Legislature(2005 - 2006)
05/07/2005 07:32 PM Joint 141
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB141 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON SB 141
May 7, 2005
7:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS PRESENT draft
Senator Lyda Green, Chair
Senator Ralph Seekins
Senator Lyda Green, Chair
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Ralph Seekins
Senator Donny Olson
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Harry Crawford
MEMBERS ABSENT
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 141(FIN)
"An Act relating to the teachers' and public employees'
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 141(FIN)
retirement systems and creating defined contribution and
"An Act relating to the teachers' and public employees'
health reimbursement plans for members of the teachers'
retirement systems and creating defined contribution and
retirement system and the public employees' retirement
health reimbursement plans for members of the teachers'
system who are first hired after July 1, 2005; relating to
retirement system and the public employees' retirement
university retirement programs; establishing the Alaska
system who are first hired after July 1, 2005; relating to
Retirement Management Board to replace the Alaska State
university retirement programs; establishing the Alaska
Pension Investment Board, the Alaska Teachers' Retirement
Retirement Management Board to replace the Alaska State
Board, and the Public Employees' Retirement Board; adding
Pension Investment Board, the Alaska Teachers' Retirement
appeals of the decisions of the administrator of the
Board, and the Public Employees' Retirement Board; adding
teachers' and public employees' retirement systems to the
appeals of the decisions of the administrator of the
jurisdiction of the office of administrative hearings;
teachers' and public employees' retirement systems to the
providing for nonvested members of the teachers' retirement
jurisdiction of the office of administrative hearings;
system defined benefit plans to transfer into the teachers'
providing for nonvested members of the teachers' retirement
retirement system defined contribution plan and for
system defined benefit plans to transfer into the teachers'
nonvested members of the public employees' retirement
retirement system defined contribution plan and for
system defined benefit plans to transfer into the public
nonvested members of the public employees' retirement
employees' retirement system defined contribution plan;
system defined benefit plans to transfer into the public
providing for political subdivisions and public
employees' retirement system defined contribution plan;
organizations to request to participate in the public
providing for political subdivisions and public
employees' defined contribution retirement plan; and
organizations to request to participate in the public
providing for an effective date."
employees' defined contribution retirement plan; and
providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE CS FOR CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 141(FIN) am H
"An Act relating to the teachers' and public employees'
HOUSE CS FOR CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 141(FIN) am H
retirement systems and creating defined contribution and
"An Act relating to the teachers' and public employees'
health reimbursement plans for members of the teachers'
retirement systems and creating defined contribution and
retirement system and the public employees' retirement
health reimbursement plans for members of the teachers'
system who are first hired after July 1, 2005; relating to
retirement system and the public employees' retirement
university retirement programs; establishing the Alaska
system who are first hired after July 1, 2005; relating to
Retirement Management Board to replace the Alaska State
university retirement programs; establishing the Alaska
Pension Investment Board, the Alaska Teachers' Retirement
Retirement Management Board to replace the Alaska State
Board, and the Public Employees' Retirement Board; adding
Pension Investment Board, the Alaska Teachers' Retirement
appeals of the decisions of the administrator of the
Board, and the Public Employees' Retirement Board; adding
teachers' and public employees' retirement systems to the
appeals of the decisions of the administrator of the
jurisdiction of the office of administrative hearings;
teachers' and public employees' retirement systems to the
providing for nonvested members of the teachers' retirement
jurisdiction of the office of administrative hearings;
system defined benefit plans to transfer into the teachers'
providing for nonvested members of the teachers' retirement
retirement system defined contribution plan and for
system defined benefit plans to transfer into the teachers'
nonvested members of the public employees' retirement
retirement system defined contribution plan and for
system defined benefit plans to transfer into the public
nonvested members of the public employees' retirement
employees' retirement system defined contribution plan;
system defined benefit plans to transfer into the public
providing for political subdivisions and public
employees' retirement system defined contribution plan;
organizations to request to participate in the public
providing for political subdivisions and public
employees' defined contribution retirement plan; and
organizations to request to participate in the public
providing for an effective date."
employees' defined contribution retirement plan; and
providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 141
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE/TEACHER RETIREMENT/BOARDS
BILL: SB 141
SPONSOR(s): FINANCE
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE/TEACHER RETIREMENT/BOARDS
SPONSOR(s): FINANCE
03/14/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/14/05 (S) FIN
03/14/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/16/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/14/05 (S) FIN
03/16/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/16/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/16/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/16/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/17/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/16/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/17/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/17/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/17/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/17/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/21/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/17/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/21/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/21/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/21/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/21/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/22/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/21/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/22/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/22/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/22/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/22/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/23/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/22/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/23/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/23/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/23/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/23/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/29/05 (S) FIN AT 4:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/23/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/29/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/29/05 (S) FIN AT 4:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/29/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/29/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/30/05 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/29/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/30/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/30/05 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/30/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/30/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/31/05 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/30/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/31/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/31/05 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/31/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/31/05 (S) Heard & Held
04/01/05 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/31/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/01/05 (S) Heard & Held
04/01/05 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/01/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/01/05 (S) Heard & Held
04/02/05 (S) FIN AT 10:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/01/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/02/05 (S) Heard & Held
04/02/05 (S) FIN AT 10:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/02/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/02/05 (S) Heard & Held
04/03/05 (S) FIN AT 10:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/02/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/03/05 (S) Heard & Held
04/03/05 (S) FIN AT 10:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/03/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/03/05 (S) Heard & Held
04/04/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/03/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/04/05 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/04/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/05/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/04/05 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/05/05 (S) Heard & Held
04/05/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/05/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/05/05 (S) Heard & Held
04/06/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/05/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/06/05 (S) Moved CSSB 141(FIN) Out of
04/06/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
Committee
04/06/05 (S) Moved CSSB 141(FIN) Out of
04/06/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
Committee
04/08/05 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 1DNP 1AM
04/06/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
NEW TITLE
04/08/05 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 1DNP 1AM
04/08/05 (S) DP: GREEN, WILKEN, BUNDE, DYSON,
NEW TITLE
STEDMAN
04/08/05 (S) DP: GREEN, WILKEN, BUNDE, DYSON,
04/08/05 (S) DNP: HOFFMAN
STEDMAN
04/08/05 (S) AM: OLSON
04/08/05 (S) DNP: HOFFMAN
04/12/05 (S) ENGROSSED
04/08/05 (S) AM: OLSON
04/14/05 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/12/05 (S) ENGROSSED
04/14/05 (S) VERSION: CSSB 141(FIN)
04/14/05 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/14/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/14/05 (S) VERSION: CSSB 141(FIN)
04/14/05 (H) STA, FIN
04/14/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/14/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/14/05 (H) STA, FIN
04/14/05 (H) <Pending Referral>
04/14/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/16/05 (H) STA AT 9:30 AM CAPITOL 106
04/14/05 (H) <Pending Referral>
04/16/05 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/16/05 (H) STA AT 9:30 AM CAPITOL 106
04/19/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/16/05 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/19/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/19/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/19/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/19/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/20/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/19/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/20/05 (H) Moved HCS CSSB 141(STA) Out of
04/20/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
Committee
04/20/05 (H) Moved HCS CSSB 141(STA) Out of
04/20/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
Committee
04/21/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/20/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/21/05 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/21/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/22/05 (H) STA RPT HCS(STA) 1DP 5NR
04/21/05 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/22/05 (H) DP: SEATON;
04/22/05 (H) STA RPT HCS(STA) 1DP 5NR
04/22/05 (H) NR: LYNN, GATTO, GRUENBERG,
04/22/05 (H) DP: SEATON;
ELKINS, RAMRAS
04/22/05 (H) NR: LYNN, GATTO, GRUENBERG,
04/23/05 (H) FIN AT 10:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
ELKINS, RAMRAS
04/23/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/23/05 (H) FIN AT 10:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/23/05 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
04/23/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/28/05 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/23/05 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
04/28/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/28/05 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/28/05 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
04/28/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/30/05 (H) FIN AT 2:00 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/28/05 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
04/30/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/30/05 (H) FIN AT 2:00 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/30/05 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
04/30/05 (H) Heard & Held
05/01/05 (H) FIN AT 1:00 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/30/05 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
05/01/05 (H) Moved HCS CSSB 141(FIN) Out of
05/01/05 (H) FIN AT 1:00 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
Committee
05/01/05 (H) Moved HCS CSSB 141(FIN) Out of
05/01/05 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
Committee
05/02/05 (H) FIN RPT HCS(FIN) 2DP 5NR 2AM
05/01/05 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
(FORTHCOMING HCS)
05/02/05 (H) FIN RPT HCS(FIN) 2DP 5NR 2AM
05/02/05 (H) DP: KELLY, FOSTER;
(FORTHCOMING HCS)
05/02/05 (H) NR: JOULE, STOLTZE, MOSES, MEYER,
05/02/05 (H) DP: KELLY, FOSTER;
CHENAULT;
05/02/05 (H) NR: JOULE, STOLTZE, MOSES, MEYER,
05/02/05 (H) AM: HAWKER, WEYHRAUCH
CHENAULT;
05/02/05 (H) OBJECTION TO REFERRAL TO RULES
05/02/05 (H) AM: HAWKER, WEYHRAUCH
05/02/05 (H) OBJECTION TO REFERRAL TO RULES
WITHDRAWN
05/02/05 (H) OBJECTION TO REFERRAL TO RULES
05/02/05 (H) RETURNED TO FIN COMMITTEE
WITHDRAWN
05/02/05 (H) FIN RPT HCS(FIN) 3DP 4NR 1AM
05/02/05 (H) RETURNED TO FIN COMMITTEE
(FORTHCOMING HCS)
05/02/05 (H) FIN RPT HCS(FIN) 3DP 4NR 1AM
05/02/05 (H) DP: FOSTER, KELLY, CHENAULT;
(FORTHCOMING HCS)
05/02/05 (H) NR: HOLM, STOLTZE, MOSES, MEYER;
05/02/05 (H) DP: FOSTER, KELLY, CHENAULT;
05/02/05 (H) AM: HAWKER
05/02/05 (H) NR: HOLM, STOLTZE, MOSES, MEYER;
05/02/05 (H) OBJECTION TO FISCAL ANALYSIS WITH
05/02/05 (H) AM: HAWKER
FINANCE RPT
05/02/05 (H) OBJECTION TO FISCAL ANALYSIS WITH
05/02/05 (H) REPLACE FISCAL ANALYSIS FAILED Y15
FINANCE RPT
N25
05/02/05 (H) REPLACE FISCAL ANALYSIS FAILED Y15
05/02/05 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
N25
05/02/05 (H) Moved HCS CSSB 141(FIN) Out of
05/02/05 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
Committee
05/02/05 (H) Moved HCS CSSB 141(FIN) Out of
05/02/05 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
Committee
05/03/05 (H) HCS(FIN) NT RECEIVED
05/02/05 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
05/03/05 (H) MOVED TO BOTTOM OF CALENDAR
05/03/05 (H) HCS(FIN) NT RECEIVED
05/03/05 (H) BEFORE THE HOUSE
05/03/05 (H) MOVED TO BOTTOM OF CALENDAR
05/03/05 (H) MOTION TO DIVIDE AM NO 3 NOT IN
05/03/05 (H) BEFORE THE HOUSE
ORDER
05/03/05 (H) MOTION TO DIVIDE AM NO 3 NOT IN
05/03/05 (H) ADJOURNED TO 5/4
ORDER
05/05/05 (H) BEFORE THE HOUSE
05/03/05 (H) ADJOURNED TO 5/4
05/06/05 (H) ENGROSSED
05/05/05 (H) BEFORE THE HOUSE
05/07/05 (H) VERSION: HCS CSSB 141(FIN) AM H
05/06/05 (H) ENGROSSED
05/07/05 (S) CONCURRENCE MESSAGE READ
05/07/05 (H) VERSION: HCS CSSB 141(FIN) AM H
05/07/05 (S) CONFERENCE COMMITTEE APPOINTED
05/07/05 (S) CONCURRENCE MESSAGE READ
05/07/05 (S) GREEN (CHAIR), SEEKINS, OLSON
05/07/05 (S) CONFERENCE COMMITTEE APPOINTED
05/07/05 (H) RECEDE MESSAGE
05/07/05 (S) GREEN (CHAIR), SEEKINS, OLSON
05/07/05 (H) CONFERENCE COMMITTEE APPOINTED
05/07/05 (H) RECEDE MESSAGE
05/07/05 (H) SEATON, WEYHRAUCH, CRAWFORD
05/07/05 (H) CONFERENCE COMMITTEE APPOINTED
05/07/05 (H) SEATON, WEYHRAUCH, CRAWFORD
WITNESS REGISTER
ACTION NARRATIVE
No witnesses
SB 141-PUBLIC EMPLOYEE/TEACHER RETIREMENT/BOARDS
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR LYDA GREEN called the Conference Committee on SB 141
SB 141-PUBLIC EMPLOYEE/TEACHER RETIREMENT/BOARDS
meeting to order at 7:32:12 PM. All members were present.
CHAIR GREEN said she hoped to get through the points of
CHAIR LYDA GREEN called the Conference Committee on SB 141
agreement and disagreement and report back to the House and
meeting to order at 7:32:12 PM. All members were present.
Senate.
CHAIR GREEN said she hoped to get through the points of
agreement and disagreement and report back to the House and
SENATOR SEEKINS moved that the Senate request the House
Senate.
recede from its amendments to CSSB 141(FIN).
SENATOR SEEKINS moved that the Senate request the House
An unidentified member objected.
recede from its amendments to CSSB 141(FIN).
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton,
An unidentified member objected.
Crawford, and Weyhrauch and Senator Olson were opposed and
Senators Green and Seekins were in favor, therefore the
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton,
motion failed.
Crawford, and Weyhrauch and Senator Olson were opposed and
Senators Green and Seekins were in favor, therefore the
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH moved that the Senate concur with
motion failed.
the changes contained in HCS CSSB 141(FIN)am H.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH moved that the Senate concur with
CHAIR GREEN objected.
the changes contained in HCS CSSB 141(FIN)am H.
A roll call vote was taken. Senator Olson and
CHAIR GREEN objected.
Representatives Weyhrauch, Crawford and Seaton were in
favor and Senators Seekins and Green were opposed.
A roll call vote was taken. Senator Olson and
Representatives Weyhrauch, Crawford and Seaton were in
CHAIR GREEN announced the motion failed, requiring two
favor and Senators Seekins and Green were opposed.
affirmative votes from each house. She then informed
members that several bill comparisons had been distributed;
CHAIR GREEN announced the motion failed, requiring two
the comparison done by her staff is the most recent and
affirmative votes from each house. She then informed
contains the provisions of the bill with no substantial
members that several bill comparisons had been distributed;
differences. Senate members are willing to accept the House
the comparison done by her staff is the most recent and
language on those provisions at this time.
contains the provisions of the bill with no substantial
differences. Senate members are willing to accept the House
7:34:17 PM
language on those provisions at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that in the rush to get
7:34:17 PM
things done, in the House comparison the Senate and House
provisions are reversed so that the provisions under the
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that in the rush to get
Senate column are the House provisions and vice versa.
things done, in the House comparison the Senate and House
provisions are reversed so that the provisions under the
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH noted Senate Finance Committee
Senate column are the House provisions and vice versa.
staff prepared the document referred to by Chair Green;
Representative Seaton provided a comparison; and the third
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH noted Senate Finance Committee
double-sided document explains all elements of the bill.
staff prepared the document referred to by Chair Green;
Representative Seaton provided a comparison; and the third
CHAIR GREEN affirmed that members would work from the
double-sided document explains all elements of the bill.
Senate Finance Committee document, which has numbered
columns.
CHAIR GREEN affirmed that members would work from the
Senate Finance Committee document, which has numbered
7:37:31 PM
columns.
CHAIR GREEN began reviewing the comparison and directed
7:37:31 PM
members to line 7, employee contribution rates, and said
the Senate is agreeable to the House plan.
CHAIR GREEN began reviewing the comparison and directed
members to line 7, employee contribution rates, and said
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH asked if column d contains the
the Senate is agreeable to the House plan.
provisions in the House bill while column b contains the
provisions in the Senate bill as received by the House.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH asked if column d contains the
provisions in the House bill while column b contains the
CHAIR GREEN clarified that column b contains the provisions
provisions in the Senate bill as received by the House.
in the bill passed by the Senate while column d contains
the provisions of the bill passed by the House. She
CHAIR GREEN clarified that column b contains the provisions
repeated that in column d, line 7, the employee
in the bill passed by the Senate while column d contains
contribution will remain unchanged.
the provisions of the bill passed by the House. She
repeated that in column d, line 7, the employee
7:41:26 PM
contribution will remain unchanged.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if the Senate plan was a floating
7:41:26 PM
plan while the House plan was a fixed plan.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if the Senate plan was a floating
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained the Senate plan contains an
plan while the House plan was a fixed plan.
escalator for the employee, which increases the
contribution by .5 percent per year until the amount equals
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained the Senate plan contains an
the employer contribution. He noted that questions of the
escalator for the employee, which increases the
legality of that method were raised.
contribution by .5 percent per year until the amount equals
the employer contribution. He noted that questions of the
CHAIR GREEN referred to line 9, column d, and said the 5
legality of that method were raised.
percent to the DC account as listed in the House plan is
acceptable to the Senate.
CHAIR GREEN referred to line 9, column d, and said the 5
percent to the DC account as listed in the House plan is
CHAIR GREEN directed members to page 2, line 24, and said
acceptable to the Senate.
the House gave the board the additional duty of assisting
the retirement system administrator in prescribing policies
CHAIR GREEN directed members to page 2, line 24, and said
for the operation of the retirement system. The Senate is
the House gave the board the additional duty of assisting
agreeable to that directive.
the retirement system administrator in prescribing policies
for the operation of the retirement system. The Senate is
CHAIR GREEN moved to the language on line 25, which speaks
agreeable to that directive.
to the $400 honorarium plus per diem, and said the Senate
finds that to be acceptable.
CHAIR GREEN moved to the language on line 25, which speaks
to the $400 honorarium plus per diem, and said the Senate
SENATOR SEEKINS commented that the intent of that provision
finds that to be acceptable.
is to mirror the per diem paid to the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation board of trustees.
SENATOR SEEKINS commented that the intent of that provision
is to mirror the per diem paid to the Alaska Permanent Fund
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is correct, as well as the
Corporation board of trustees.
directors of the board of the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is correct, as well as the
directors of the board of the Alaska Housing Finance
7:41:52 PM
Corporation.
CHAIR GREEN said the Senate is agreeable to the provision
7:41:52 PM
on page 3, line 27, to change the fund ratio to 105
percent.
CHAIR GREEN said the Senate is agreeable to the provision
on page 3, line 27, to change the fund ratio to 105
CHAIR GREEN referred to the provision on page 3, line 29,
percent.
which closes a loophole, and said the Senate is agreeable.
CHAIR GREEN referred to the provision on page 3, line 29,
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if it applies to minor dependents
which closes a loophole, and said the Senate is agreeable.
only.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if it applies to minor dependents
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that it applies to
only.
dependents with no relationship to the retiree before he or
she died.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that it applies to
dependents with no relationship to the retiree before he or
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if any age limits apply to dependents
she died.
or if the benefit is dependent on IRS status.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if any age limits apply to dependents
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON believed the definition of
or if the benefit is dependent on IRS status.
"dependent" is from the existing retirement system so no
changes would occur.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON believed the definition of
"dependent" is from the existing retirement system so no
CHAIR GREEN stated, "They're already dependent adults that
changes would occur.
might be covered, as well as certainly your children that
you would have custody of."
CHAIR GREEN stated, "They're already dependent adults that
might be covered, as well as certainly your children that
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said his understanding is that if the
you would have custody of."
retiree dies and the spouse later adopts or has a
dependent, the new dependent would not be covered.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said his understanding is that if the
retiree dies and the spouse later adopts or has a
7:44:09 PM
dependent, the new dependent would not be covered.
CHAIR GREEN moved to line 32 and said the House removed
7:44:09 PM
language regarding forfeiting all rights under this
chapter, which the Senate is agreeable to. She noted that
CHAIR GREEN moved to line 32 and said the House removed
language is in existing law so nothing will change.
language regarding forfeiting all rights under this
chapter, which the Senate is agreeable to. She noted that
CHAIR GREEN explained that the language on page 4, line 36,
language is in existing law so nothing will change.
pertains to conditional retroactivity, which the Senate
finds acceptable.
CHAIR GREEN explained that the language on page 4, line 36,
pertains to conditional retroactivity, which the Senate
7:44:48 PM
finds acceptable.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH asked about line 3 above line 36.
7:44:48 PM
CHAIR GREEN said the number 3 was erroneously implanted on
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH asked about line 3 above line 36.
every page and asked members to ignore it.
CHAIR GREEN said the number 3 was erroneously implanted on
7:46:13 PM
every page and asked members to ignore it.
CHAIR GREEN announced a 10-minute break.
7:46:13 PM
8:03:47 PM
CHAIR GREEN announced a 10-minute break.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON informed members the House would
8:03:47 PM
accept the Senate schedule on page 1, line 13, but in
several places in the Senate version, such as on page 93,
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON informed members the House would
lines 4 and 5, the bill refers to age 65 instead of
accept the Senate schedule on page 1, line 13, but in
Medicare eligible. House members are agreeable as long as
several places in the Senate version, such as on page 93,
the understanding is that the correct term is "Medicare
lines 4 and 5, the bill refers to age 65 instead of
eligible" and that term is used.
Medicare eligible. House members are agreeable as long as
the understanding is that the correct term is "Medicare
CHAIR GREEN stated that "Medicare eligible" would be used
eligible" and that term is used.
throughout the bill.
CHAIR GREEN stated that "Medicare eligible" would be used
SENATOR SEEKINS pointed out the conference committee cannot
throughout the bill.
amend the bill.
SENATOR SEEKINS pointed out the conference committee cannot
8:04:33 PM
amend the bill.
CHAIR GREEN announced an at-ease.
8:04:33 PM
8:05:44 PM
CHAIR GREEN announced an at-ease.
CHAIR GREEN informed members [the conference committee can
8:05:44 PM
request] that a technical correction be made to the bill by
the legal drafter to make that language consistent.
CHAIR GREEN informed members [the conference committee can
request] that a technical correction be made to the bill by
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the language on line 28
the legal drafter to make that language consistent.
and said the problem is the retroactivity to 1987. He said
the House has no problem making that change prospectively
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the language on line 28
but it cannot agree to diminish accrued benefits.
and said the problem is the retroactivity to 1987. He said
the House has no problem making that change prospectively
CHAIR GREEN said that provision would be left open for
but it cannot agree to diminish accrued benefits.
further discussion at a later date.
CHAIR GREEN said that provision would be left open for
8:07:26 PM
further discussion at a later date.
CHAIR GREEN informed members that by accepting the language
8:07:26 PM
on page 1, line 9, the reference on line 5 would also be
accepted.
CHAIR GREEN informed members that by accepting the language
on page 1, line 9, the reference on line 5 would also be
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is correct.
accepted.
CHAIR GREEN explained that one is 5 percent; the other is 8
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is correct.
percent so the total would be 13 percent. She then said the
Senate would also agree to accept line 5.
CHAIR GREEN explained that one is 5 percent; the other is 8
percent so the total would be 13 percent. She then said the
8:09:03 PM
Senate would also agree to accept line 5.
SENATOR SEEKINS commented that in looking at the totals in
8:09:03 PM
section 13, line 9, the numbers on line 5 include the 5
percent number to equal the 13 percent. He said his
SENATOR SEEKINS commented that in looking at the totals in
understanding of line 9 is that the 4.5 and 2.0 differ from
section 13, line 9, the numbers on line 5 include the 5
the House version, which establishes a 2.5-fixed rate. He
percent number to equal the 13 percent. He said his
asked if the 1.75 in the Senate version is a calculated
understanding of line 9 is that the 4.5 and 2.0 differ from
number rather than a fixed number.
the House version, which establishes a 2.5-fixed rate. He
asked if the 1.75 in the Senate version is a calculated
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out the $250 on the House
number rather than a fixed number.
side is also a calculated number.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out the $250 on the House
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if that number stays the same forever
side is also a calculated number.
in the House version or whether it is actuarially
calculated for a date certain.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if that number stays the same forever
in the House version or whether it is actuarially
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied $250 is the current actuarial
calculated for a date certain.
calculation but the House version requires that medical
benefits be enough to satisfy the medical cost. Therefore,
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied $250 is the current actuarial
the $250 would be actuarially calculated each year to
calculation but the House version requires that medical
prevent building up an unfunded liability.
benefits be enough to satisfy the medical cost. Therefore,
the $250 would be actuarially calculated each year to
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if the number is fixed in statute.
prevent building up an unfunded liability.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred members to line 29 on page
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if the number is fixed in statute.
86 of HCS CSSB 141(FIN)am H, subsection (d).
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred members to line 29 on page
8:11:56 PM
86 of HCS CSSB 141(FIN)am H, subsection (d).
CHAIR GREEN said her understanding is that in the Senate
8:11:56 PM
version, the 1.75 percent is from the Mercer calculation.
She assumed it to be a calculable rate each year.
CHAIR GREEN said her understanding is that in the Senate
version, the 1.75 percent is from the Mercer calculation.
SENATOR SEEKINS thought it was a fixed rate and said he
She assumed it to be a calculable rate each year.
couldn't see where it becomes calculable in the future. He
affirmed he was speaking to the 2.5 percent amount for the
SENATOR SEEKINS thought it was a fixed rate and said he
medical [rate].
couldn't see where it becomes calculable in the future. He
affirmed he was speaking to the 2.5 percent amount for the
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said it is 2 percent by
medical [rate].
legislative fiat.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said it is 2 percent by
SENATOR SEEKINS agreed the number will remain the same
legislative fiat.
until changed by the legislature.
SENATOR SEEKINS agreed the number will remain the same
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH thought that was the purpose of
until changed by the legislature.
requiring advice and consent and reports to the legislature
in other portions of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH thought that was the purpose of
requiring advice and consent and reports to the legislature
CHAIR GREEN recalled a conversation about reaching a
in other portions of the bill.
balance between the contribution rates for employees and
retirement health benefits. She pointed out the 1.75 is in
CHAIR GREEN recalled a conversation about reaching a
statute as well.
balance between the contribution rates for employees and
retirement health benefits. She pointed out the 1.75 is in
8:14:22 PM
statute as well.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if the language beginning on page 51,
8:14:22 PM
lines 7-14, of the House bill add a requirement for AMRB to
annually evaluate the employer rate for medical insurance
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if the language beginning on page 51,
sufficient to cover projected costs.
lines 7-14, of the House bill add a requirement for AMRB to
annually evaluate the employer rate for medical insurance
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that was the intent.
sufficient to cover projected costs.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he would object to just setting a
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that was the intent.
number in statute.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he would object to just setting a
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said House members would too.
number in statute.
CHAIR GREEN suggested leaving that question for the next
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said House members would too.
conference committee to address.
CHAIR GREEN suggested leaving that question for the next
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON added there are a couple of errors in
conference committee to address.
both accounts. Although those errors were discussed on the
House floor, they were not changed because a death and
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON added there are a couple of errors in
disability part was added on the House side, which adds up
both accounts. Although those errors were discussed on the
to 3/10 of a percent and the actuarial calculation was
House floor, they were not changed because a death and
supposed to be there. He said Mercer calculated the 1.75
disability part was added on the House side, which adds up
rate based on requiring people to retire directly from the
to 3/10 of a percent and the actuarial calculation was
system as it was on the House side and made a mistake
supposed to be there. He said Mercer calculated the 1.75
because not retiring from the system increases the cost
rate based on requiring people to retire directly from the
quite a bit.
system as it was on the House side and made a mistake
because not retiring from the system increases the cost
SENATOR SEEKINS agreed that 175 basis points increase the
quite a bit.
cost quite a bit and he is not willing to fix that [number]
in statute.
SENATOR SEEKINS agreed that 175 basis points increase the
cost quite a bit and he is not willing to fix that [number]
CHAIR GREEN said she would leave that open for the free
in statute.
conference committee.
CHAIR GREEN said she would leave that open for the free
8:16:46 PM
conference committee.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said the health reimbursement
8:16:46 PM
provision should also be left open because the differences
need to be determined.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said the health reimbursement
provision should also be left open because the differences
CHAIR GREEN said someone had asked if a person resigned
need to be determined.
rather than retired, that person would have access to the
health reimbursement account.
CHAIR GREEN said someone had asked if a person resigned
rather than retired, that person would have access to the
8:20:42 PM
health reimbursement account.
CHAIR GREEN announced an at-ease.
8:20:42 PM
8:23:02 PM
CHAIR GREEN announced an at-ease.
CHAIR GREEN announced she would leave the last question
8:23:02 PM
open for the next conference committee to address.
CHAIR GREEN announced she would leave the last question
SENATOR SEEKINS proposed highlighting the specific points
open for the next conference committee to address.
the committee does not agree on by page number and
paragraph using the matrix.
SENATOR SEEKINS proposed highlighting the specific points
the committee does not agree on by page number and
CHAIR GREEN expressed skepticism about making it through
paragraph using the matrix.
100 pages.
CHAIR GREEN expressed skepticism about making it through
SENATOR SEEKINS said he wanted to look at each referenced
100 pages.
page.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he wanted to look at each referenced
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to line 8 on the matrix.
page.
SENATOR SEEKINS clarified that would be pages 73-74,
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to line 8 on the matrix.
sections 7-8 of the House version and pages 71-72, sections
95 and 96 in the Senate version.
SENATOR SEEKINS clarified that would be pages 73-74,
sections 7-8 of the House version and pages 71-72, sections
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained line 8 sets a floor for
95 and 96 in the Senate version.
PERS and TRS contributions to prevent another shortfall
from occurring, like the one that occurred after the PERS
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained line 8 sets a floor for
contribution was lowered to 6.75 percent. It will smooth
PERS and TRS contributions to prevent another shortfall
out the long-range contributions to the system so the state
from occurring, like the one that occurred after the PERS
does not generate past service costs. TRS did keep a floor
contribution was lowered to 6.75 percent. It will smooth
at 11 percent so the contribution never went down but PERS
out the long-range contributions to the system so the state
brought its normal cost rates down to 6.75 a couple of
does not generate past service costs. TRS did keep a floor
years ago. He thought that earlier, the committee accepted
at 11 percent so the contribution never went down but PERS
the elimination of the employee contribution - the 50
brought its normal cost rates down to 6.75 a couple of
percent match with the .5 percent escalator on line 7,
years ago. He thought that earlier, the committee accepted
which corresponds to line 8 in the Senate bill. He said the
the elimination of the employee contribution - the 50
Senate version says 50 percent of the normal cost rate.
percent match with the .5 percent escalator on line 7,
Line 7 said the employee rate would increase .5 percent
which corresponds to line 8 in the Senate bill. He said the
each year until the two matched. Since the Senate agreed to
Senate version says 50 percent of the normal cost rate.
eliminate that language, it also eliminated the employer 50
Line 7 said the employee rate would increase .5 percent
percent match. He questioned whether the Senate would
each year until the two matched. Since the Senate agreed to
accept the floor on employer contributions in the House
eliminate that language, it also eliminated the employer 50
version.
percent match. He questioned whether the Senate would
accept the floor on employer contributions in the House
8:26:53 PM
version.
CHAIR GREEN said she thought the [Senate] was trying to
8:26:53 PM
craft the language to assure there would be participation
at the normal service rate. She suggested leaving that
CHAIR GREEN said she thought the [Senate] was trying to
provision open for future discussion.
craft the language to assure there would be participation
at the normal service rate. She suggested leaving that
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is fine. He said when
provision open for future discussion.
looked at carefully, one can see that lines 7 and 8 are
tied together. He explained that because the Senate agreed
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is fine. He said when
to remove the escalator from the employee rate up to 50
looked at carefully, one can see that lines 7 and 8 are
percent, the reference to the employer paying up to 50
tied together. He explained that because the Senate agreed
percent does not make sense.
to remove the escalator from the employee rate up to 50
percent, the reference to the employer paying up to 50
CHAIR GREEN repeated she would leave that open.
percent does not make sense.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if the House and Senate are not in
CHAIR GREEN repeated she would leave that open.
agreement on line 5.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if the House and Senate are not in
CHAIR GREEN said they are.
agreement on line 5.
SENATOR SEEKINS said the House and Senate agree on line 7
CHAIR GREEN said they are.
but they are not in agreement on lines 8 and 9. He asked,
regarding line 11, why the House views its version to be
SENATOR SEEKINS said the House and Senate agree on line 7
more advantageous.
but they are not in agreement on lines 8 and 9. He asked,
regarding line 11, why the House views its version to be
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained the requirement for medical
more advantageous.
benefits is 10 years of service. If employees are not
required to retire directly from the system with 30 years
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained the requirement for medical
of service at any age or at age 60 with at least 10 years,
benefits is 10 years of service. If employees are not
a person could work from age 22 to 32, leave the state, and
required to retire directly from the system with 30 years
have medical benefits provided by the state at age 60. When
of service at any age or at age 60 with at least 10 years,
Mercer calculated the Senate's number, it assumed the
a person could work from age 22 to 32, leave the state, and
employee would retire directly from the system.
have medical benefits provided by the state at age 60. When
Mercer calculated the Senate's number, it assumed the
8:30:44 PM
employee would retire directly from the system.
CHAIR GREEN asked if a person who worked 30 years and
8:30:44 PM
resigned would be required to come back and work to retire.
CHAIR GREEN asked if a person who worked 30 years and
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said absolutely not. He said retiring
resigned would be required to come back and work to retire.
directly from the system is defined as 30 years of service
or more than 10 years and reaching age 60.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said absolutely not. He said retiring
directly from the system is defined as 30 years of service
CHAIR GREEN said she would leave that provision open.
or more than 10 years and reaching age 60.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked for an explanation of the items on
CHAIR GREEN said she would leave that provision open.
line 12.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked for an explanation of the items on
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained the House version has a
line 12.
pre-Medicare eligible medical coverage provision built in
so if a person is within 5 years of being pre-Medicare
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained the House version has a
eligible, s/he can get a subsidy on medical premiums so
pre-Medicare eligible medical coverage provision built in
that s/he could retire at age 60. The premium subsidy would
so if a person is within 5 years of being pre-Medicare
be based on the number of years served beginning at 30
eligible, s/he can get a subsidy on medical premiums so
percent for 10 years of service with an increase of 3
that s/he could retire at age 60. The premium subsidy would
percent per year up to 30 years, at which point the subsidy
be based on the number of years served beginning at 30
would be 90 percent. The subsidy of the premium has some
percent for 10 years of service with an increase of 3
cost containment built in. The start year - this year - is
percent per year up to 30 years, at which point the subsidy
$7,900; the maximum escalation is 5 percent per year.
would be 90 percent. The subsidy of the premium has some
Therefore, if health care costs increase 12 percent per
cost containment built in. The start year - this year - is
year, 7 percent would be excluded from the calculation.
$7,900; the maximum escalation is 5 percent per year.
This benefit was built in because employees said medical
Therefore, if health care costs increase 12 percent per
benefits are highly prized.
year, 7 percent would be excluded from the calculation.
This benefit was built in because employees said medical
8:34:32 PM
benefits are highly prized.
CHAIR GREEN asked about the increased cost to the employer.
8:34:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said it would increase costs by 1
CHAIR GREEN asked about the increased cost to the employer.
percent for each pre-Medicare eligible employee.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said it would increase costs by 1
CHAIR GREEN said she would leave that provision open for
percent for each pre-Medicare eligible employee.
later discussion.
CHAIR GREEN said she would leave that provision open for
SENATOR SEEKINS said the House and Senate are not in
later discussion.
agreement on line 13. He then asked, regarding line 14,
what the normal retirement age is.
SENATOR SEEKINS said the House and Senate are not in
agreement on line 13. He then asked, regarding line 14,
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said normal retirement age is 60
what the normal retirement age is.
months pre-Medicare, meaning 60 years old.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said normal retirement age is 60
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if, in the House version, retirement
months pre-Medicare, meaning 60 years old.
begins 5 years earlier than the Senate version.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if, in the House version, retirement
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is correct. He explained
begins 5 years earlier than the Senate version.
that a person with 30 years of service who is not 60 would
have to pay the full premium.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is correct. He explained
that a person with 30 years of service who is not 60 would
CHAIR GREEN asked if that provision merely provides access.
have to pay the full premium.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is correct.
CHAIR GREEN asked if that provision merely provides access.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is the same as the Senate
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is correct.
version. The difference between the two is the House
version has a 60 months pre-Medicare eligible component
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is the same as the Senate
whereas the Senate version has no medical benefits before
version. The difference between the two is the House
Medicare eligible age or 65.
version has a 60 months pre-Medicare eligible component
whereas the Senate version has no medical benefits before
CHAIR GREEN asked for an explanation of the age range in
Medicare eligible age or 65.
the House version.
CHAIR GREEN asked for an explanation of the age range in
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the service range in the two
the House version.
versions is identical - 30 years or 10 years and reaching
the age of 60. He then said, "...It's actually 10 years and
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the service range in the two
60 months pre-Medicare eligible. The reason that pre-
versions is identical - 30 years or 10 years and reaching
Medicare eligible is so important is because the federal
the age of 60. He then said, "...It's actually 10 years and
government might come around in a few years and change
60 months pre-Medicare eligible. The reason that pre-
Medicare eligible to 67 and we at the state don't want to
Medicare eligible is so important is because the federal
be stuck with paying 100 percent of medical costs between
government might come around in a few years and change
65 and 67 if they raise the age limit by two years."
Medicare eligible to 67 and we at the state don't want to
be stuck with paying 100 percent of medical costs between
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if this would establish a floating
65 and 67 if they raise the age limit by two years."
rate that duplicates exactly what the Senate version would
do in terms of age and eligibility now.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if this would establish a floating
rate that duplicates exactly what the Senate version would
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the House version provides for a
do in terms of age and eligibility now.
60 months pre-Medicare eligible subsidy for insurance
premiums while the Senate version does not provide anything
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the House version provides for a
pre-Medicare eligible.
60 months pre-Medicare eligible subsidy for insurance
premiums while the Senate version does not provide anything
CHAIR GREEN noted the House version provides an extra five
pre-Medicare eligible.
years of assistance.
CHAIR GREEN noted the House version provides an extra five
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is correct.
years of assistance.
CHAIR GREEN said she would leave that provision open, as
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is correct.
well as lines 15 and 16 as she is waiting for more figures
on that provision.
CHAIR GREEN said she would leave that provision open, as
well as lines 15 and 16 as she is waiting for more figures
SENATOR SEEKINS said the difference between the House and
on that provision.
Senate versions in the health reimbursement arrangement
[line 17] is the 50 basis points in the House version. The
SENATOR SEEKINS said the difference between the House and
House wants to give retirees more money than the Senate
Senate versions in the health reimbursement arrangement
does.
[line 17] is the 50 basis points in the House version. The
House wants to give retirees more money than the Senate
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is correct.
does.
CHAIR GREEN said some concern was expressed that the House
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is correct.
provision was "too rich" so she would leave that open.
CHAIR GREEN said some concern was expressed that the House
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH asked if line 17 relates to line 9
provision was "too rich" so she would leave that open.
on page 1.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH asked if line 17 relates to line 9
CHAIR GREEN said it does and that a deeper discussion on
on page 1.
the balance between all of those contributions needs to
occur because one causes one to go down and another to go
CHAIR GREEN said it does and that a deeper discussion on
up. The right balance needs to be found so that the
the balance between all of those contributions needs to
employer is not over contributing and she believes there is
occur because one causes one to go down and another to go
room for change. She repeated she would leave that open for
up. The right balance needs to be found so that the
the free conference committee.
employer is not over contributing and she believes there is
room for change. She repeated she would leave that open for
CHAIR GREEN then said she and Senator Seekins are very
the free conference committee.
concerned with line 19.
CHAIR GREEN then said she and Senator Seekins are very
SENATOR SEEKINS said his concern is that someone could
concerned with line 19.
leave voluntarily and come back and get full benefits plus
interest.
SENATOR SEEKINS said his concern is that someone could
leave voluntarily and come back and get full benefits plus
CHAIR GREEN said that literally means someone could be kept
interest.
on the books for infinity and she believes the benefit is
designed to prepare employees, not to keep them on the
CHAIR GREEN said that literally means someone could be kept
books for 60 years. She said she would leave that open for
on the books for infinity and she believes the benefit is
future discussion.
designed to prepare employees, not to keep them on the
books for 60 years. She said she would leave that open for
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the whole design of this plan is
future discussion.
a defined contribution. He continued, "And we have two
components of defined contribution here. One is to the
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the whole design of this plan is
retirement plan where we're doing a percentage into there
a defined contribution. He continued, "And we have two
and the other defined contribution portion is the HRA where
components of defined contribution here. One is to the
we take a certain amount of money and put it in your
retirement plan where we're doing a percentage into there
individual account that you have and you have to own and it
and the other defined contribution portion is the HRA where
becomes portable, it becomes usable. So this is a defined
we take a certain amount of money and put it in your
contribution section of the medical plan."
individual account that you have and you have to own and it
becomes portable, it becomes usable. So this is a defined
CHAIR GREEN said the HRA is not portable, as she
contribution section of the medical plan."
understands it.
CHAIR GREEN said the HRA is not portable, as she
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said it is portable in the sense that
understands it.
it is the employee's specific account that the employee is
free to use for any medical expenses. It is a defined
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said it is portable in the sense that
contribution, not a defined benefit. If it were a defined
it is the employee's specific account that the employee is
benefit, it would say the employer would pay so much of the
free to use for any medical expenses. It is a defined
medical costs. This says the state will contribute 2.5
contribution, not a defined benefit. If it were a defined
percent of the average wage of every PERS/TRS employee for
benefit, it would say the employer would pay so much of the
individual use. He pointed out the employee would not own
medical costs. This says the state will contribute 2.5
it until s/he met the 10 year vesting requirement.
percent of the average wage of every PERS/TRS employee for
individual use. He pointed out the employee would not own
8:43:30 PM
it until s/he met the 10 year vesting requirement.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if he is sure ownership is attached
8:43:30 PM
or whether the account is there for the employee's benefit
if he continues to be an employee and retires normally.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if he is sure ownership is attached
or whether the account is there for the employee's benefit
8:44:27 PM
if he continues to be an employee and retires normally.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied, "You can look at it however
8:44:27 PM
you want but if the idea of a DC plan is to make a
contribution into an account that is accounted for - you,
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied, "You can look at it however
individually - not for the group but you individually have
you want but if the idea of a DC plan is to make a
this benefit - that's what the DC plan is and that's what
contribution into an account that is accounted for - you,
this is. Now it takes 10 years to vest in it just like you
individually - not for the group but you individually have
have 5 years to vest in the other account."
this benefit - that's what the DC plan is and that's what
this is. Now it takes 10 years to vest in it just like you
SENATOR SEEKINS said he can see no reason why, if someone
have 5 years to vest in the other account."
voluntarily separates, the state should maintain that
contribution and let it accrue interest in case that person
SENATOR SEEKINS said he can see no reason why, if someone
decides to come back 20 years later. He questioned why the
voluntarily separates, the state should maintain that
state should do that if "it doesn't exist in the real
contribution and let it accrue interest in case that person
world?"
decides to come back 20 years later. He questioned why the
state should do that if "it doesn't exist in the real
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said it does exist in the real
world?"
world because, "When your employer contributes something to
you for your benefit, it becomes a property interest."
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said it does exist in the real
world because, "When your employer contributes something to
SENATOR OLSON asked if the employee contributes to a DC
you for your benefit, it becomes a property interest."
plan.
SENATOR OLSON asked if the employee contributes to a DC
CHAIR GREEN clarified the employee does not contribute to
plan.
the HRA portion.
CHAIR GREEN clarified the employee does not contribute to
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed but said the employer
the HRA portion.
contributes to an account for each specific employee. The
employee must submit medical invoices for reimbursement
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed but said the employer
from that account. He said the purpose of a DC plan is to
contributes to an account for each specific employee. The
attract employees.
employee must submit medical invoices for reimbursement
from that account. He said the purpose of a DC plan is to
SENATOR SEEKINS asked to leave this provision open for
attract employees.
further negotiation because he believes the only way this
money will become the employee's money is if the employee
SENATOR SEEKINS asked to leave this provision open for
returns to state employment.
further negotiation because he believes the only way this
money will become the employee's money is if the employee
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is incorrect because it
returns to state employment.
belongs to the employee if s/he vests in 10 years.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is incorrect because it
SENATOR SEEKINS read, "can return to participating employer
belongs to the employee if s/he vests in 10 years.
without time limitation and have account balance restored
with interest."
SENATOR SEEKINS read, "can return to participating employer
without time limitation and have account balance restored
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is correct and explained
with interest."
that if Senator Seekins worked for 10 years, vested, left
state service for 5 years and returned, his account would
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is correct and explained
still be there. It is an incentive to employees to return.
that if Senator Seekins worked for 10 years, vested, left
state service for 5 years and returned, his account would
SENATOR SEEKINS said in the real world, if you leave, you
still be there. It is an incentive to employees to return.
leave it behind therefore he disagrees with that provision.
SENATOR SEEKINS said in the real world, if you leave, you
CHAIR GREEN said that is one of the characteristics of the
leave it behind therefore he disagrees with that provision.
current plan that has caused the state to be in the
position it is in.
CHAIR GREEN said that is one of the characteristics of the
current plan that has caused the state to be in the
CHAIR GREEN moved to the next issue: board members.
position it is in.
8:47:17 PM
CHAIR GREEN moved to the next issue: board members.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked why only one person on the board is
8:47:17 PM
not a PERS/TRS member.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked why only one person on the board is
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the board is comprised of four
not a PERS/TRS member.
employer representatives and four employee representatives.
The commissioners of revenue and administration, and
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the board is comprised of four
finance officers of a municipality and a school district
employer representatives and four employee representatives.
would represent employers, while two members of the PERS
The commissioners of revenue and administration, and
employee system and two members of the TRS employee system
finance officers of a municipality and a school district
would represent employees.
would represent employers, while two members of the PERS
employee system and two members of the TRS employee system
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if the commissioners and finance
would represent employees.
officers are PERS members.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if the commissioners and finance
CHAIR GREEN said they are.
officers are PERS members.
SENATOR SEEKINS noted the PERS and TRS members also
CHAIR GREEN said they are.
participate in the program so only one board member does
not. He felt that balance is out of line.
SENATOR SEEKINS noted the PERS and TRS members also
participate in the program so only one board member does
8:48:56 PM
not. He felt that balance is out of line.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he is a member of the
8:48:56 PM
ironworkers' pension plan. That board consists of 3 members
from the employers' group and 3 members of the employees'
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he is a member of the
group. Although they have disparate goals at times, all are
ironworkers' pension plan. That board consists of 3 members
covered by the same plan. He thought the House composition
from the employers' group and 3 members of the employees'
is much fairer than the Senate composition.
group. Although they have disparate goals at times, all are
covered by the same plan. He thought the House composition
SENATOR SEEKINS said he sees the two commissioners and two
is much fairer than the Senate composition.
finance officers as employees of the state. He asked if
something goes wrong with the ironworkers' [retirement
SENATOR SEEKINS said he sees the two commissioners and two
plan], the general public would be asked to make up the
finance officers as employees of the state. He asked if
deficit as would happen with PERS and TRS. He said the
something goes wrong with the ironworkers' [retirement
person who is not a beneficiary of PERS and TRS should be
plan], the general public would be asked to make up the
part of the balance of this committee.
deficit as would happen with PERS and TRS. He said the
person who is not a beneficiary of PERS and TRS should be
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH asked if the ratio under the
part of the balance of this committee.
Senate version was 6 PERS/TRS members to 3 non-PERS/TRS
members versus the 8 PERS/TRS members to 1 non-PERS/TRS
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH asked if the ratio under the
member in the House version.
Senate version was 6 PERS/TRS members to 3 non-PERS/TRS
members versus the 8 PERS/TRS members to 1 non-PERS/TRS
SENATOR SEEKINS said that is correct. He likened the House
member in the House version.
composition to allowing the fox to watch over the hen
house. Someone who is qualified and not a beneficiary of
SENATOR SEEKINS said that is correct. He likened the House
the PERS/TRS system should be on the board.
composition to allowing the fox to watch over the hen
house. Someone who is qualified and not a beneficiary of
CHAIR GREEN told members the Senate used the Permanent Fund
the PERS/TRS system should be on the board.
board as a model. It was looking for highly trained
investors. She added the Senate sees this board as a very
CHAIR GREEN told members the Senate used the Permanent Fund
hard working board and supports the honorarium for that
board as a model. It was looking for highly trained
reason. She said she prefers to have 3 unconnected people
investors. She added the Senate sees this board as a very
on the board.
hard working board and supports the honorarium for that
reason. She said she prefers to have 3 unconnected people
SENATOR SEEKINS said he is not accusing anyone of being
on the board.
less than honorable; he just feels the board should be more
balanced.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he is not accusing anyone of being
less than honorable; he just feels the board should be more
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied the commissioners would not
balanced.
be representing their individual membership in PERS and
TRS, but rather the State of Alaska. He clarified that in a
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied the commissioners would not
House Finance version, the PERS/TRS members were to be
be representing their individual membership in PERS and
elected, which put them outside of the required criteria
TRS, but rather the State of Alaska. He clarified that in a
for other board members. In the final House version, all
House Finance version, the PERS/TRS members were to be
members must meet the same criteria.
elected, which put them outside of the required criteria
for other board members. In the final House version, all
8:54:49 PM
members must meet the same criteria.
SENATOR OLSON said in his businesses, when negotiating with
8:54:49 PM
employees, he and his managers are in the same retirement
program as his employees but his managers represent his
SENATOR OLSON said in his businesses, when negotiating with
side. He said he tends to favor the House composition and
employees, he and his managers are in the same retirement
questioned how many Permanent Fund board members are not
program as his employees but his managers represent his
permanent fund dividend recipients.
side. He said he tends to favor the House composition and
questioned how many Permanent Fund board members are not
SENATOR SEEKINS said every resident receives an equal
permanent fund dividend recipients.
permanent fund dividend but not every resident gets
retirement benefits from the state. He noted he is in the
SENATOR SEEKINS said every resident receives an equal
process of creating a bright line in the ethics law that
permanent fund dividend but not every resident gets
says if a public officer has an investment worth $10,000 or
retirement benefits from the state. He noted he is in the
more and that officer's action could benefit that
process of creating a bright line in the ethics law that
investment, the officer must put that investment in an
says if a public officer has an investment worth $10,000 or
account that s/he has no management control over. He said
more and that officer's action could benefit that
because the State of Alaska has an interest in the success
investment, the officer must put that investment in an
of this program, it should have more than one member who is
account that s/he has no management control over. He said
not a beneficiary of the system.
because the State of Alaska has an interest in the success
of this program, it should have more than one member who is
CHAIR GREEN announced that issue would remain open.
not a beneficiary of the system.
Regarding line 22, board terms, SENATOR SEEKINS said his
CHAIR GREEN announced that issue would remain open.
understanding is that the structure of the board in the
Senate version is modeled after the Permanent Fund board.
Regarding line 22, board terms, SENATOR SEEKINS said his
As a former chair of that board, the only thing he found he
understanding is that the structure of the board in the
did not like was that every board member was a political
Senate version is modeled after the Permanent Fund board.
appointee who sat at the will of the governor. The
As a former chair of that board, the only thing he found he
legislature changed that last year so that now members are
did not like was that every board member was a political
appointed to staggered terms and they can only be removed
appointee who sat at the will of the governor. The
for cause. He said three-year terms provide a chance to
legislature changed that last year so that now members are
evaluate members' service. He sees no reason to change.
appointed to staggered terms and they can only be removed
for cause. He said three-year terms provide a chance to
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the House went with a 6-year
evaluate members' service. He sees no reason to change.
term because 3-year terms with a 9 member board means that
a single term governor would replace the entire board. The
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the House went with a 6-year
6-year term would allow for some staggering so that doesn't
term because 3-year terms with a 9 member board means that
happen.
a single term governor would replace the entire board. The
6-year term would allow for some staggering so that doesn't
CHAIR GREEN said the differences between the House and
happen.
Senate board terms leave a lot of room for modifications so
she would leave that open.
CHAIR GREEN said the differences between the House and
Senate board terms leave a lot of room for modifications so
CHAIR GREEN referred to line 23, board duties, and said she
she would leave that open.
would leave that open.
CHAIR GREEN referred to line 23, board duties, and said she
SENATOR SEEKINS asked for the rationale of line 23.
would leave that open.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said one big problem of past service
SENATOR SEEKINS asked for the rationale of line 23.
costs was not recognizing the changes to medical costs. The
House thought the medical component should be analyzed each
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said one big problem of past service
year to make sure the state doesn't get behind on projected
costs was not recognizing the changes to medical costs. The
medical benefits.
House thought the medical component should be analyzed each
year to make sure the state doesn't get behind on projected
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH indicated the medical benefits
medical benefits.
have always been projected to be the largest component of
the financial impact and most subject to change.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH indicated the medical benefits
have always been projected to be the largest component of
CHAIR GREEN thought that was included as an assumption but
the financial impact and most subject to change.
she would check.
CHAIR GREEN thought that was included as an assumption but
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the other assumptions are made
she would check.
every four years.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the other assumptions are made
CHAIR GREEN thought another review kicks in on alternate
every four years.
years as well.
CHAIR GREEN thought another review kicks in on alternate
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH indicated that everyone was in
years as well.
agreement about line 27.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH indicated that everyone was in
CHAIR GREEN said the committee agreed to leave line 28 open
agreement about line 27.
and it agreed upon line 29.
CHAIR GREEN said the committee agreed to leave line 28 open
9:00:55 PM
and it agreed upon line 29.
CHAIR GREEN said regarding line 30, the University of
9:00:55 PM
Alaska (UA) requested this language. The UA prefers the
Senate language because it was part of a complete package
CHAIR GREEN said regarding line 30, the University of
it brought to the Senate. The current language provides a
Alaska (UA) requested this language. The UA prefers the
one-time option for current employees who choose to
Senate language because it was part of a complete package
participate in PERS/TRS to transfer into the existing
it brought to the Senate. The current language provides a
optional retirement program. She said she was not sure she
one-time option for current employees who choose to
wanted to revise the UA's optional retirement program.
participate in PERS/TRS to transfer into the existing
optional retirement program. She said she was not sure she
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained the House did that for two
wanted to revise the UA's optional retirement program.
reasons. First, a lot of people move into the University
system and then into school districts or boroughs. This
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained the House did that for two
would give UA blue-collar workers a different plan from
reasons. First, a lot of people move into the University
professors that would not be transferable. He cautioned if
system and then into school districts or boroughs. This
the UA has a separate system that is done by the Board of
would give UA blue-collar workers a different plan from
Regents, it would no longer conform with PERS so blue
professors that would not be transferable. He cautioned if
collar workers could not transfer from a municipality to
the UA has a separate system that is done by the Board of
the UA. For that reason, the House left the optional
Regents, it would no longer conform with PERS so blue
program intact but all other employees would be in the
collar workers could not transfer from a municipality to
defined contribution PERS program established here.
the UA. For that reason, the House left the optional
program intact but all other employees would be in the
CHAIR GREEN asked if new employees could choose a defined
defined contribution PERS program established here.
benefits program or defined contribution program.
CHAIR GREEN asked if new employees could choose a defined
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained the employee would either
benefits program or defined contribution program.
have the SB 141 defined contribution plan or the UA's
optional plan, which is a defined contribution plan as
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained the employee would either
well. That would allow blue-collar workers to go from one
have the SB 141 defined contribution plan or the UA's
PERS job to another.
optional plan, which is a defined contribution plan as
well. That would allow blue-collar workers to go from one
CHAIR GREEN asked if UA talked about forecasting
PERS job to another.
difficulties arising from the difference.
CHAIR GREEN asked if UA talked about forecasting
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said he did not recall any such
difficulties arising from the difference.
testimony in the House Finance Committee. He said UA does
that now with its professorial and administrative staff
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said he did not recall any such
because it can offer the defined contribution plan.
testimony in the House Finance Committee. He said UA does
that now with its professorial and administrative staff
9:04:39 PM
because it can offer the defined contribution plan.
SENATOR OLSON said it was his understanding that UA wanted
9:04:39 PM
a hybrid plan and asked whether Representative Seaton is
saying that will be denied.
SENATOR OLSON said it was his understanding that UA wanted
a hybrid plan and asked whether Representative Seaton is
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied the UA testified that it
saying that will be denied.
wanted to go to a defined contribution plan for everyone,
although there would be different levels of it. The House
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied the UA testified that it
version says the defined contribution plan that applies to
wanted to go to a defined contribution plan for everyone,
most everyone will be the same as the state's defined
although there would be different levels of it. The House
contribution plan and UA will have the ability to offer an
version says the defined contribution plan that applies to
optional plan. He affirmed there was no hybrid plan.
most everyone will be the same as the state's defined
contribution plan and UA will have the ability to offer an
CHAIR GREEN noted both bodies have agreed on line 32.
optional plan. He affirmed there was no hybrid plan.
9:05:56 PM
CHAIR GREEN noted both bodies have agreed on line 32.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked for an explanation of line 33.
9:05:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated, "What that is, it's not only
SENATOR SEEKINS asked for an explanation of line 33.
AVTechs, it's also Department of Labor has welding
instructors out - I think it's in Bethel and you know
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated, "What that is, it's not only
wherever they have instructors that they hire that are
AVTechs, it's also Department of Labor has welding
teachers that are in TRS system, this means they would
instructors out - I think it's in Bethel and you know
continue in the TRS system instead of stopping the TRS
wherever they have instructors that they hire that are
system and having to be in PERS because then if they had
teachers that are in TRS system, this means they would
qualified in one they would be basically having two state
continue in the TRS system instead of stopping the TRS
retirement programs. So this means that if they are a
system and having to be in PERS because then if they had
member of TRS when they go in as an instructor in the
qualified in one they would be basically having two state
Department of Labor, they will stay in the TRS system
retirement programs. So this means that if they are a
because there are slight differences. But if they're not,
member of TRS when they go in as an instructor in the
they're in the PERS system."
Department of Labor, they will stay in the TRS system
because there are slight differences. But if they're not,
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if Representative Seaton's
they're in the PERS system."
understanding is that people in the AVTech programs would
stay there forever or that they don't want to go back to
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if Representative Seaton's
being a blue-collar worker.
understanding is that people in the AVTech programs would
stay there forever or that they don't want to go back to
9:07:02 PM
being a blue-collar worker.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said he heard testimony about how
9:07:02 PM
a welder who works for the city in a village might be asked
to be a welding instructor. This would allow the welder to
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said he heard testimony about how
do that without getting into a separate retirement system.
a welder who works for the city in a village might be asked
It is designed to pick up on the skilled labor in those
to be a welding instructor. This would allow the welder to
areas.
do that without getting into a separate retirement system.
It is designed to pick up on the skilled labor in those
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is not quite what this
areas.
does. He explained that blue-collar workers who come to the
Department of Labor to teach welding would be in PERS. This
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is not quite what this
would apply to people like high school teachers who are
does. He explained that blue-collar workers who come to the
already in TRS who are brought to the Department of Labor
Department of Labor to teach welding would be in PERS. This
to teach - they would then change to PERS. Those people
would apply to people like high school teachers who are
would remain in TRS but anyone who is not already in TRS
already in TRS who are brought to the Department of Labor
would be in PERS.
to teach - they would then change to PERS. Those people
would remain in TRS but anyone who is not already in TRS
CHAIR GREEN asked how many people this would apply to.
would be in PERS.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said maybe 10 to 12 people in Seward
CHAIR GREEN asked how many people this would apply to.
and some in Kotzebue. He provided the history of the
problem.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said maybe 10 to 12 people in Seward
and some in Kotzebue. He provided the history of the
CHAIR GREEN asked if those employees preferred to be in TRS
problem.
because the benefits are better.
CHAIR GREEN asked if those employees preferred to be in TRS
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the workers who were in TRS
because the benefits are better.
before would have to cancel out and change over to PERS. If
they were vested in TRS, they would have that retirement
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the workers who were in TRS
system and would be forced to pick up the new PERS.
before would have to cancel out and change over to PERS. If
they were vested in TRS, they would have that retirement
CHAIR GREEN said she would leave line 33 open.
system and would be forced to pick up the new PERS.
CHAIR GREEN said she does not believe the contents of line
CHAIR GREEN said she would leave line 33 open.
34 should be placed in statute. She said the board has
instructions and goals already and that the cost savings
CHAIR GREEN said she does not believe the contents of line
measures are an administrative function. She said line 34
34 should be placed in statute. She said the board has
would be left open.
instructions and goals already and that the cost savings
measures are an administrative function. She said line 34
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON mentioned the House State Affairs
would be left open.
Committee included it as intent language but Legislative
Legal Services and the House Finance Committee [preferred
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON mentioned the House State Affairs
that it be put in the bill instead].
Committee included it as intent language but Legislative
Legal Services and the House Finance Committee [preferred
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that line 35 grew out of
that it be put in the bill instead].
the retirement and benefits board's attempt to up generic
drug use. That use has increased from 37 to 42 percent,
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that line 35 grew out of
saving an estimated $1 million for each 1 percent change.
the retirement and benefits board's attempt to up generic
Generic drugs are not required now so line 35 requires the
drug use. That use has increased from 37 to 42 percent,
cost savings measures be implemented and mandatory. That
saving an estimated $1 million for each 1 percent change.
change is estimated to save $6.5 million per year.
Generic drugs are not required now so line 35 requires the
cost savings measures be implemented and mandatory. That
CHAIR GREEN announced the House and Senate agree upon line
change is estimated to save $6.5 million per year.
36 and that she would leave lines 37 and 38 open.
CHAIR GREEN announced the House and Senate agree upon line
CHAIR GREEN then asked members to sign the report so that
36 and that she would leave lines 37 and 38 open.
it can be taken to members' respective bodies tomorrow, at
which time free conference committee members will be
CHAIR GREEN then asked members to sign the report so that
appointed.
it can be taken to members' respective bodies tomorrow, at
which time free conference committee members will be
9:13:47 PM
appointed.
SENATOR SEEKINS moved to return a letter to the Senate
9:13:47 PM
President and House Speaker that states that the conference
committee on SB 141 met on May 7, 2005 and that Senate
SENATOR SEEKINS moved to return a letter to the Senate
members failed to concur with the changes to HCS CSSB
President and House Speaker that states that the conference
141(FIN)am H, that the House members failed to recede from
committee on SB 141 met on May 7, 2005 and that Senate
their changes to CSSB 141(FIN) and that the conference
members failed to concur with the changes to HCS CSSB
committee considered the attached sections and did not come
141(FIN)am H, that the House members failed to recede from
to agreement. The conference committee respectfully
their changes to CSSB 141(FIN) and that the conference
requests limited powers of free conference.
committee considered the attached sections and did not come
to agreement. The conference committee respectfully
CHAIR GREEN announced that with no objections, the motion
requests limited powers of free conference.
carried.
CHAIR GREEN announced that with no objections, the motion
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the conference committee
carried.
should specify the areas for limited free conference.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the conference committee
CHAIR GREEN said the committee will sign the report when it
should specify the areas for limited free conference.
meets at 1:45 p.m. tomorrow. She then adjourned the meeting
at 9:18:50 PM.
CHAIR GREEN said the committee will sign the report when it
meets at 1:45 p.m. tomorrow. She then adjourned the meeting
at 9:18:50 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|