Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/01/2004 03:35 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 1, 2004
3:35 p.m.
TAPE (S) 04-25
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gary Stevens, Chair
Senator John Cowdery, Vice Chair
Senator Bert Stedman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Gretchen Guess
Senator Lyman Hoffman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 231
"An Act shortening the time periods after which certain
unclaimed property is presumed to be abandoned; and providing
for an effective date."
MOVED CSSB 231(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 91(FIN)
"An Act relating to medical benefits for retired peace officers
after 20 years of credited service."
MOVED SCS CSHB 91(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 354
"An Act relating to complaints filed with, and investigations,
hearings, and orders of, the State Commission for Human Rights;
making conforming amendments; and providing for an effective
date."
MOVED CSSB 354(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 30
Urging the United States Congress to amend the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001.
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 231
SHORT TITLE: DECREASE TIME TO CLAIM UNCLAIMED PROPERTY
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
05/21/03 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/21/03 (S) STA, FIN
04/01/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: HB 91
SHORT TITLE: RETIRED PEACE OFFICER'S MEDICAL BENEFITS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) ANDERSON
02/12/03 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/12/03 (H) L&C, FIN
02/21/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/21/03 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/21/03 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/24/03 (H) L&C RPT 4DP 1NR
02/24/03 (H) DP: GATTO, CRAWFORD, GUTTENBERG,
02/24/03 (H) ANDERSON; NR: ROKEBERG
03/18/03 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/18/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/03 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/17/04 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/17/04 (H) Heard & Held
02/17/04 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/19/04 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/19/04 (H) Moved CSHB 91(FIN) Out of Committee
02/19/04 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/23/04 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 3DP 7NR
02/23/04 (H) DP: CROFT, FATE, WILLIAMS; NR: MEYER,
02/23/04 (H) HAWKER, JOULE, MOSES, CHENAULT, FOSTER,
02/23/04 (H) HARRIS
03/04/04 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/04/04 (H) VERSION: CSHB 91(FIN)
03/05/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/05/04 (S) STA, L&C, FIN
03/18/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/18/04 (S) Heard & Held
03/18/04 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/01/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: SB 354
SHORT TITLE: HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION PROCEDURES
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/27/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/27/04 (S) STA, JUD
03/23/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/23/04 (S) Heard & Held
03/23/04 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/01/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
WITNESS REGISTER
Betty Martin, Comptroller
Department of Revenue
Treasury Division
PO Box 110400
Juneau, AK 99811-0400
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 231
Rachel Lewis
Department of Revenue
Treasury Division
Unclaimed Property Section
PO Box 110400
Juneau, AK 99811-0400
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 231
Melanie Millhorn, Director
Department of Administration
Division of Retirement and Benefits
PO Box 110200
Juneau, AK 99811-0200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 91(TRA)
Anselm Staack, Chief Financial Officer
Department of Administration
Division of Retirement and Benefits
PO Box 110200
Juneau, AK 99811-0200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 91(TRA)
Larry Semmens
City of Kenai
210 Fidalgo Ave., St.200
Kenai, AK 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSHB 91(TRA)
Julie Benson
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 91(TRA)
Kevin Richie, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League
217 2nd Street Suite 200
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 91(TRA)
Scott Nordstrand
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 354
Paula Haley, Executive Director
Office of the Governor
Human Rights Commission
800 A Street, Suite 204
Anchorage, AK 99501-3669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 354
Lisa Fitzpatrick
Office of the Governor
Human Rights Commission
800 A Street, Suite 204
Anchorage, AK 99501-3669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 354
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-25, SIDE A
CHAIR GARY STEVENS called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. Present were Senators
Cowdery, Stedman and Chair Gary Stevens.
SB 231-DECREASE TIME TO CLAIM UNCLAIMED PROPERTY
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced SB 231 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR JOHN COWDERY motioned to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for SB 231 for discussion purposes. It was identified as
work draft dated 12/5/03. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
BETTY MARTIN, State Comptroller with the Department of Revenue,
introduced herself and Rachel Lewis. She explained that the bill
was introduced late in the previous session and dealt only with
increasing the dormancy claims on unclaimed property. Over the
interim, the Department of Revenue and the Department of Law
worked to bring Alaska's unclaimed property law into conformance
with the Unclaimed Property Uniform Act passed in 1995 and the
CS is the result of that effort.
SENATOR JOHN COWDERY asked what kind of property they were
talking about.
RACHEL LEWIS with the Unclaimed Property Section of the
Department of Revenue explained that it has to do with any kind
of intangible money such as payroll checks, utility deposits, or
health insurance reimbursements that have been sent to someone
and remain un-cashed for a certain dormancy period. The only
tangible property they receive are safe deposit boxes.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if they wanted to reduce the dormancy
period from five years to three years.
MS. LEWIS said reducing the dormancy period would make it easier
to find people, but actually they're just requesting various
property reductions that are in line with the Uniform Unclaimed
Property Act.
SENATOR COWDERY noted that most checks he's seen have a 180 day
limit before they become stale dated and he wondered how they
were addressing those.
MS. LEWIS explained that just because there is an expiration
date doesn't cause them to be eliminated from unclaimed
property. State of Alaska and government items are usually good
for one year while Alaska warrants are now good for six months
before they are listed as unclaimed property.
SENATOR COWDERY asked whether there are expenses associated with
unclaimed property that they try to recover.
MS. LEWIS said no. Unclaimed property is held in perpetuity for
the owner and the information is a matter of public record.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked about opposition to the bill.
MS. LEWIS said they haven't heard any opposition because
everyone benefits.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted that Mary Ellen Beardsley from the
Attorney General's Office was online to answer questions.
SENATOR BERT STEDMAN asked how long unclaimed property is held
before it's reabsorbed.
MS. LEWIS told him it's never absorbed. Prior to 1986, Alaska
had an estate law that had a seven years claim period, but that
is no longer the case. The committee substitute makes it clear
that the request is to reduce the reporting period; there is no
request to reduce the period for claiming unclaimed property.
Property may be claimed by subsequent generations if that's how
long it takes before the owner is identified.
She advised that most of the requested changes are all in line
with the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, but three are not.
Section 5 is a new type of unclaimed property called
demutualization. This has to do with mutual companies deciding
they wanted to enhance their financial security by turning
policyholders into stockholders. Because of this, they don't
have records on the policyholders because the accounts may be
several decades old. Section 5 calls for those proceeds and that
stock to be reportable as unclaimed property at the time the
policyholder is known to be lost.
Alaska is the only state that has the provision addressed in
Section 10, which is that unclaimed property reports for
diminutive amounts are not required. Businesses may hold small
amounts of unclaimed property until the aggregate total reaches
$750 at which time an unclaimed property report is due. This
reduces needless paperwork.
Turning to Section 13 she informed members that the Department
of Revenue must publish annually the name of every person that
has unclaimed property of more than $100. Last year the
publishing cost for that was $30,000 and they received just 348
claims. They already list all the names on the Internet, which
cost almost nothing and that listing generated 1,800 claims.
It's more cost efficient for the department to reach people over
the Internet, she said.
Section 15 streamlines the meaning of "last known address" and
Section 16 deals with gift certificates. As per the Uniform Act,
they are changing the reporting period to three years instead of
five, but they are expanding the definition of gift certificates
to include electronic gift cards as well.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced that he intended to move the bill
from committee, but there wasn't a quorum. The bill would move
as soon as a quorum was reestablished.
3:50 p.m.
CSHB 91(TRA)-RETIRED PEACE OFFICER'S MEDICAL BENEFITS
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced CSHB 91(TRA) to be up for
consideration. He noted that it was heard previously.
SENATOR BERT STEDMAN said he would move the State Affairs
committee substitute when a quorum was reestablished and asked
whether discussion could take place in the meantime.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS agreed and asked Senator Stedman whether it
was correct that the CS calls for the initial costs to be
absorbed by the State rather than the local municipalities.
SENATOR STEDMAN said that is true.
MELANIE MILLHORN, Director of the Division of Retirement and
Benefits, introduced herself and Mr. Staack who was involved in
the preparation of the draft fiscal note. It calls for the State
to pay for the cost to PERS employers and also addresses some
concerns raised by municipalities regarding the first fiscal
note. The projections look at a percentage of individuals who
would benefit from the legislation and indicates that 25 percent
of those employees who positively benefit would make that
election. Therefore the municipalities were concerned because
they believe that more of their employees would make that
selection. Because of this, MERCER Human Resource Consulting
provided the revised calculations. The following, from page 2 of
the draft fiscal note shows how a higher retirement rate
assumption would affect the unfunded liability and the
corresponding employer rates.
Alternate Assumptions:
% % of % of P/F Increase in
Members Total Payroll Unfunded
Affected Payroll Liability
(in Dollars)
Current Assumption 21% 0.11% 0.97% $8,000,000
50% Retirement 40 % 0.19% 1.68% $11,400,000
75% Retirement 60% 0.27% 2.39% $14,800,000
100% Retirement 79% 0.35% 3.11% $18,200,000
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked whether the figures included state as
well as municipal employees.
MS. MILLHORN told him it includes state and all other PERS
employers who would benefit from HB 91.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked her to explain the difference between the
$856,000 on the original fiscal note and the accrued liability.
ANSELM STAACK, Chief Financial Officer for the Division of
Retirement and Benefits, explained that when the bill passes it
places new benefits in place. The current assumption includes
everyone expected to take advantage of the change and projects
an immediate $8 million unfunded liability. Those are the
employees that would be the most expensive because they are
under 50 years of age, have close to 20 years employment and
would probably terminate within the year.
The previous fiscal note used only the State of Alaska figures
and the draft fiscal note shows the total cost for the State of
Alaska and all subdivisions. The $8 million is amortized over 25
years and for FY 2005 the total would be $1.7 million.
SENATOR STEDMAN noted that the draft fiscal note shows that the
unfunded liability would range from $8 million to $18.2 million
depending on how many people exercise the early retirement
benefit to capture the cost of health insurance.
MR. STAACK agreed and added that you'd never see 100 percent
participation in the police and fire population because some
won't have enough years of employment before they reach 60 years
of age.
SENATOR STEDMAN suggested ignoring the fiscal impact for a
moment and asked for a comment on the fairness issue.
MS. MILLHORN replied the tier system is the result of
legislative action and each tier provides different benefits.
MR. STAACK added that establishing new tiers was purposeful to
reduce costs and maintain funding of the system. He acknowledged
that the fairness and fiscal issues do collide.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted that a quorum was present and he was
ready for a motion.
SENATOR STEDMAN motioned to adopt committee substitute (CS)
version \S as the working document. There being no objection, it
was so ordered.
SENATOR JOHN COWDERY questioned whether PERS and TRS were under
funded.
MS. MILLHORN advised that the June 30, 2003 actuarial valuation
information indicates a percentage point loss. For PERS the
funding ratio was at 75 percent and now it's at 72 percent. The
TRS funding ratio was at 68 percent and now it's at 64 percent.
The recent valuation sets the employer contribution rates for FY
2006. Based on the current funding status for PERS and TRS, the
division has requested that legislation be held in abeyance
because this proposal is an enhancement to an under-funded
system.
SENATOR COWDERY asked whether the system still has tiers.
MS. MILLHORN informed him that PERS has Tiers I, II, and III.
Tier I was for a 25 year period. Tier II was created in 1986 and
Tier III was created in 1996. TRS has two Tiers.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if state and municipal employees were
affected.
MS. MILLHORN said that the fiscal note for the version \S CS,
represents the cost to the State of Alaska and to the
approximately 156 other PERS employers.
SENATOR COWDERY asked whether they were looking to the
communities or the State to pay.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS explained that House version called for the
State to pay its portion and the communities their portion.
Version \S CS would make the entire amount a State
responsibility.
LARRY SIMMONS from Kenai testified via teleconference in
opposition to CSHB 91 for fiscal reasons. It's clear that more
than 21 percent of eligible members would retire if they were to
receive health benefits, he said.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted that the committee had copies of both
his and MERCER's letters before them.
MR. SIMMONS continued to say that the 79 percent assumption is
the most realistic among the options presented. For the City of
Kenai, the percent and cost would be higher yet because they
don't have any members who will be over 60 years old when they
have 20 years service. If 79 percent were to retire, that would
more than triple the percent of police/fire payroll. If the 79
percent assumption is the realistic option, the State's fiscal
impact will be $2.75 million for FY 2005 rather than $856.9.
That number will grow to $3.2 million per year by FY 2010.
He calculated that if 79 percent choose to retire in FY 2005 the
total would be $5.5 million rather than the projected $1.7
million. That would grow to $6.4 million in FY 2010. The cost to
the City of Kenai would be $85,000 per year. There is already a
5 percent increase in PERS rates for FY 2005 and when combined
with the $85,000, you're at more than three fourths of a mill
property tax. It's unlikely that property taxes can be raised
for that purpose, he said.
Remember, he said, the Tier II and III PERS members that could
benefit from this legislation were aware of the retirement
package when they were hired. "It's simply not appropriate or
prudent to increase retirement benefits at this time of fiscal
difficulty at nearly every level of government," he concluded.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS summarized his testimony then asked what his
thoughts are regarding the State assuming the cost.
MR. SIMMONS admitted it would reduce costs to the City of Kenai.
However, the bill isn't needed and the State of Alaska is in no
position to pay $5.5 million per year for additional health
benefits for a select group of PERS members, he opined.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Ms. Millhorn and Mr. Staack to comment.
MR. STAACK pointed out that if the 79 percent assumption were
taken then the current assumption percentages would triple. He
calculated that using the 79 percent assumption the total to the
State of Alaska would be $2.6 million in FY 2005.
He added that in 2001 the Legislature enhanced part of the
benefit so that it became system paid.
JULIE BENSON testified via teleconference from Ketchikan in
support of HB 91.
KEVIN RICHIE, Alaska Municipal League, distributed a two page
hand out to show what a 5 percent increase in the PERS system
would cost municipalities in terms of both dollars and mill rate
increases. He advised that his figures were based on 2003
figures so they might be off slightly, but the financial impact
to the various municipalities would be huge.
4:35 p.m.
TAPE 04-25, SIDE B
CHAIR GARY STEVENS summarized the testimony and asked for a
motion.
SENATOR STEDMAN made a motion to report SCS CSHB 91(STA) from
committee with the attached fiscal notes and individual
recommendations. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
SB 231-DECREASE TIME TO CLAIM UNCLAIMED PROPERTY
CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted there was a new fiscal note on CSSB
231(STA) then asked for a motion.
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion to report CSSB 231(STA) from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
SB 354-HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION PROCEDURES
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced SB 354 to be up for consideration
and noted that the bill was heard previously.
SCOTT NORDSTRAND, Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law (DOL), recapped previous testimony and the
concerns expressed by the Human Rights Commission about some of
the provisions of the bill.
He stated that it's important for the State to talk about the
procedures that are used before the Human Rights Commission.
With that in mind, he said he would walk members through the
process so they would understand what the bill does in terms of
the process.
If someone feels that they've been discriminated against they
may file a complaint with the commission. The commission
investigates the complaint and ultimately produces a finding of
whether or not there was substantial evidence of discrimination.
If substantial evidence is found, the next step is conciliation.
This is a mediation process in which the commission tries to use
a professional to bring the two parties together to work for a
solution. If that is unsuccessful, a failure of conciliation
occurs and the commission director would prepare an accusation.
That is like a complaint in a lawsuit. Discovery would follow
and an attorney would be assigned who would represent the
director in advocating on behalf of the person who may have been
discriminated against. The employer often times hires a lawyer
and the case goes forward in much the same way that a lawsuit
would. Ultimately there would be a hearing before a hearing
officer. The changes are procedural, but they're important to
the participants, he said.
In the 1995 Fish and Game v Meyer case the Alaska Supreme Court
was second-guessing how much evidence constitutes substantial
evidence. They concluded that the evidence had to be "completely
lacking in merit," which is a very low threshold.
MR. NORDSTRAND said that tied the commissions' hands because
they couldn't exercise good judgment in terms of which cases to
take to judgment. If they have to take every case forward, no
matter how small the evidence, the burden is enormous and the
system is backlogged. This bill, he said, gives the executive
director the discretion to dismiss a claim for very specific
reasons. The Human Rights Commission is supportive of that, he
assured members.
Next, he said, there is a procedural aspect to the bill that is
particularly important to employers. If a complaint is filed
against an employer, they might spend thousands of dollars on an
attorney simply to respond to the complaint. Currently the
system doesn't allow motions for summary judgment before the
commission and this bill sets up a system to allow that.
Sometimes, after the accusation stage the claims or charges
change. Under the current system, the commission may amend the
complaint and add the other charge. However, in the amendment
process the substantial evidence requirement is bypassed. In
this bill, he said, if you add a substantively new claim you
must go back and make sure there is a finding of new evidence
before it can be added to the accusation.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if there is a method for the employer to
recover attorney fees.
MR. NORDSTRAND said there is a statutory provision about the
commission awarding attorney fees, but it is seldom done. He
explained that it's the director's representative in the form of
a human rights advocate - a state attorney presenting the case
and the employer has a defending attorney. If attorney fees were
awarded to an employer, they would have to come from the
commission or the State. He wasn't aware of a case where that
happened.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if his office and the Human Rights
Commission had come to agreement on most of the issues raised
previously.
MR. NORDSTRAND replied there were three disputed issues. The
commission wanted to change language on how you define whether
you have reasonably mitigated your damages. The commission
wanted to use "reasonably diligent" and the DOL wanted
"reasonable and diligent." DOL conceded the difference.
The second disagreement was how to amend the complaint and under
what standard. DOL proposed that you couldn't amend the
complaint without "good cause." The commission prefers that you
amend "reasonably and fairly." DOL conceded that difference as
well.
Still in dispute is the front pay issue. DOL proposes to limit
front pay to two years because those are speculative damages.
Frankly, he said, there is no agreement on that issue and it's
up to the Legislature to decide whether or not that's good
policy. The administration's position is that two years is a
fair remedy. In conclusion he said the commission's remedial
powers are not all encompassing. As it stands, the commission
cannot order punitive damages or emotional distress damages as
you could if the case were taken to court. "All we're saying is
one other limitation. If you go to the system where the State
provides the lawyer, provides the process and the employer has
no hope of recovering any attorney fees even if they win, let's
limit it to two years."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked where "reasonable and diligent" is
addressed.
MR. NORDSTRAND pointed out that it's in Section 6 at the bottom
of page 4.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Paula Haley or Lisa Fitzpatrick whether
they agreed with the change.
LISA FITZPATRICK, Human Rights Commission, said she agreed on
the first issue.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for an amendment to reflect the change.
SENATOR COWDERY motioned to amend SB 354 on page 4, line 31
deleting the words "reasonable and diligent" and inserting
"reasonably diligent." There being no objection amendment 1
passed.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked where the second issue was located in
the bill.
MR. NORDSTRAND said that relates to the standards for amending a
complaint found on page 3, line 27. Delete "showing of good
cause" and insert "reasonably and fairly" between "be" and
"amended" in the same sentence.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for a motion.
SENATOR COWDERY motioned to adopt amendment 2 on page 3, line
27. Delete the first sentence in Section 5 (c) and insert, "An
accusation may be reasonably and fairly amended by the
commission." There being no objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for the location of the third issue,
which was related to the two year front pay issue.
MR. NORDSTRAND said that is on page 4, line 23.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Ms. Fitzpatrick to comment.
MS. FITZPATRICK advised that the Human Rights Commission has
discussed the issue and has voted against putting a limitation
on the number of years or the amount of time that front pay may
be awarded. Front pay is an infrequently used but valuable
remedy that hasn't presented a problem, she said.
She agreed with Mr. Nordstrand that it is inherently somewhat
speculative, but nationally the courts recognize it as a remedy
that is available to litigants in civil rights cases. Even there
it is rarely invoked, but it needs to be available.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS recapped the commission's position.
SENATOR COWDERY opined that two years is too much and he would
support an amendment for one year.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Nordstrand to comment.
MR. NORDSTRAND stated that three of the seven commissioners
supported the two year limitation. "I don't think this is out of
the mainstream in terms of a result," he said. He pointed out
that if there were a particularly egregious case, the employee
could go the courts to recover more. These are commission
remedies and all other remedies would be available in court.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS summarized that the Human Rights Commission
prefers no limit to front pay and the Department of Law suggests
a two year limit and Senator Cowdery believes a one year limit
is sufficient.
SENATOR STEDMAN said he wouldn't object to an amendment from
Senator Cowdery.
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion to adopt amendment 3 on page 4,
line 23 deleting "two years" and inserting "one year" to address
the front pay issue. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if there were any further issues to
address.
MS. FITZPATRICK stated that the commission wasn't in full
agreement with part of Section 4 relating to administrative
dismissal for certain enumerated reasons. On page 3, line 7 they
suggest inserting "timely" before "initiating" or deleting all
of line 7. As written the option to go forward in another forum
is misleading to the layperson because there are time
constraints on actions.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Mr. Nordstrand to respond.
MR. NORDSTRAND expressed the concern that placing a warning in
statute would create a statutory inner-connection that wouldn't
work very well. This doesn't mean that the commission couldn't
or shouldn't warn people of this in their process, he said,
because they should let it be known that there is a statute of
limitations.
SENATOR COWDERY remarked that he didn't like the fact that the
employer isn't able to recovery expenses even if they win. Even
if you win you lose, he said. He asked if there was a remedy for
that.
MR. NORDSTRAND said there is a provision in AS 18.80.130 (e) for
that. He read: "The commission may order payment of reasonable
expenses, including reasonable attorney fees to any private
party before the commission when the commission, in its
discretion, determines the allowance is appropriate." That's
honored by the exception more than the rule, he said, and it's
unlikely that there is much impetus for the commission to award
attorney fees against itself for losing the case. To fix that,
you'd have to change the language or devise an alternative.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Ms. Fitzpatrick for a comment.
MS. FITZPATRICK said she wasn't familiar with the language and
deferred to Paula Haley.
PAULA HALEY, Human Rights Commission staff, informed members
that the provision has been invoked rarely in her sixteen year
tenure.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced his preference was to send the bill
on to the Judiciary Committee and they could address that issue.
SENATOR COWDERY agreed, but asked the Department of Law to
consider his concern.
MR. NORDSTRAND asked whether he wanted something prepared for
that committee.
SENATOR COWDERY stated that he would like the issue addressed in
this bill if possible.
MR. NORDSTRAND agreed to assist.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for a motion to move the bill as
amended.
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion to move CSSB 354(STA) from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note. He asked for unanimous consent. There being no objection,
it was so ordered.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced that the committee would hear SJR
30 at another time then adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|