HB 48- TEMP STATE EMPLOYEES IN PART EXEMPT SVCE  3:52:25 PM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 48, "An Act removing from the exempt service of the state persons who are employed in a professional capacity to make a temporary or special inquiry, study, or examination as authorized by the governor and including those persons in the partially exempt service of the state." 3:52:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor of HB 48, introduced the bill and read the following sponsor statement [original punctuation provided]: AS 39.25.110(9) was supposed to allow the governor to appoint someone for some "temporary and special inquiry". Because they are temporary, exempts do not get PERS or regular State leave, health insurance or other State benefits. However, the statute has not been used in that manner. It has instead been used to establish positions without the intent of the positions being temporary, which would then entitle employees to PERS and all other benefits. The purpose of HB 48 is to discontinue the historical practice by the Executive Branch of using AS 39.25.110(9) to unilaterally establish highly paid executive level temporary exempt positions that have no salary limits. There are positions established many years ago using this statute that still exist today. Some are unbudgeted and do not appear in agency position counts. Several attempts have been made to obtain a complete list of these positions and current salary levels, but these attempts have been unsuccessful. HB 48 is intended to eliminate the establishment of "temporary exempt" positions and instead place these positions in the partially exempt service. Persons may be "appointed" to partially exempt positions, however, they will be subject to salary limits like all other state employees. HB 48 will force the administration to be more transparent and allow all employees to be treated fairly. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON addressed the 0-dollar fiscal note, which she said could be interpreted as the administration either attempting to withhold their exempt positions or expressing indifference because it doesn't impact them. 3:54:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN expressed concern that the words "exempt" and "temporary exempt" were being used interchangeably. After looking at the statute, she said, it appeared that the current bill speaks to those under AS 39.25.110(09) [Exempt Service; persons employed in a professional capacity to make a temporary or special inquiry, study or examination as authorized by the governor], which are temporary; however, they were being referred to as exempt. She continued by saying that referencing those positions as exempt is precarious because exempt positions are a much broader category. Alaska's deputy attorney general, for example, is an exempt position and isn't temporary in nature. She asked if the term or phrasing for that subcategory should be "temporaries." REPRESENTATIVE WILSON acknowledged that it was one specific area of statute that would be eliminated and deferred to her staff, Remond Henderson. 3:56:30 PM REMOND HENDERSON, Staff, Representative Tammie Wilson, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Wilson, prime sponsor of HB 48, stated that the current bill was specifically designed to address only those temporary exempt positions established by AS 39.25.110(09). REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN surmised that the current bill was intended for political appointees that were hired for a specific purpose. She suggested including a timeframe that would dictate the length of their temporary employment. She asked if Representative Wilson had considered that. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON replied that she was unsure because the administration was not responsive. She reflected on a phone call from an anonymous caller who informed her of a position in Anchorage that was being paid an "exorbitant" amount and had no Position Control Number (PCN), adding that this particular position was not political. She explained that if the governor's office had extra money and wanted to hire someone as a temporary employee there would be no way to find that position. Alternatively, they could be put into a PCN and, unlike others who wouldn't go through this process, designated to the correct job classification with a corresponding salary and benefits. However, under AS 39.25.110(09) someone could be making twice as much as another individual with the same job title, solely because they were hired by the governor under that specific part of the statute. She opined that this should not be happening, and it was time for it to end. REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN related that she shared Representative Wilson's concern. She restated her suggestion of putting a one or two-year timeframe on temporary exempt positions. She pointed out that the process to make a position exempt exists under that same statute, which involves going through the personnel board, classification, and a public notice period. It still allows an individual to be appointed, she noted, and avoid the probationary period that one would encounter with a classified job. She questioned whether defining how long 'temporary' was would mitigate those temporary hires that end up working for 10-years off the books with no PCN. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON emphasized that she was more concerned with the hidden employee names and funds than the temporary aspect. She offered her belief that, originally, the statute was for projects that required hiring someone for a short amount of time who would be paid more for their "specialized knowledge;" however, the way it's been used over time has strayed from that initial intent. She opined that as long as this particular part of the statute exists it will continue to be abused. She further noted that adding a timeframe of 3 or 6 months would not help designate a specific salary to these positions, like most jobs have. She pointed out that this would not take away the [governor's] ability to write a specific contract for someone. 4:00:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked for an example of the type of job being discussed. MR. HENDERSON described a unit within the Department of Corrections (DOC) called an "investigative unit" under which they established temporary exempt positions titled "Professional Conduct Investigator" using the aforementioned statute. He stated that the position received 173,000 dollars in salary and benefits and further noted that it was created in FY 17 and existed until the current commissioner cut it from the FY 20 budget. REPRESENTATIVE STUTES posited that temporary exempt positions do not receive benefits. 4:02:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON acknowledged that they are not supposed to receive benefits under the statute's original intent; however, it's not being utilized accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE STUTES surmised that there are some employees who receive a salary and benefits but are off the books and have no PCN. She asked if this was correct. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON replied that some positions do have a PCN while others do not. She explained that if the governor's office had money left in their budget, they could hire someone underneath AS 39.25.110(09) and not give them a PCN. She noted that positions like that, which you can't find in the budget books, are what makes things difficult. 4:03:33 PM MR. HENDERSON added that some [positions] are identified, for example, by a letter "T" in front of the last 3 letters of the PCN. He stated that the only way to truly figure out how many of those positions exist is to contact each department and ask them to provide that information. He explained that the current bill moves one particular part of the statute AS 39.25.110(09) [persons employed in a professional capacity to make a temporary or special inquiry, study or examination as authorized by the governor] from Exempt Service [AS 39.25.110] to Partially Exempt Service [AS 39.25.120], which subjects the appointment to a pay plan that is established under statute. He further noted that the governor can still appoint someone up to a step F, unless there are extenuating circumstances that can justify the need for a higher paying position. The difference, he said, is that someone would no longer be able to be placed in a high paying position without a rationale. 4:05:31 PM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked who would approve the hire if the administration wanted to employ someone beyond a step F. MR. HENDERSON offered his belief that it was reviewed by the personnel board. Nonetheless, he said he would follow up with clarification from the Department of Administration, Division of Personnel and Labor Relations. 4:07:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS revealed that he had asked Legislative Finance and the administration to account for the personnel cost of political appointees in the executive branch and never received a response. He acknowledged that he had been a political appointee himself and understands that they are an important part of the democratic process; however, everyone has a right to understand how the executive branch is organized. He expressed his appreciation for the current bill in the interest of transparency. CO-CHAIR LEDOUX acknowledged that knowing the personnel cost of political appointees in the executive branch would be helpful information to have. She suggested that Representative Wilson follow up on that request. 4:07:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asserted that she had already requested that information multiple times, which is why she had looked forward to seeing the fiscal note from the Department of Administration to see if they would list any of the appointed positions. She concluded that the governor would be okay with the current bill's proposed changes due to the lack of response. CO-CHAIR LEDOUX stated that she was having a difficult time comprehending why there is a 0-dollar fiscal note, adding that it should probably be a negative fiscal note. She said she was hopeful that by the bill's next hearing the administration would provide an explanation. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON noted that the bill was going to the House Finance Committee next where they would probably ask the same question. 4:08:54 PM CO-CHAIR WOOL inquired as to Alaska's statutory definition of "exempt" and "partially exempt." He noted the importance of accounting for employee positions and salaries in the budget, adding that it should be "a basic condition of transparency." REPRESENTATIVE WILSON agreed to follow up on the definitions. She mentioned that the last time she went through the budget she found two people with the same PCN number, which she thought to be strange. 4:10:12 PM The committee took a brief at-ease at 4:10 p.m. 4:11:11 PM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that HB 48 was held over.