Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/13/2015 09:00 AM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB176 | |
| HB137 | |
| HB155 | |
| SB33 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 176 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 176
"An Act eliminating geographic pay differentials for
employees of the legislature; repealing state employee
salary schedule increases; and providing for an
effective date."
9:03:53 AM
JANE PIERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON,
explained that HB 176 repealed state employee salary
schedule increase, the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA), of
2.5 percent that was scheduled to go into effect on July 1,
2015.
Representative Guttenberg asked if work draft, version E,
was the version that the committee should be looking at.
Ms. Pierson responded in the affirmative.
9:05:07 AM
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Thompson indicated Representative Gara had joined
the meeting.
Representative Guttenberg remarked that although the bill
was simple, it represented a significant step that the
legislature was taking. He asked about the history of the
state honoring its labor contracts. He wanted to understand
both the short-term and long-term consequences for the
administration and the bargaining units. He did not feel
there had been enough discussion on the matter.
9:07:28 AM
SKIFF LOBAUGH, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER, LEGISLATIVE
AFFAIRS, reported that the proposed legislation repealed
the 2.5 percent COLA for exempt employees. He worked on the
fiscal note for the bill but deferred to Ms. Sheehan, the
director of the Division of Personnel from the Department
of Administration. He explained that the executive branch
had the largest number of exempt employees and thought it
would be better for her to speak to the bill.
KATE SHEEHAN, DIVISION DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL AND
LABOR RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, detailed
that the bill applied only to partially exempt, exempt,
legislative, and court employees. She added that the bill
did not pertain to employees represented by collective
bargaining agreements. In the executive branch there were
approximately 636 exempt and 682 partially exempt
employees.
Representative Guttenberg wondered if the bill was an
effort by the legislature to organize partially exempt and
exempt employees. He did not feel anyone was speaking on
behalf of the combined group of employees. He felt that it
was the legislature's job to consider what pressure was
being placed on the economy and who would be impacted most.
He expressed his concerns regarding the long list of
actions that were being taken by the legislature. He noted
that the fiscal note represented approximately $5.8
million.
Representative Gara wanted to confirm that a three-year
statute was being discussed. Employees were given an
increase of 1 percent two years prior, an increase of 1
percent the previous year, and an increase of 2.5 percent
scheduled for the current year. He asked if the legislation
would revoke the 2.5 percent increase.
Ms. Sheehan responded affirmatively that it was the third
year.
Representative Gara asked if his numbers were accurate.
Ms. Sheehan answered, "Yes, they are correct."
Representative Gara stressed that the problem he had with
the legislation was that the state offered a three-year
deal in which the first two years the employees received
raises that fell below the inflation rate leaving them
behind cost of living increases. In the third year the
promise was to provide employees with a better raise. The
increases in salary averaged over three years remained
behind the rise in the cost of living. If circumstances
were reversed he would be more supportive of the bill. The
legislature was proposing to take the most valuable
increase away from state employees after two years of
austerity. He had a problem with the bill without further
discussion.
Representative Munoz asked if the bill addressed the
geographical differentials.
Co-Chair Thompson responded that the bill did not address
cost differentials.
Representative Munoz asked if it just applied to the third
year of the contract.
Co-Chair Thompson responded that it was just the third year
of the COLA increase.
9:11:03 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler suggested that three years prior when
the contracts were negotiated the state's oil revenue was
significantly higher than at present. Before the meeting he
read in the paper that Alaska's current oil revenue was
lower than when the pipeline first opened. He contended
that either jobs would be cut or salaries would be held
steady after two years of increases. It could be argued
that it was a cut because it did not keep up with inflation
but the legislation would hold people's salaries steady and
insure job security. It was not a pleasant thing to have to
impose, but he believed it was respectful of everyone to
try to keep them employed.
Representative Gara remarked that there were additional
choices aside from cutting jobs. He suggested that over the
following two years the state would be giving out over $500
million to the oil industry in tax credits, more than the
state would receive in production taxes. Co-Chair Thompson
interjected that the current discussion was not about oil
taxes. Representative Gara asserted that there were
additional options to consider and that he could not be
supportive of the bill. He opined that there were smarter
options available.
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHB 176(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gattis, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Neuman, Thompson
OPPOSED: Guttenberg, Munoz, Edgmon, Gara
The MOTION PASSED (6/4).
There being NO further OBJECTION, CSHB 176(FIN) was
REPORTED out of committee with a "no recommendation"
recommendation and with three new fiscal impact notes from
the Alaska Judicial System, the Governor, and the
Legislature.
9:14:03 AM
AT EASE
9:18:11 AM
RECONVEYNED
Co-Chair Thompson mentioned that he had forgotten to
recognize Representative Pruitt earlier in the meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 33 2015 Tire Fee Comparison With Other States.pdf |
HFIN 4/13/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB 33 |
| SB33 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 4/13/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB 33 |
| SB 33 CS WORKDRAFT HFIN.PDF |
HFIN 4/13/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB 33 |
| HB 105 CS WORKDRAFT FIN.pdf |
HFIN 4/13/2015 9:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |