Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
02/21/2020 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
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 | |
| HB113 | |
| HB235 | |
| HB229 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 113 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 229 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 235 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 113-MILITARY FAMILY EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE
3:20:23 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 113, "An Act relating to employment
preferences for spouses and children of veterans, disabled
veterans, former prisoners of war, members of the national
guard, and deceased service members."
3:23:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHARON JACKSON, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, stated the purpose of HB 113 is to extend hiring
preferences to military spouses, which would allow them to
receive an interview for a job that hires by a numerical point
system. This will enable the educated, unemployed and
underemployed [military] spouses to work in the community. She
said this is a bill that will provide them with more
opportunities.
3:24:36 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 31-
LS0715\S.1, Wayne, 2/19/20], which read as follows:
Page 6, line 29:
Delete "of this subsection;"
Insert "or (1)(A)(iii) of this subsection, or the
spouse or dependent child of a person who is in active
service or on furlough from active service under
(1)(A)(i) of this subsection;"
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON deferred to Pam Day.
3:25:18 PM
PAM DAY, Classification Services Manager, Division of Personnel
and Labor Relations, Department of Administration, provided a
brief background on the state's recruitment system. She said in
July 2000, the state stopped scoring applications and switched
to a vacancy-based recruitment system, which changed how
preferences are applied. If an assessment device with a
numerical rating is not used, 10-point veterans are afforded an
interview and 5-point veterans are given consideration.
Nonetheless, she said it's been a common practice to offer an
interview to 5-point veterans. HB 113 would extend the
preference of being awarded an interview to 5-point veterans, as
well as military spouses and dependent children.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked for the definition of a vacancy-based
system.
MS. DAY explained that when a vacancy arises, recruitment ensues
immediately, which is a more streamlined process than the
state's prior hiring system.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ acknowledged that filling vacancies faster is a
good idea.
3:27:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN questioned whether the point system is
based on a 100-point scale and whether points and percentages
are interchangeable.
MS. DAY answered yes. She added, "it's 5 percent of the points
available from a scoring device - or 10 percent."
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked if it's based on a 100-point scale.
MS. DAY said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN questioned the difference between a 5-
point veteran and a 10-point veteran.
MS. DAY explained that, "if we do not use a scoring system,
which we do not, if a veteran who would have been awarded the 10
points in the scoring - which is the disabled veteran or the
prisoner of war - they are offered the interview."
3:28:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON said, "this bill is for active duty
spouses and spouses of those that died in war, or Gold Star
families. So, this bill is just extending to the spouses"
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ surmised that the [hiring] preference would
elevate an applicant, rather than award them a 5 or 10 percent
advantage.
MS. DAY affirmed that.
3:29:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN questioned the difference between a 5-
point veteran and a 10-point veteran.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON replied that it correlates to their
disability.
MS. DAY responding to a follow-up question from Representative
Hannan, said AS 39.25.159 [Employment Preference for Veterans
and Former Prisoners of War] articulates that disabled veterans
or prisoners of war are awarded an interview or 10 percent,
whereas veterans or members of the National Guard are awarded 5
percent or considered for an interview.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ questioned whether the 5 percent and 10 percent
distinction also applied to the spouse.
MS. DAY said this bill expands the interview benefit to veterans
and members of the National Guard, as well as to military
spouses and dependent children.
3:32:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS clarified that under HB 113, every spouse,
dependent child, and veteran would be afforded an interview for
a state job for which they applied.
MS. DAY replied yes, if they meet the minimum qualifications.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked if they would receive up to a 10
percent higher score than other applicants.
MS. DAY said it can be either or. She directed attention to AS
39.25.159, which states that if an assessment device is used to
score applicants then the 10-points can be applied; however,
because Alaska doesn't use an assessment device the interview is
guaranteed.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS questioned whether this bill should be
rewritten to ensure an interview. He asked if that would be a
simpler way to write it. He expressed concern with awarding a
10-point advantage to someone, should the state revert to a
point-based scoring system.
3:34:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON said HB 113 is offering preference points
to the spouses and family members of Gold Star families. She
added that it specifically speaks to preference points for a
spouse.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS said he understands.
3:35:33 PM
DAN WAYNE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, attempted to provide context to page 6 of the
bill. He stated that under current law, AS 39.25.159(a)
entitles a veteran or former prisoner of war - who meets the
minimum qualifications - to an employment preference of which
there are two kinds. When hiring based on a numerical rating,
veterans get 5 points added to their score, whereas disabled
veterans or formers prisoners of war get an additional 10
points. When hiring is not based on a numerical system,
consideration is awarded to veterans and an opportunity to
interview is afforded to disabled veterans and former prisoners
of war. He explained that under HB 113, those [hiring]
preferences would extend to military spouses and dependent
children.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked what Amendment 1 accomplishes.
3:38:56 PM
MR. VERHAGEN stated that Amendment 1 affords qualified military
spouses or dependent children the right to an interview. He
explained that if, for example, there are 10 qualified
candidates, the department doesn't have to interview all 10 of
them; however, they "shall" award a military spouse or dependent
child with an interview.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ sought to clarify whether Amendment 1 would
require that a military spouse or dependent child is awarded an
interview if they meet the minimum qualifications.
MR. VERHAGEN answered yes.
3:40:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS suggested rewriting the bill to ensure an
interview without giving the same numeric point advantage to a
spouse or dependent in the event there is a numeric system being
used.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that it would be a very substantial
amendment to this bill.
3:40:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN attempted to clarify whether Amendment 1
awards "everybody" with an interview.
3:41:24 PM
MR. VERHAGEN stated that those under [subsection] (i) get an
interview as well as those under (3)(i), which is the surviving
spouse or dependent of a person who was killed in action. He
went on to say, "so this amendment is not actually even giving
the right to an interview to a spouse or dependent child of a
veteran, but only an active duty someone described in
section (A)(i), so who is in active service or on furlough. So,
Representative Jackson's intent was to not afford the right to
an interview to veterans, spouses, and dependents, but a
spouse who's married to an active duty member or someone on
furlough, if that makes sense."
MR. VERHAGEN responding to a follow-up question from
Representative Hannan, said both the veteran and current active
duty military spouse will be awarded an interview.
3:43:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked Mr. Wayne if it would be possible to
rewrite this section to clarify that interviews are afforded to
spouses and dependents of active duty service members without
adding multiple references to points, which is conflicting. He
questioned whether it could be written to be shorter and
clearer.
3:43:53 PM
MR. WAYNE reiterated that if HB 113 does not pass, current law
states that if there is an assessment using numerical ratings -
which could happen tomorrow - then the 5 or 10-point preference
will apply to veterans, former prisoners of war, and disabled
veterans. When there's not a numeric assessment, consideration
or an interview applies. He reminded the committee that
consideration and receiving an interview are two separate things
according to the law, regardless of how the administration is
putting them into practice, which is subject to change through
regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS stated that while he is comfortable with
awarding consideration, he is uncomfortable with the points
incentive. He requested an extension on the amendment deadline
to refine a solution.
3:47:35 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ withdrew Amendment 1.
MR. VERHAGEN in response to Representative Fields, emphasized
that under HB 113, the only people that "shall" receive a 10-
point preference are disabled veterans.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ assured Mr. Verhagen that the committee
understands that point. The question is whether to continue to
reference a numerical system that is not currently used in state
law, she explained.
3:49:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, [labeled 31-
LS0715\S.2, Wayne, 2/20/20], which read as follows:
Page 6, lines 18 - 19:
Delete "the surviving spouse or a dependent child
of a person who"
Insert "a dependent child or, unless the
surviving spouse has remarried, the surviving spouse
of a person who died within a 10-year period
immediately preceding the date of the assessment and"
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN explained that Amendment 2 proposes a 10-
year limit on the benefit for the surviving spouse or dependent
children in the event of a service member's death.
3:50:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON opined that Amendment 2 is reasonable and
acceptable.
3:50:43 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ withdrew her objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that HB 113 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 229 Bill Text Version M.pdf |
HHSS 2/20/2020 3:00:00 PM HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 229 |
| HB 229 Sectional Analysis v.M.pdf |
HHSS 2/20/2020 3:00:00 PM HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 229 |
| HB 229 Sponsor Statement v.M.pdf |
HHSS 2/20/2020 3:00:00 PM HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 229 |
| HB 229 and supporting documents.pdf |
HL&C 2/20/2020 3:00:00 PM HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 229 |
| HB 229 Testimony Dr. Cullen CV.pdf |
HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 229 |
| HB229 Testimony Dr. Cullens.pdf |
HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 229 |
| HB 113 v. S Amendment #1 HL&C 2.21.2020.pdf |
HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 113 |
| HB 113 v. S Amendment #2 HL&C 2.21.2020.pdf |
HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 113 |
| HB 113 Powerpoint The Blue Star and Gold Star Families Act 1.31.20.pdf |
HL&C 2/19/2020 3:15:00 PM HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 113 |
| HB113 Backup Document NCSL veterans' state hiring preference 1.31.20.pdf |
HL&C 2/19/2020 3:15:00 PM HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 113 |
| HB 235 Fiscal Note DOLWFD-AVTEC 2.14.2020.pdf |
HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| HB 235 Fiscal Note DOLWFD-CAS 2.15.2020.pdf |
HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| HB 235 Fiscal Note DOLWFD-WD 2.14.2020.pdf |
HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| HB 235 Fiscal Note DOLWFD-UI 2.14.2020.pdf |
HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| HB 235 Fiscal Note EED-SSA 2.14.2020.pdf |
HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| HB 235 Fiscal Note UA-SYSBRA 2.18.2020.pdf |
HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| HB 235 Sponsor Statement 2.21.2020.pdf |
HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/9/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| HB 235.Backup Flow Chart 2.21.2020.pdf |
HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/9/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| HB 235.Backup UA TVEP Advocacy 2.21.2020.pdf |
HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| HB 235 Backup Distribution Sheet 2.5.2020.pdf |
HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| HB 235 TVEP Annual Report 2019.pdf |
HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| HB 235 Backup Intro Presentation 2.21.2020.pdf |
HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| AHCTP House L and C 2.21.20.pdf |
HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 229 |
| HB 235 UA TVEP Background Information.pdf |
HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 235 |
| HB 235 TVEP Univ. of Alaska Presentation 02.20.20.pdf |
HL&C 2/21/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 235 |