governments, courts, and state offices will be left vacant. She
stated, "While these individuals may ... appear to be receiving
additional income, the retirement income is earned income and
would be paid whether they [were] paid in a government position
or in the private sector." She said a retiree can only be
offered a job if there are not other qualified applicants.
MS. BLAISDELL stated that the 23 professional oil and gas
related positions are at risk for high turnover, because the
jobs are temporary and project-oriented, rather than long-term.
If a private company offers these highly skilled individuals
similar pay, but with longevity, it would be a challenge for the
state to retain them. She said turnover would be unacceptable
during the state's efforts in natural gas development. She
stated, "There is no fiscal impact to the status change of these
positions, and the risk of losing these professionals is not one
the state should take."
MS. BLAISDELL warned that the chief economist position would
remain vacant because it is unattractive to qualified
candidates, given its current rate of pay. The person in this
position is responsible for the revenue forecast, and also
reviews a wide variety of fiscal systems as they impact Alaska's
interest in the world. Leaving the position vacant would put
the state at a disadvantage in maximizing opportunities in a
global economy and place the state at risk for lost opportunity
it can ill afford.
MS. BLAISDELL, regarding the state comptroller, said the state
can only hope that the person currently in that position will
remain, despite the fact that similar positions in the private
sector are paid 20-30 percent more. With the position turnover
rate averaging one per year, she relayed, the learning curve is
reliant on lower level staff, and the state cannot "grow
positively in its cash management practices." Longevity in the
position [of comptroller] would be of benefit to the state's
investments.
MS. BLAISDELL concluded by urging the committee to pass HB 157,
so that Alaska can progress in developing a gas pipeline,
compete in a global economy, educate its children, adequately
staff its courts, and fill other necessary positions that would
otherwise be left vacant.
CHAIR LYNN expressed concern that the bill was not heard earlier
so that there would be enough time to advance it through the
process.
8:17:45 AM
MS. BLAISDELL stated her belief that HB 157 was introduced at
the beginning of session, but that it has been taking a bit of
time to get bills scheduled for hearing. She noted that there
is a companion bill in the Senate which may facilitate the
legislation making it through the process.
CHAIR LYNN observed that the bill was introduced on February 27,
2009.
MS. BLAISDELL, in response to Chair Lynn, said she requested a
hearing on March 3.
8:18:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the Alaska Legislative Report, dated
February 6, 2009, [included in the committee packet], notes [on
page 8] that 16 former state employees were retired between 1-6
months before being rehired. He asked if the department has a
further breakdown that shows how many of those were rehired
within the first two months.
8:19:15 AM
MS. NEAL responded that Representative Seaton's staff has made
that inquiry, and currently the Division of Retirement &
Benefits is looking for an answer.
8:20:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON remarked that only 80 percent of the
employers required to do so have forwarded their knowledge
transfer plans to the Department of Administration. He said he
wants to know if there would be a commitment from "your
division" to actively pursue the implementation of the knowledge
transfer plans, which are required by statute from "anyone
employed under this."
8:21:36 AM
KEVIN BANKS, Acting Director, Central Office, Division of Oil &
Gas, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), responded that he
can gladly make that commitment, but currently none of the staff
in the Division of Oil & Gas are rehired retirees.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that he wants a commitment from
the commissioners of all applicable departments that that
section of statute would be implemented.
8:22:19 AM
MS. BLAISDELL suggested that Ms. Neal, as the person who reviews
all of the knowledge transfer plans, could speak specifically to
that issue.
8:22:41 AM
MS. NEALS assured Representative Seaton that "we do follow up."
Currently, she reported, only one knowledge plan is lacking, and
she indicated that is being addressed. She also assured him
that she would follow up with the Division of Retirement &
Benefits as it oversees the receipt of knowledge transfer plans
from other Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) employers.
8:23:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON observed that the aforementioned report
shows that there were only five that did not have that knowledge
transfer plan, and "evidently they've picked up four of those
since then."
MS. BLAISDELL explained:
The five positions that show that they're missing a
knowledge transfer plan came from school districts.
And what Nicki does with the Department of
Administration is she looks at every knowledge plan
for the state agencies through the executive branch.
So, the school districts would have to follow up and
pursue their own.
8:24:28 AM
CAROL COMEAU, Superintendent, Anchorage School District,
testified in support of HB 157. She said the district [rehires
retirees] minimally, mostly in the area of special education and
related services, and in some cases when it cannot find teachers
at the high school level who have the skills to teach higher
level math and science. She said these employees are terminated
at the end of each school year in order to give preference to
qualified applicants [who have not already retired].
MS. COMEAU, in response to a question from Chair Lynn, regarding
whether she likes the bill as is, stated support of allowing
districts and other state agencies to "use the tool, but on a
limited basis where we absolutely have to prove that there are
no viable applicants."
8:26:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he is pleased to see that the
district is using that tool judiciously. He noted that
currently there is no limitation on the number of applicants.
He asked Ms. Comeau if she would object to a provision that
would limit use of the retire/rehire tool to situations in which
there were three or less qualified applicants."
8:27:36 AM
MS. COMEAU responded that that limitation would not be onerous
for the Anchorage School District, because it already ensures
that there are zero applicants or, at least, that if there are
one or two, those one or two may have paper credentials but do
not meet the criteria in other ways.
8:28:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, regarding a case in which a retiree has to
be rehired, asked how long a period would elapse before the
rehire.
MS. COMEAU responded that the district usually waits until after
the normal hiring season - late spring to right before school
starts - and then asks the rehire to apply for a one-year
contract. She stated, "I think we've made it work very
successfully for the last many years."
8:29:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN noted that his program started in 2001,
and he asked Ms. Comeau what the longest period of continual
time is in which a retiree has been rehired.
8:29:33 AM
MS. COMEAU said she does not know, but speculated that there are
not many who "continue employment since the bill began."
8:29:56 AM
AGNES MORAN told the committee that she is testifying as a
parent in support of HB 157. She related that her son was
involved in a special education program for six years, and she
knows how important it is for the rural schools to have access
to experienced educators who are available locally and have made
a commitment to remain in Alaska. Although the number of
participants in the retiree rehire program may appear small,
their impact on the community is large, she opined. Many of the
rehired retirees are certified in special education fields and
work not only with students directly, but also with parents,
families, and other educators. She said she thinks these people
are sometimes viewed as barriers, but for the parents of a child
with special needs, these people are viewed as "bridges." Ms.
Moran indicated that the legislative report shows that most of
the schools that are listed as having rehired retirees also have
current openings. She asked the committee to support the
proposed legislation.
8:31:20 AM
HANNAH RAMISKEY, Ketchikan Charter School (KCS), said she is a
grandparent of a child in the Ketchikan Charter School. She
noted that materials related to SB 126 show that Ketchikan had a
custodian who was a rehired retiree. She subsequently
discovered that about three years ago, that custodian was hired
just until someone else was found to fill the role. She stated
concern that the list may not be completely accurate.
MS. RAMISKEY said KCS had a superintendent who retired, KCS was
without a qualified principal, and there were two sessions
during which the school "fell apart." Ms. Ramiskey added
further details. Mr. Martin, she said, agreed to come back and
work for the charter school. She relayed that he is at the
lowest rung of the pay scale of administrator and does not
accrue benefits toward his retirement. The school is running
smoothly; its students are "80 percent proficient across the
board."
MS. RAMISKEY related another incident in which a woman who was a
reading specialist left her job to tend to her husband, who had
cancer. When her husband died, she was rehired in the same
position. Ms. Ramiskey remarked that there were no other
applicants to take that position. She stated that in small
towns and places that get so much rain in a year's time, it is
often difficult to find qualified applicants; therefore, "we
really need the opportunity to hire the best for our kids." In
response to Representative Gatto, she said there are 180
students in the Ketchikan Charter School.
8:34:31 AM
DAVID HULL said he is a 20-year retiree from the City of
Ketchikan Fire Department and currently works as the fire chief
for the North Tongass Volunteer Fire Department through the
Ketchikan Gateway Borough. He said the bill affects him
personally. He warned that as of January 1, 2009, if the
deadline is not extended, the service areas of North Tongass
Fire & EMS [emergency medical service] will be at a distinct
disadvantage if there is a need to hire experienced help for the
leadership role that a chief holds in a fire department. He
related that he has held his current position since May 2004 and
would like to stay. He stated, "It should be understood that
... the ability for a retiree to be able to hold onto their
retirement benefits and work in a situation like this is akin to
providing a level playing field for the small kids versus the
big kids when it comes for a competition to hire experienced
help."
MR. HULL related that the Ketchikan Airport recently lost a
highly experienced police chief who was in a situation similar
to Mr. Hull's. He noted that the position of police chief at
the airport remains unfilled, and [those in charge of airport
security] have been forced to work with the police department of
the City of Ketchikan in order to maintain a police force at the
airport. He opined that the benefit of extending the deadline
probably far outweighs any detriment. He acknowledged that
there is a fiscal impact, but asked the committee to consider
what it would be doing for the smaller departments that are
trying desperately to compete for quality help.
MR. HULL, in response to a question from Representative Gatto,
estimated that his current rate of pay is $71,000. He added
that the fire chief for the City of Ketchikan, who was recently
hired is paid over $100,000.
8:37:42 AM
MS. BLAISDELL, in response to Representative Gruenberg, recalled
that he had discussed the definition of "special inquiry" -
found in AS 39.25.110(9) - with Kevin Banks, the acting director
of the Division of Oil & Gas. For Mr. Banks' benefit, and upon
the suggestion of Representative Gruenberg, she read the
[second] paragraph of a memorandum from Dan Wayne of Legislative
Legal and Research Services, dated March 31, 2009, [included in
the committee packet], which read as follows:
"Special Inquiry." The term "special inquiry" is not
defined by state statute or regulation, and in the
time available to respond to your request I am unable
to determine whether it applied uniformly, in the
context of the exempt service or any other context,
throughout the agencies of the state's executive
branch.
8:39:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that in the aforementioned
paragraph of the memorandum, the word "s" should appear between
"it" and "applied." He stated that [the term] is an issue that
is central to Sections 1 and 2 of the bill, and he opined that
the legislature should define it. He said he wonders whether
the executive branch might work with the legislature to draft a
definition.
8:40:39 AM
MS. BLAISDELL responded that she thinks it would probably be
okay that efforts be made to define the term. She clarified
that "special inquiry" applies to Section 1, which relates to a
position within the Department of Natural Resources; Section 2
addresses the positions of chief economist and state
comptroller, which do not fall under special inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like a message sent to
the executive branch regarding this issue, and he questioned
whether the definition should be made through statute or
regulation.
CHAIR LYNN said that would be fine.
8:42:26 AM
BARB ANGAIAK, President, National Education Association-Alaska
(NEA-Alaska), emphasized the importance of interpretation of
language. She said the term, "hard to fill position," has been
broadened to include all positions in a job category, including
some positions that perhaps are not hard to fill, which she said
is problematic. She offered the following positions as
examples: middle school physical education teacher and high
school counselor. She expressed her appreciation for Ms.
Cuomo's previous statement that the district is careful to limit
its hiring of retirees only to those positions that are hard to
fill, but she said the problem is that there has been some abuse
of the rehiring of retirees.
MS. ANGAIAK opined that there is no need to extend the sunset;
if there are people who are retired who can fill a position that
could not be filled otherwise, those people can come back into
employment, "but not draw down on ... a retirement benefit at
the same time." She concluded that NEA-Alaska would like to see
the sunset happen.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Ms. Angaiak if she has examples in
which minimally qualified applicants were available but the
position was instead given to a rehired retiree.
MS. ANGAIAK answered no.
8:45:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said Ms. Angaiak had remarked that
sometimes people are brought back for no special reason, when
there are other qualified people around. He said the
aforementioned statute is in the public employee section, it is
not in Title 14. He asked Ms. Angaiak what the legal authority
is that she was discussing.
MS. ANGAIAK said she had been referencing "the interpretation,
generally, of language," which she said is used to rehire
retired teachers and retired administrators. The terms
"teacher" and "administrator" have been broadened, in some
cases, to include people who do not represent what NEA-Alaska
believes constitute truly "hard-to-fill positions," such as
specialists and special education teachers.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he understands what Ms. Angaiak is
saying, but explained that it is difficult to address the issue
through concept alone, with no particular statute being
supplied.
MS. ANGAIAK clarified that she is talking about the definitions
in statute that outline how to define "teacher" and
"administrator."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like Ms. Angaiak's staff
to look at specific statutes with him. He said the wording of
the bill is confusing.
8:48:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his understanding that the data
shows there have been 58 [rehired retirees] within the Teachers'
Retirement System (TRS) across the state, which he said seems
like a restricted amount, even though currently there are no
parameters for rehiring retirees in TRS. He asked Ms. Angaiak
if she would support a restriction similar to that in PERS, such
that there could be no more than three qualified applicants to
be able to even consider rehiring a retiree. He noted that the
restriction would be set "by particular job, not by a broad
category."
8:50:20 AM
MS. ANGAIAK responded that [some kind of restriction] would be
better; however, she would still be opposed to the bill.
8:50:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON observed that out of the many teachers in
the Anchorage School System, only 11 [are rehired retirees].
Lower Kuskokwim, on the other hand, has 36. She said that
number seems high, but she realizes that that district is remote
and she does not know how the living conditions are for the
teachers there. Furthermore, she said she does not know how big
the Lower Kuskokwim School District is to be able to make any
comparison to the district in Anchorage. She noted that Ms.
Angaiak had used the term, "hard-to-fill," and she asked her if
she agrees that sometimes the location of the school would make
a difference.
8:51:57 AM
MS. ANGAIAK responded that the Lower Kuskokwim School District
has approximately 3,300 students, about 350 teachers, and has
some very remote locations. She offered her understanding that
"the larger number out of" the 36 rehired retirees in that
school district are located in the hub community of Bethel;
therefore, the hardship of living in a rural community is
minimal. She added that she is from Bethel. Ms. Angaiak
concurred that in some cases it is more difficult to fill
positions in rural Alaska. However, she said she maintains that
if there are people who wish to continue teaching or being
administrators, they can do that through the regular channels
and not be drawing retirement at the same time they are drawing
a salary.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked, "Are there several that have
continued the whole time that this program has been in effect?"
MS. ANGAIAK answered yes.
8:53:29 AM
BRUCE JOHNSON, Member, Association of Alaska School Boards
(AASB), stated that AASB supports the extension of the sunset
proposed in HB 157. Mr. Johnson related that he is the
principle individual involved in superintendent searches. Most
of the superintendents hired new to Alaska are retired in
another state. Currently, in Chevak, two of the three finalists
are retirees - one from in-state and one from out-of-state. He
said AASB encourages new blood, because it is in the best
interest of the school systems. He said he senses that "we have
been using this judiciously," and he noted that there is
oversight from [the Division of Retirement & Benefits].
MR. JOHNSON stated that there are 24-25 school sites in Lower
Kuskokwim, four or five of which are located in Bethel, while
the rest are in individual villages. He said those are remote
places. He reported that there is a lot of turnover in that
district; recruitment is done on an annual basis nationwide.
Furthermore, the district is making remarkable progress "with
achievement"; therefore, the system in place seems to be
producing decent results, he noted.
MR. JOHNSON stated that considering the fact that less than 80
positions out of several thousand are "tied up in this," he
thinks "it's an appropriate tool." He encouraged the committee
to "continue this opportunity as a tool."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Mr. Johnson if he is saying he is
relying on what is better for students in his analysis.
MR. JOHNSON responded in the affirmative. He expounded that
AABS does not select superintendents - the local school board
does - but it facilitates the process. In all cases, he noted,
AASB asks [applicants] to identify the kinds of skills and
qualifications that they feel meet their particular needs, "and
that references students, in terms of moving this district
forward on behalf of students." He indicated that AASB asks
[the local school boards] to evaluate files according to that
applicant file. In response to a follow-up question from
Representative Gatto, Mr. Johnson said the Lower Kuskokwim
School District is making progress after being "pretty flat for
a long period of time." He added, "And, of course, we know ...
their principle site administrators and the teaching staff are
the key ingredients to making that happen."
8:57:26 AM
PETE FORD, Southeast Regional Manager, Alaska Public Employees
Association (APEA), told the committee that APEA is a primarily
public labor union that represents about 8,000 active employees
in the state and close to 2,000 retirees. Approximately 2,000
of APEA's members are state employees in the supervisory and
confidential unit, while most of the others are employees of
local jurisdictions - cities, boroughs, and some in the
university system.
MR. FORD stated, "We are opposed to all three portions of this
bill." Regarding the portion of the bill addressing the
Department of Natural Resources, he said APEA has been unable to
get definitive information regarding the positions within DNR,
other than the fact that they are highly specialized positions.
He said APEA's best understanding is that while the DNR jobs
involve a high degree of specialization and expertise, they are
policy-implementing not policy-making positions. Because of
that, he said, APEA thinks the position probably ought to be
part of the classified service and not exempt. Mr. Ford said
APEA has philosophical problems with the idea that a job that
has been in existence for at least four years and is apparently
anticipated to continue in existence for some time is regarded
as a temporary job, rather than a regular or career-type job.
He opined that that seems to diminish both the job and the
people who are providing that service to the state. He
explained that an on-going service ought to be recognized as a
career-type position.
8:59:28 AM
MR. FORD next addressed the two positions within the Department
of Revenue. He noted that the comptroller position is already a
partially exempt (PX) position, and the state has some
substantial degree of flexibility in the way it might manage
that position. The [chief economist] position is a supervisory
unit (SU) position that recently went through reclassification.
The position was upgraded to a grade 26. He noted that the
committee was given a reclassification package, which indicates
that monetary issues are not where the recruiting challenges
exist. He stated, "It seems to us that that position has been
well addressed and ought not be changed in any way. Again,
while this is a highly specialized, expert-driven position, it's
not, as we understand it, a position that makes policy, but a
position that implements policy and, therefore, a position that
ought to have the protection of civil service and bargaining
unit representation."
MR. FORD continued as follows:
With respect to the retiree program, again, this is a
program that's already been in existence for eight
years. That seems like ample time ... for the
transition and the change of institutional knowledge
to have taken place. And while admittedly, there are
probably some occasional exceptions, in general, I
think the cost that's being paid by rehire/retirees in
allowing them to receive double payment for performing
one job is taking a real toll in the state and in the
agencies by the fact that it suppresses the careers of
younger ... employees and stops them from being able
to move up. A cork is stuck in the bottle.
MR. FORD said he is personally familiar with at least six people
in the state who have left state employment because of the fact
that their careers were being suppressed by a retiree who was
back in the position the retiree previously held. He opined
that rehiring retirees is not the best way to promote change.
9:02:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said it sounds like part of Mr. Ford's
objection is that retirees should not be "double dipping." She
asked what his opinion would be if the retiree were to come
back, but was only paid salary, not salary with retirement.
MR. FORD said he thinks that would certainly change the
character of the plan and make it more palatable, because
neither the monetary reward nor the opportunity for substantial
discrepancy in pay would exist. He said it would still remain
for the state to address appropriate levels of pay for the
positions and make those adjustments, which he said would be a
much more permanent and satisfactory resolution situation.
9:03:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO expressed concern with the phrase "double
pay for doing one job." He asked Mr. Ford if he would consider
it double pay for a retiree from another state, who was
receiving a pension from that state, to take a job in Alaska.
MR. FORD replied that to some degree that is a variation of
"double pay" while not being a direct application that exists
when both the pension and the new job salary are being supplied
by the same employer, which he opined hurts the rest of the
workforce.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO expressed his confusion. He described a
situation in which one retiree comes from a Lower 48 state and
gets a job in Alaska, while another retiree leaves Alaska, and
gets a job in that person's state. He asked, "Does that make a
difference? Or should they both stay in their position and then
be criticized, or should they both switch and then not be
criticized?"
MR. FORD responded that the primary difference is that Alaska
has no control over a retiree coming from another state, but has
control within the state and its own employment environment. He
said if the problem is that the position is not appropriately
paid, then that is the correction that needs to be made.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if Mr. Ford, during his comments
about the DNR position, meant to say that only the top person in
any department is the policy maker while everyone else is a
policy implementer.
MR. FORD answered yes. He said as he understands the public
employee relations law and the classification system within the
state, there is an upper tier of state management comprised of
elected officials and high political appointees who are policy
makers. Certainly those individuals will seek input from their
staff, but the policy decisions will be made by that upper tier.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO posed the idea that the chief economist may
be at least as valuable as the director, because the director
needs to rely on the chief economist's wisdom to formulate
policy.
9:07:02 AM
MR. FORD responded that the chief economist is certainly as
valuable as the director because he/she is making a significant
contribution; however, that contribution is in the area of
technical and expert knowledge that is provided to the director,
who then develops the policy.
9:07:44 AM
CHAIR LYNN noted that he had retired from the school system in
California and began working in the school system in Alaska. He
said, "When I retired and came back on board, I lost my
retirement pay. The good news was when I finally did retire, I
almost doubled my retirement pay."
9:08:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said it seems Mr. Ford is discriminating
against Alaskans when he differentiates between hiring retirees
from the Lower 48 for jobs in Alaska versus hiring retirees from
Alaska.
MR. FORD noted that there are some other states that would not
allow a retiree to draw retirement from those states while
working for Alaska. Nevada, for example, monitors people's
income and adjusts their pension based on what they might be
earning even though they are technically retired from the state.
He said he supposes there could be some kind of equalizing
national policy. He said he cannot see this as discrimination,
because it is not something over which the state has control.
He said it seems to him that within the state, an undesirable
situation is being created by allowing a person to "use a unique
technique after having been around awhile" to "ratchet" a job
valued at a certain amount to three times that amount.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON responded, "The fact that we're here
indicates to me that we do have control over it." Asked Mr.
Ford if he knows of any states other than Nevada that "cap" what
a person can make [when retired].
MR. FORD answered that he does not. He added, "My familiarity
with Nevada is about nine years old, but that was the practice
when I was there."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON responded:
So, ... Nevada caps your retirement, and so, ... if
you were to go to work even outside the public sector,
... you retirement's capped. It's counting social
security if you're adjusted by your revenue. Is that
your understanding of their system?
MR. FORD answered that to his understanding that is the method
by which Nevada manages its retirement pension program.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked, "That seems to me like we might
... be on to something."
9:11:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 2, line 9,
and noted that the language there would exempt the chief
economist and the state comptroller. He asked Mr. Ford if he
believes that the state comptroller is properly exempted and
should be left so, while the chief economist position is
removed, and thus not exempted.
MR. FORD responded that that would be more palatable to APEA.
He reiterated his understanding that currently the comptroller
is a PX position; therefore, the change that takes place if that
position becomes exempt would be less dramatic than if a
classified position becomes exempt.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to Representative
Johnson's previous line of questioning, he said it seems that if
the state does not allow local people to be rehired, but does
allow [retirees] from out of state to be rehired, that would be
poor public policy and would discriminate against Alaskans.
MR. FORD agreed that that would be an undesired result. The
best result, he said, would be to help build the careers of
younger people. He stated, "I'm not sure that we're well-served
by having folks from other states who aren't that familiar with
Alaska anyway come to Alaska and take key positions, but that's
usually not my decision to make."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pondered how it would be possible to
keep those out-of-state retirees from coming to Alaska and
getting hired by the State of Alaska.
9:14:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked Mr. Ford if he believes that the
retire/rehire exemption is being used as an inducement to get
certain retirees to come back to their old position with the
promise of being able to "double dip," or if the situation is
just that the State of Alaska is in a difficult position of
having to hire specialized positions with a limited number of
qualified candidates available.
MR. FORD replied that he is sure there are instances when
recruiting has been difficult, but he also knows that "abuse has
taken place."
9:16:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he used the term discrimination
intentionally because that is what he believes it is. He asked
Mr. Ford whether or not he would agree that it is the
responsibility of the state and its departments to put the most
qualified person in the job, whether or not that person is
promoted from within, retired from Massachusetts, or an existing
employee that is going to be serving under the retire/rehire
program.
MR. FORD affirmed his belief that the most qualified person
ought to be the person hired.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked Mr. Ford if that means he would
support a rehired retiree, if that person was the most
qualified.
MR. FORD responded as follows:
I would initially presume that an individual who
retires is retiring; they're not posturing themselves
in order to enrich themselves at the expense of the
state. And if an individual opts to use that kind of
a technique, it seems to me that the state needs to
look kind of skeptically at that. And I also
recognize that qualification is very often a
subjective judgment, and that somebody who may look
very good on paper or who has sat in the chair for a
very long time, isn't necessarily the best person to
be holding that position in the future. It seems to
me there ought to be some integrity, I suppose,
associated with the decision to retire, and that that
decision ought not be a technique for enrichment.
9:18:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO questioned whether "enrichment at the
expense of the state" isn't just what the free market is.
MR. FORD said he does not understand state employment as being
part of the free market. The laws of the state provide for
classification of the overwhelming majority of state positions,
and those classification decisions create a plan within the
state so that all positions - particularly in the classified
service - are appropriately defined and compensated. He said he
sees it as enrichment that an individual would "circumvent and
trick the classification system by retiring and then coming back
into a classified position, but also having the state pay for
retirement, when in fact the person is not retired and their
career is not concluded."
9:19:43 AM
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), stated that AML has not taken up the subject of the
proposed bill "on the whole," but she said she has called the
municipalities that rehire retirees and will echo [Mr.
Johnson's] previous remark that "this is a tool that these
communities have used." The further off the road system, the
more difficult it is for communities to hire certified people;
it is much easier for those communities if they have the option
to rehire retired people. She said her purpose in testifying is
to speak for those who "use this tool and feel it's a very
valuable one." She said she thinks the numbers show that this
system has not been overused in these communities.
CHAIR LYNN remarked that it is not only employers that can use
this tool; employees can "use it as a tool to essentially double
their income."
MS. WASSERMAN responded that she thinks Chair Lynn is right, but
challenged him to prevent that from happening "anywhere around
the world."
9:21:34 AM
CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony.
9:21:55 AM
PAT SHIER, Director, Division of Retirement & Benefits,
Department of Administration (DOA), in response to
Representative Seaton's previous question regarding the timing
of retirees' return to the work force, noted that one retiree
returned 30 days after retirement and 11 returned after a range
of 30-60 days. In response to a question from Representative
Johnson regarding the proportion of retirees being rehired, he
noted that the division typically processes between 750-1,100
retirements a year. If all those retirees had returned to work
in the same year - which is unlikely - "it would be a very small
percentage, indeed."
9:23:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that page 8 of the aforementioned
legislative report shows that [60] retirees of the State of
Alaska were rehired, and about one-fifth of those were hired
back within two months.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he appreciates that, but pointed out
that "as a percentage of the total retirees, we're talking about
a minimal number of people."
9:24:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 26-
GH1035\A.1, Wayne, 3/28/09, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "by providing for an effective date by"
Insert ";"
Page 2, following line 10:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 39.35.150(h) is amended to read:
(h) Notwithstanding (b) of this section, an
employer in the executive branch of state government
may not allow a member hired to fill a position that
requires recruitment to make the election provided in
(b) of this section unless
(1) the employer conducted an initial
recruitment for at least 15 days for the position to
be filled by the member making an election under (b)
of this section that resulted in fewer than three
[FIVE] qualified, eligible, and available applicants,
including the retired member; and
(2) the employer then conducted an
additional recruitment and the additional recruitment
resulted in fewer than three [FIVE] qualified,
eligible, and available applicants, including the
retired member; this additional recruitment period
added to the initial recruitment period must be at
least 30 days total."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 25:
Delete "secs. 3, 4, 7, and 8"
Insert "secs. 4, 5, 8, and 9"
Page 2, line 26:
Delete "secs. 3, 4, 7, and 8"
Insert "secs. 4, 5, 8, and 9"
9:24:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that he would like the number of
qualifying applicants reduced to three before a retiree could be
considered as one of the applicants for rehire, because when
there are five - four others besides the retiree - that is a
large pool from which to choose.
9:26:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON initiated the topic of the proposed
deletion of the effective date and Sections 3, 4, 7, and 8. In
response to a request, he yielded to Representative Gruenberg.
9:27:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is confused by Amendment 1. He
remarked that the language in Amendment 1 proposing to delete
the effective date does not relate to anything else in the
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he does not know why the drafter
included that language in the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said furthermore all the language in
Amendment 1 proposing to delete lines 3,4,7, and 8 do not
correspond with the bill.
9:28:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Amendment 1,
such that the only remaining language in Amendment 1 would be
the proposed insertion of Section 3. There being no objection,
Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said that answers his concern.
9:29:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked how Representative Seaton would
feel about deleting "in the executive branch of state
government" from the remaining language in Amendment 1, [as
amended]. In response to Representative Johnson, he confirmed
that his intent is that Amendment 1, as amended, would cover
every branch of government, not just the executive branch.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that the intent of the amendment is
to cover PERS employees; it is not intended to cover only the
executive branch. He apologized for not having time to review
the amendment before bringing it before the committee, and he
said he would not have any objection to taking out the reference
to the executive branch.
9:31:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 2 to Amendment
1, as amended, to delete "in the executive branch of state
government".
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to Representative Gatto,
explained that Amendment 2 to Amendment 1, as amended, would
allow any PERS employer to rehire retirees, but under the
conditions contained within the rest of Amendment 1, as amended.
CHAIR LYNN announced that there being no objection, Amendment 2
to Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted.
9:33:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON remarked that the 15-day minimum
recruitment time is "nothing."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that that minimum is current
law.
9:34:09 AM
MR. SHIER offered further details regarding that requirement.
He said the time can be two, 15-day recruitments or one, 30-day
recruitment. He said he was reading that information from an e-
mail from Kathy Lea, the retirement manager with the Division of
Retirement & Benefits.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reiterated that she thinks 15 days is too
short a period for a full recruitment.
9:35:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he thinks 2 weeks is appropriate,
because "during that period of time we're doing without
important services."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded, "You can get by with not having
people fill a position longer than you think."
9:36:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO explained that he thinks the requirement
exists to prevent someone from retiring on Friday and being
rehired on Monday. He remarked that there are some positions
that are so specialized and hard to fill, that if a qualified
person is found, the 15-day requirement allows that person to be
hired sooner.
9:37:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered the example of a special education
teacher leaving mid-year and the importance of hiring a
replacement sooner than later.
9:39:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to adopt Amendment 3 to Amendment 1,
which would change the number of days from 15 to 25.
9:39:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVES GATTO and JOHNSON objected.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said it is not necessarily the same person
who comes back to the job; there may be another retired
individual who is hired. He reiterated that there are few
individuals across the state to whom this applies. He expressed
his hope that the usefulness of the tool is maintained.
9:42:37 AM
MR. SHIER, in response to a request for clarification,
reiterated that [Amendment 1, as previously amended] would
require two, 15-day periods, which would total 30 days minimum.
In response to a question from Representative Gruenberg, he said
the language is sufficiently clear, as it has been used by
employers who have taken advantage of this tool.
9:44:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked if Amendment 3 to Amendment 1
would make the minimum requirement 40 days.
MR. SHIER offered his interpretation that the minimum would
still remain at 30 days; the initial period would be 25 days.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN reasoned that that would leave 5 days in
the secondary recruitment in order to reach the 30-day minimum.
9:45:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON withdrew Amendment 3 to Amendment 1, as
amended.
9:46:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved to adopt Amendment 4 to Amendment 1,
as amended, so that the initial recruitment period would be
changed from 15 days to 20 days and the additional recruitment
period added to the initial one would total a minimum of 40 days
rather than 30 days.
9:46:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected.
9:46:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like to hear the
administration's opinion.
9:47:10 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:47:15 AM to 9:48:55 AM.
9:48:59 AM
MS. BLAISDELL said she does not think an extended recruitment
period would pose a problem. If the timing was critical, there
may be the possibility to begin recruitment before the position
is vacated if the person vacating the position gives notice
early enough, she added.
9:49:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON removed his objection.
9:49:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected. He opined that the language of
"at least 15 days" and "at least 30 days" is sufficient. He
said it is not for the committee to decide what works best in a
system that is already in use.
9:50:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that this issue could be
discussed during a break between meetings.
CHAIR LYNN questioned whether the administration sees this as a
problem.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said, "Let's just vote."
9:51:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he wants to vote rather than delaying
decisions.
9:51:48 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg,
Petersen, Wilson, and Lynn voted in favor of Amendment 4 to
Amendment 1, as amended. Representatives Gatto, Johnson,
Seaton, voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 4 to Amendment
1, as amended, was adopted.
9:52:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection to Amendment 1
[as amended]. There being no further objection, Amendment 1, as
amended, was adopted.
9:52:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2,
which would mirror the intent of the adopted Amendment 1, as
amended, but would apply to TRS instead of PERS.
9:54:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVES JOHNSON and GRUENBERG objected.
9:55:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVES JOHNSON and WILSON emphasized their concerns
regarding the need for clarity.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG echoed their concern, stating a desire
to have the change that was made regarding the number of days
for recruitment periods specified by way of an amendment to
Conceptual Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated that Conceptual Amendment 2 is
conceptual, but said he would accept a "friendly amendment."
9:57:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt [Conceptual] Amendment 1
to Conceptual Amendment 2, which would change Conceptual
Amendment 2 to read as follows:
Page 1, following line 8:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Section 1. AS 14.20.135(a) is amended to read:
(a) A school district or regional educational
attendance area that has or anticipates having a
shortage of teachers qualified to teach in a
particular discipline or specialty may, subject to
AS 14.25.043(f) [BY RESOLUTION], adopt, by resolution,
a policy that permits the employment of retired
teachers who are qualified to teach in the discipline
or specialty in accordance with this section. The
policy must describe the circumstances that constitute
the shortage. If a shortage of teachers exists as
described in the policy, the district or attendance
area shall notify the administrator of the teachers'
retirement system (AS 14.25) that it is hiring retired
teachers under this section.
* Sec. 2. AS 14.25.043 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(f) Notwithstanding (b) and (e) of this section
and AS 14.25.135, an employer that is a school
district or regional educational attendance area may
not allow a member hired to fill a position that
requires recruitment to make the election provided in
(b) or (e) of this section unless
(1) the employer conducted an initial
recruitment for the position for at least 20 days that
resulted in fewer than three qualified, eligible, and
available applicants, including the retired member;
and
(2) the employer then conducted an
additional recruitment for the position and the
additional recruitment resulted in fewer than three
qualified, eligible, and available applicants,
including the retired member; the additional
recruitment period required by this paragraph added to
the initial recruitment period in (1) must total not
fewer than 40 days."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
9:57:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN concluded then that Conceptual Amendment
2, if amended, would afford TRS the same tools as Amendment 1,
as amended, would offer PERS.
9:58:41 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that Conceptual Amendment 1 to Conceptual
Amendment 2 was adopted.
9:59:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON withdrew his objection to Conceptual
Amendment 2, [as amended]. [Representative Gruenberg's
objection was considered withdrawn.] There being no further
objection, Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, was adopted.
9:59:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 3, labeled 26-
GH1035\A.3, Wayne, 3/30/09, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 1, lines 1 - 2:
Delete "chief economist and"
Page 1, lines 2 - 3:
Delete "and certain professional positions
concerning oil and gas within the Department of
Natural Resources"
Page 1, line 9, through page 2, line 7:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 9:
Delete "the chief economist and"
Page 2, line 25:
Delete "secs. 3, 4, 7, and 8"
Insert "secs. 2, 3, 6, and 7"
Page 2, line 26:
Delete "secs. 3, 4, 7, and 8"
Insert "secs. 2, 3, 6, and 7"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the only remaining proposed change
to current law would be to make the state comptroller an exempt
employee. He indicated that this proposed amendment is in
response to the testimony of Mr. Johnson, and he stated his
belief that the state comptroller makes policy, whereas the
other positions do not and should, thus, remain in classified
service.
10:02:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVES JOHNSON, SEATON, and GATTO objected.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he thinks the chief economist is in
a position of recommending policy.
10:02:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said, "I think that in the DNR oil
positions ... they were functioning as a team instead of as a
single, top-down, so I think that those are policy-related
positions."
10:02:46 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg and
Petersen voted in favor of Amendment 3. Representatives
Johnson, Seaton, Wilson, Gatto, and Lynn voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 2-5.
10:03:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 4, labeled 26-
GH1035\A.4, Wayne, 3/30/09, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 18:
Delete "2013"
Insert "2010"
Page 2, line 21:
Delete "2013"
Insert "2010"
Page 2, line 29:
Delete "2013"
Insert "2010"
Page 2, line 31:
Delete "2013"
Insert "2010"
10:03:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected.
10:03:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that making general
exemptions to the policy of the merit-based classified service
for two years rather than four will allow the legislature to
revisit the issue sooner to determine whether the change was
beneficial.
10:04:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted that 2010 is just one year away.
He maintained his objection.
10:05:00 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg and
Petersen voted in favor of Amendment 4. Representatives Seaton,
Wilson, Gatto, Johnson, and Lynn voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 2-5.
The committee took an at-ease from 10:05:37 AM to 10:06:40 AM.
10:06:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG next directed attention to AS
39.35.150(g), which read as follows:
(g) In accordance with this section, a political
subdivision or a public organization that has or
anticipates having a shortage of employees qualified
for particular job classes may, by resolution, adopt a
policy that permits the employment of employees who
retired under AS 39.35.370(a), who have been separated
from employment for at least 30 days, and who are
qualified for particular job classes. The policy
adopted by resolution must describe the circumstances
that constitute the shortage. The policy must require
recruitment procedures similar to the procedure
described in (h) of this section for any position
filled by a retired employee under (f) of this
section. If a shortage of qualified employees exists
as described in the policy, the political subdivision
or the public organization shall notify the
administrator that it is hiring retired members under
(f) of this section and shall provide a copy of the
resolution and policy adopted by the resolution to the
administrator of the public employees' retirement
system (AS 39.35).
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 5, which would
change "30" to "180" in AS 39.35.150(g).
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected.
10:09:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said Amendment 5 would stop the current
practice, in some cases, of "the revolving door," whereby an
employee retires one day and returns very quickly to the same
job, thus "double dipping." He said he believes there should be
a mandatory separation of 180 days. In response to
Representative Johnson, he confirmed that Amendment 5 would
affect PERS, not TRS.
10:10:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed concern that a 180-day waiting
period may prohibit hiring someone needed for the continuation
of the construction of the [gas] pipeline. He stated that he
strongly objects to putting artificial barriers in the way of
hiring the best people possible.
10:11:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 5, and urged the
committee to work on the issue.
10:11:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to report HB 157, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 157(STA) was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:12
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|