Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205
03/16/2017 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing: Alaska Police Standards Council | |
| HB3 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 3-NATIONAL GUARD LEAVE/REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS
3:50:11 PM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY called the committee back to order. He announced
the consideration of HB 3. [CSHB 3(MLV) was before the
committee.]
3:50:34 PM
KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, introduced HB 3 speaking to the
following sponsor statement:
House Bill 3 seeks to correct a deficiency in
employment protections for Alaskans who are serving in
the National Guard. This is a nationwide effort by the
Department of Defense to ensure those who serve their
nation for all 50 states when called to duty -
regardless of their service location - will have
reemployment rights to their Alaskan civilian job
after completing the various critical duties when
called by a governor for state active duty.
The National Guard is a hybrid state-federal entity.
While National Guard members are subject to federal
call to duty by the President of the United States,
they can also be called up for state active duty by
the Governor to respond to state emergencies such as
fires, tornadoes and floods.
The federal law Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects members of
the Army or Air National Guard when they are called
away from their civilian jobs for federal service.
However, USERRA does not apply when a National Guard
member must leave their job for state active duty. If
National Guard members are to have reemployment rights
after state active duty, it must be through state law.
Alaska currently has a law that applies to employment
protections to the public and private employees.
However, it is explicitly limited to members of the
Alaska Army or Air National Guard. There are several
Alaskan residents who serve in the National Guard of
another state. These Alaskans currently do not have
the reemployment protections for their employment.
By passing House Bill 3, we will extend the employment
protections to Alaskans who are serving in any
National Guard. The Department of Defense has
identified this legislation as a key quality of life
issue and is actively seeking to make this policy
change across the nation. So far, 29 other states have
passed similar legislation and 5 other states are
taking it up this session.
Please join me in supporting House Bill 3 by making
this important change to protect those who are
honorably serving our nation.
MS. KLOSTER detailed that 33 Alaskans currently serve in other
National Guard units. She noted that the number of Alaskans
serving elsewhere is a self-reported number so there could be
more. She reiterated that the bill ensures individuals have the
same reemployment rights if they are called to service. She
noted that some of the reasons that individuals belong to
another National Guard includes education and training
opportunities in the Lower 48.
3:52:36 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked her to confirm that the bill requires an
individual to be a resident of Alaska.
MS. KLOSTER answered it does.
SENATOR COGHILL asked that Ms. Kloster specify the residency
requirements. He disclosed that his son-in-law went to
Mississippi in the Air National Guard under another unit for a
year, but retained his job in Alaska because he was deployed for
training outside of Alaska. He asked if his son-in-law would
have qualified under the state's present statute or under the
legislation proposed in HB 3.
MS. KLOSTER asked if Senator Coghill's son-in-law was an Alaskan
resident serving in another National Guard in the Lower 48.
SENATOR COGHILL answered yes. He detailed that his son-in-law
was lent for training purposes that benefited the Alaska Air
National Guard. He noted that he did not know if either the
current statute or his son-in-law's employer assured
reemployment.
3:54:13 PM
MS. KLOSTER answered that the scenario Senator Coghill described
would be covered under the proposed legislation. She noted that
she did not know of any circumstances where employers have said
"No, you cannot have your job back." She opined that Alaska has
been very friendly to the state's service members who are
serving. She specified that HB 3 is an important step to cover
those in case of certain circumstances rather than presenting a
bill because reemployment did not happen for someone that was
called to duty.
SENATOR COGHILL asked what would occur if an Alaskan resident
takes a fulltime job with the National Guard in another state.
MS. KLOSTER answered that the individual would have to be an
Alaskan resident. She noted that a provision was added to the
bill that protected businesses if circumstances change where an
individual's position no longer exists due to downsizing, etc.
She pointed out that in most cases the time away for National
Guard members is not for extended periods of time.
SENATOR COGHILL asked Mr. Doehl to address his concern on the
Legislature mandating that somebody hold a job, explain the
deployment process, and if the bill applies to those that take a
fulltime position with the National Guard in another state or to
those that retain their residency when deployed to another
state.
3:57:50 PM
ROBERT DOEHL, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of Military
and Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), JBER, Alaska, noted that there are
various types of duty status.
He detailed that Title 10 of the United States Code addresses
overseas guardsman deployment to do things that are necessary to
defend the nation.
He explained that Title 32 of the United States Code addresses
guardsman training, either federal or state status. He specified
that federal-status training would be protected under USERRA. He
noted that a guardsman put into state-active duty for another
state guard is conceivable, but DMVA has never heard of it.
He said where state-active duty is used primarily is when a
guardsman is answering a call of the governor for natural
disasters where tours are 72 hours or less.
He noted that under federal law, not related to HB 3, there is a
total time limit of five years where a guardsman can be away
from a job and still have reemployment. He added that DMVA is
not aware of state-active duty ever running out as far as five
years.
SENATOR COGHILL asked Mr. Doehl to address someone serving
fulltime in another guard unit in another state and if the
individual could still try to claim residency in Alaska.
4:00:26 PM
MR. DOEHL answered that for someone working fulltime in the
National Guard of another state, the individual would be working
under Title 32 of the United States Code. He added that the
individual would be under the federal protection to the extent
that they exist. He noted that HB 3 will not impact the scenario
he previously described.
SENATOR WILSON asked that Mr. Doehl address the use of the
phrase "active state service" in the bill on page 2, lines 2 and
5.
MR. DOEHL replied that "active state service" or the term used
by the National Guard, "state active duty," would only apply to
specific-duty status for performing duties that typically
entails the role of disaster response.
SENATOR WILSON responded that he understood Mr. Doehl's
inference, but noted that on page 1, line 12 the bill says, "Or
active National Guard service under the law of another state;"
however, on page 2, line 2 the phrase, "Or National Guard
service in another state" is used without the use of the word
"active."
MS. KLOSTER replied that the sentence on page 2, line 2 states
that, "A result of 'active state service' or 'National Guard'
service in another state." She explained that when she had
talked to the bill's drafters, they said "active" would cover
both the "active state service" and the next line that notes,
"National Guard." She said she would double check with the
drafters to address Senator Wilson's question.
CHAIR DUNLEAVY welcomed invited testimony for HB 3.
4:02:41 PM
MARK SAN SOUCI, Regional Legislative Liaison, Military Community
and Family Policy, United States Department of Defense,
Lakewood, Washington, testified in support of HB 3. He
summarized that HB 3 is about protecting those people in private
employment who get called for things like forest fires and have
a private employer who wants to fire them. He said 29 states
have passed legislation like HB 3 and 5 other states are
considering the legislation.
4:05:23 PM
CHAIR DUNLEAVY held HB 3 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 3 Fiscal Note DOLWD-WHA 2.23.17.pdf |
SSTA 3/16/2017 3:30:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Fiscal Note MVA-COM 2.23.17.pdf |
SSTA 3/16/2017 3:30:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Memo of Changes 2.23.17.pdf |
SSTA 3/16/2017 3:30:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Sponsor Statement 2.23.17.pdf |
SSTA 3/16/2017 3:30:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Supporting Document-Dept of Defense One Pager 2.23.17.pdf |
SSTA 3/16/2017 3:30:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Supporting Document-Letter Dept of Defense 2.23.17.pdf |
SSTA 3/16/2017 3:30:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3, Version D.pdf |
SSTA 3/16/2017 3:30:00 PM |
HB 3 |