Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
05/03/2022 01:30 PM 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 | |
| HB226 | |
| HB416 | |
| HB283 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 226 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 416 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 283 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 226
"An Act relating to the compensation of certain public
officials, officers, and employees not covered by
collective bargaining agreements; increasing the
salaries of certain attorneys employed by the state;
and providing for an effective date."
2:21:01 PM
Co-Chair Merrick noted that there were four amendments for
consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, SPONSOR, provided opening
comments on the legislation. He shared that he had been the
subcommittee chair for the Department of Law (DOL) for four
years. He was not looking for another problem to solve. The
department had repeatedly presented on its retention crisis
since his time on the subcommittee.
2:22:05 PM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony.
BAILEY WOOLFSTEED, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke in support of the
legislation. She shared that she was a prosecutor in the
Office of Special Prosecutions, Rural Prosecution Unit
working on sexual assault and domestic violence. She urged
the committee to pass the bill. She explained why the bill
did not go far enough. She discussed the rigorous workload
prosecutors were experiencing. She elaborated that
prosecutors were working 60 to 80 hour workweeks in
addition to being on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week
to assist officers in emergent situations and cover every
court holiday. She had worked on Christmas the past year.
She noted that the attorneys did not get paid overtime and
the job was distressing. She shared from personal
experience viewing child pornography, crime scene and
autopsy photographs of a 10 year old girl who was raped and
murdered as part of her job duties. She could not forget
such images. She indicated that she travelled 78 days to
Western Alaska for work in the prior year and 38 days so
far in 2022. She relayed that many colleagues left state
service to work for municipalities, Washington State, or
for the federal government where they had lower caseloads,
less stress, were paid significantly better wages. and
had pensions. She shared the attorneys frustration
observing many state unions receiving raises and Cost of
Living Adjustments (COLA) while they were left behind. The
bill was not sufficient to make the department competitive.
She explained that the crisis was far reaching, and state
attorneys were key players on the public safety team;
without them public safety was not adequately addressed.
She emphasized that police could make an arrest and forward
charges, but prosecutors argued bail, met with victims,
performed case work, negotiated, and tried cases. She
underscored that attorneys were leaving in droves because
the legislature had not provided sufficient salaries and
benefits and did not recognize their value while other
governments did. She listed ways the legislation could go
farther to address the issue. She recommended a 40 hour
work week, on-call pay, COLAs and step increases that were
on par with other law enforcement colleagues in the state
and nation. She asked the legislature to support attorneys
working hard for the state.
2:25:23 PM
KEVIN HIGGINS, SELF, JUNEAU, testified in support of the
legislation. He shared that he worked for the Civil
Division with the Department of Law. He noted that the
discussion regarding recruitment and retention issues were
consistent throughout state agencies. He reasoned that when
employees were not paid well enough and people left, it
increased the workload for those remaining until they quit,
which made recruitment difficult. Often newly trained
employees left once they became more marketable somewhere
else. He voiced that the state could not function without
attorneys; civil attorneys advised agencies, implemented
the administration's policy, and defended the state against
claims. He stressed that without attorneys the state had to
pay much more for the services in the private market. He
voiced that paying staff made good economic sense and
without a defined benefit plan, pay was the only lever
available. He asked for the committees support for the
bill.
2:27:07 PM
SAMANTHA WEINSTEIN, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the bill. She urged the legislature to
implement the bill at the start of the coming fiscal year.
She shared that she was a former assistant attorney general
in the civil division and had left the department at the
beginning of April 2022 due to burnout. She had initially
been excited to work for the department. She wanted a
steady paycheck, benefits, and the opportunity to learn
from experienced staff but the excitement wore off. Over
the last 3 years she had seen two attorney generals resign
in disgrace. She experienced section supervisors quitting
or retiring, and many colleagues quit to work for
municipalities, federal government, or private practice in
the lower 48. She understood that those jobs offered better
pay, benefits, better work-life balance, and more
opportunities for growth. She felt that the other employers
demonstrated that they valued their workers. She stressed
that carrying the workload of 2 to 4 employees was a
burnout. She relayed that she was physically, mentally,
and emotionally exhausted and chronically stressed while
working for the state. She underscored that burnout was
running rampant within the department and workers were
demoralized. She urged for passage of the bill.
Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public testimony.
2:29:40 PM
Co-Chair Merrick moved to amendments.
Representative Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 32-
LS0960\G.5 (Klein, 4/27/22) (copy on file) [note: due to
the length of the amendment it has not been included in the
minutes. See copy on file for detail].
Representative Josephson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Thompson explained that he had a conceptual
amendment for Amendment 1 recommended by the Court System.
He explained the conceptual amendment. He stated that on
page 3, line 22 of the bill it deleted the following words,
other than justices and judges. He deferred to the Court
System for further explanation.
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
explained conceptual Amendment 1. She relayed that she
asked the sponsor of Amendment 1 to remove the phrase. She
explained that the amendment would provide a 5 percent pay
increase for all non-covered employees. Section 6 of the
amendment included the Judicial Branch, which she
supported. However, she did not think it had been the
sponsor's intent to exclude judges and justices but
excluding them in uncodified law created a conflict in 4
statutory provisions within Title 22. She reported that for
the four levels of judges there were explicit provisions
that specified if the monthly based salary in the chart on
page 1 of the amendment, pertaining to Title 39, increased
the monthly based salary of a judge or a justice it shall
increase by the same percentage. The language created a
conflict having uncodified law stating that even though it
would raise the wages by 5 percent judges and justices were
excluded. She believed that they needed to be included. She
furthered that the provision had been added in 2006 with
respect to judges because unless judges and justices kept
pace with all the increases that all other non-covered
employees received the Judicial Branch ended up in an
uncomfortable position in asking for a significant raise.
Alaskan judges were consistently ranked at number 50 in
terms of judicial salaries across the country. The statute
was meant to ensure that judges were not excluded.
2:32:51 PM
Co-Chair Merrick withdrew her objection to conceptual
amendment 1.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Thompson explained the amendment with a
prepared statement:
The amended amendment represented a 5 percent cost of
living adjustment (COLA) for exempt employees for the
legislative and executive branches. Exempt employees
had not received increases or salary adjustments since
2016. In the meantime, non-exempt employees either in
the general government units or in the Supervisory
Units had received COLA increases totaling over 5
percent. It was a matter of fairness that exempt
employees received the same COLA increase as those of
the GGU and SU bargaining units. The total cost of
enacting this legislation for the executive and
legislative branches was projected to be $13. 211.900
million of which $7. 520.100 million was Undesignated
General Funds (UGF).
TOM WRIGHT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON,
elaborated on the amendment. He shared that since FY 16 the
exempt noncovered employees in the admiration and the
legislature had not received a COLA. Since that time, GGU
had received approximately 23.5 percent in COLAs and in FY
20, FY 21, and FY 22 they received a 5 percent increase.
Recently, a new contract had been approved that granted a 3
percent increase in 2023, the following year a 2.5 percent
increase, and possibly in 2025 a 5 percent increase. He
noted that the 5 percent increase was based on the Consumer
Price Index (CPI) as of July 1, 2022, which would be
automatic according to the Legislative Finance Division. He
added that in 2019 the Supervisory Union (SU) received a 40
hour work week, which equated to a 6.25 percent increase
and in 2022 received a 3 percent increase, 1 percent in
2023, and 1 percent in 2024. He deduced that SU received
approximately 16 percent in increases. He cited Bailey
Woolfsteed, the earlier testifier that reported not
receiving a COLA since 2016. He stated that a COLA increase
could potentially help alleviate some of the recruitment
and retention problems.
2:36:45 PM
Representative Wool referred to SU hours reduced to 40
hours per week, which equated to a 6 percent increase. He
asked what the hours had been previously. He deemed that if
hours were decreased to 40 per week without a pay increase,
he did not understand how it was a pay increase.
Co-Chair Merrick recognized Representative Matt Claman in
attendance.
Mr. Wright responded that the SU unit increased from 37.5
hours per week to 40 hours per week in 2019 and received a
6.25 percent increase for the additional 2.5 weekly hours.
Representative Wool thanked Mr. Wright for the
clarification. He deuced that even with the increase to a
40 hour work week they still received an overall increase.
Mr. Wright referred to Ms. Woolsteed who testified to
working 60 hours per week so decreasing to a 40 hour work
week would mean increased pay.
2:38:43 PM
Representative Carpenter asked for context. He inquired
about the range and step of a newly hired attorney through
a collective bargaining unit and ones that were not.
SKIFF LOBAUGH, HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGER, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
AGENCY (via teleconference), answered that there were no
attorneys in the legislative branch covered by a collective
bargaining unit. All the attorneys under the Legislative
Affairs Agency (LAA) were paid through the salary schedule
adopted under AS 39.27.011(a) and generally started at a
range 23 to 25 depending on years of experience.
Representative Carpenter asked for a comparative figure for
state employees under collective bargaining.
2:40:40 PM
Mr. Wright answered that none of the attorneys in DOL or
the Department of Administration (DOA) were unionized
employees.
Representative Carpenter stated that it made finding the
answer much easier if there was no union involved.
Representative Josephson requested that someone from
Legislative Legal Services called in for questions.
Co-Chair Merrick complied.
Representative Wool asked if there were attorneys in other
departments that were covered under collective bargaining.
Mr. Wright did not believe so but deferred the answer to
personnel.
Mr. Lobaugh had the same understanding as Mr. Wright. He
answered that state attorneys were partially exempt or
fully exempt and covered under the AS 39.27.011(a) salary
schedule. He suggested that the Division of Personnel under
the Department of Administration could answer the question
definitively. He reiterated that all legislative attorneys
were exempt including several attorneys in the Office of
Victims Rights.
2:43:07 PM
AT EASE
2:47:45 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Carpenter asked for an explanation of the
process for changing from a range 6 to a range 7 and moving
up the step scale. Mr. Lobaugh answered that ranges
represented the class of work an employee was assigned to
perform. He exemplified Personnel and indicated that
Personnel Assistants ranges were 14 through 16. The range
14 would work with payroll and the higher ranges performed
payroll supervision and investigation and the range
increased as the level of complexity and consequence of
error increased. He added that it was the same with
legislative attorney job classes beginning with drafting
bills and increasing to higher range drafters up to range
25. The steps were considered for meritorious service
depending on the length of time and per recommendation by a
supervisor. Steps were time in the range grade, and range
was determined by the work and duties as allotted to the
job classification. Representative Carpenter repeated his
understanding of the answer. He asked for the time and
range requirement before moving up a step assuming there
was a meritorious recommendation. Mr. Lobaugh answered that
steps A through F increased each year and beyond that steps
increased every two years.
2:50:57 PM
Representative Josephson asked if Amendment 1 meshed
seamlessly and without interference with version G of the
bill.
NOAH KLEIN, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL
SERVICES, ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE (via teleconference),
asked for clarification on the question.
Representative Josephson acknowledged the amendment changed
policy. He asked if the amendment in any way deleted or
altered version G of the bill. Mr. Klein replied that
Amendment 1 increased the salary table; therefore, the 10
percent increase for attorneys in the underlying bill would
be 10 percent of the increase table.
Representative Josephson WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
2:52:51 PM
AT EASE
2:53:59 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick noted that Representative Edgmon joined
the meeting.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 as amended
was adopted.
Representative Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 32-
LS0960\G.6 (Klein, 4/27/22) (copy on file):
Page 1, line 1, following "Act":
Insert "relating to the compensation of certain
employees of the legislative branch;"
Page 2, line 1, following "AS 39.25.120(c)(3)":
Insert ", attorneys in the division of legal and
research services within the Legislative Affairs
Agency,"
Page 2, following line 3:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 24.10.220 is repealed."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 11:
Delete "Section 3"
Insert "Section 4"
Page 2, line 12:
Delete "sec. 4"
Insert "sec. 5"
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
2:54:36 PM
Representative Thompson asked his staff to explain the
amendment.
Mr. Wright explained the amendment. He relayed that
Representative Thompson believed that it would be fair to
raise the pay of the legislative attorneys along with the
other attorneys working for the state.
Co-Chair Merrick voiced that legislative attorneys worked
diligently for the legislators.
Representative Josephson was grateful for the amendment and
believed that an increase was well earned.
Representative Wool asked if there was a fiscal note
reflecting the amendments. Mr. Wright answered that it
would be up to the committee to request an updated fiscal
note. Representative Wool wanted to know the cost of the
salary increases. Mr. Wright answered that the cost for
Amendment 1 was approximately $13.211.9 million for the
executive branch and $2.344.6 million for the legislative
branch. He added that $494.9 was included in the mental
health bill.
2:57:18 PM
Representative Wool asked for the amount in Amendment 2 for
the legislative branch. Mr. Wright answered that He did not
have the amount for Amendment 2.
Co-Chair Merrick asked Legislative Legal Services for the
number of employees in Legislative Legal.
2:58:48 PM
MEGAN WALLACE, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, ALASKA
STATE LEGISLATURE (via teleconference), answered there were
14 attorneys employed for Legislative Legal Services.
Co-Chair Merrick asked whether that included legal and
research services. Ms. Wallace agreed. She detailed that
there were no attorneys that worked for Legislative
Research, the 14 attorneys worked exclusively in the legal
office.
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was ADOPTED.
2:59:40 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, 32-LS0960\G.8
(Klein, 5/2/22) (copy on file):
Page 2, following line 3:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
SALARY INCREASES FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE JUDICIAL
BRANCH. The salary increase under AS 39.27.011(l),
added by sec. 2 of this Act, applies to permanent and
temporary employees and magistrates in the judicial
branch of the state government, other than justices
and judges, who are not members of a collective
bargaining unit established under AS 23.40.070 -
23.40.260 (Public Employment Relations Act) and who
are not otherwise covered by AS 39.27.011(a)."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 11:
Delete "Section 3"
Insert "Section 4"
Page 2, line 12:
Delete "sec. 4"
Insert "sec. 5"
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Ortiz explained the amendment. He stated that
Amendment 3 added Judicial Branch employees to the bill,
and they would receive the 10 percent salary increase. The
Judicial Branch were among the lowest paid state employees
and the branch was experiencing severe retention and hiring
problems. He noted the importance of sufficient judicial
staffing levels to avoid case processing bottlenecks in the
criminal justice system. He related that smaller courts in
the state were struggling and had to close its doors for
limited time periods and had none or little response to
recruitment efforts. They were losing staff to the
executive and legislative branches. He relayed that half of
the judicial staff were paid range 12 or below; a range 12
A made $43 thousand per year. The high cost of inflation
and soaring rents were issues for range 12 jobs. He noted
that Ms. Mead was available to further explain the need for
the amendment.
3:01:47 PM
Representative LeBon noted there had been an action taken
in a prior amendment to strike justices and judges and
wondered whether it applied here and the reason why if not.
He asked for further detail. Ms. Mead replied that
Amendment 3 excluded justices and judges from the 10
percent pay raise to judicial branch employees. It did not
run afoul to the previous mentioned statutes because it did
not overall raise the chart in Title 39. However, now that
an amendment had passed that would increase the amounts in
Title 39, an amendment would need to cover justices and
judges as well. Representative LeBon asked if the words
needed to be struck in the amendment. Ms. Mead replied that
the answer was yes.
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 3 to strike the words other than justices and
judges.
There being NO OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 3 was ADOPTED.
3:04:02 PM
Ms. Mead appreciated the amendment. She hoped the committee
would consider Amendment 3 favorably. She informed the
committee that the judicial branch employees were not
unionized. The executive branch had union coverage for its
lower paid employees. She reiterated that half of judicial
employees were at range 12 and below and 58 percent were at
range 14 and below. She delineated that 375 employees were
at a range 12 equating to $22.00 per hour, totaling $43,000
per year. She noted that fast food establishments increased
wages to $15 to $18 per hour. The Judicial branch wanted to
retain employees and it was losing range 12s and 14s to the
private sector and other branches of government. She
furthered that if the bill passed and other branches'
employees received a pay raise it would be terrific, but
unless the Court System was included the effect on the
public would be stunted. She emphasized that the criminal
and civil justice system was indeed a system. She restated
that the Judicial Branch was struggling with recruitment
and retention and so were many of its lower range
employees. She indicated that a range 12 wage was eligible
for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and
the take home salary minus all deductions and withholdings
was roughly $2,200 per month. She stated that the branch
was simply not paying a livable wage, which was the
reason the system had to close some offices for several
days in a row. She maintained that the Court System would
truly benefit from the 10 percent pay raise and so would
the range 12 employees.
3:07:28 PM
Representative Wool stated his understanding of the
amendment increasing wages at designated ranges. He asked
why the system could not merely start a person at a higher
range. Ms. Mead replied that the Judicial Branch could
possibly do that with a lot more money in its personal
services budget. However, it attempted to retain parity
with executive branch classifications; a range 12 had
certain levels of responsibility and if the range was
increased all the higher ranges had to be increased. She
did not know that it would accomplish something without
funding allocated by the legislature.
Representative Carpenter asked why higher ranges would have
to be moved up if the range 12s moved up. Ms. Mead
explained that if range 12 moved up to a 14, then a range
13 that possessed more job skills would deservedly move to
a range 15, etc. but the court system would still need the
funding to pay for the increases.
3:10:04 PM
Representative Carpenter asked where the top end employees
of the Court System fell on the range system. Ms. Mead
answered that the judges and justices had a different pay
scale, which she excluded in her answer. She relayed that
some magistrates and high level employees in the
administrative office totaling 3 staffers were maybe at a
range 27, attorneys were paid at range 20 through 24 and
they totaled 8. She offered that it depended on experience.
Representative Carpenter asked how justices and judges pay
was determined. Ms. Mead answered that judges and justices
were paid under a separate statute except for the
provisions that if everyone else received a pay increase
the justices should as well. The current salary for the 45
superior court judges was about $190,000; broken down it
ranged from $161,000 for district court and the 5 supreme
court judges made roughly $206,000. Representative
Carpenter asked which statutes governed judges' salaries.
Ms. Mead replied AS 22.07.090, AS 22.15.220, AS 22.05.140,
and AS 22.05.140. The last time the statutes changed was in
2006 when justices and judges had been at the bottom of the
pay scale nationally. She reported on the difficulty of
obtaining significant increases, therefore the statute that
kept them in pace with other increases was put in place.
3:13:19 PM
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 3 was ADOPTED
as amended. [Note: Action on Amendment 3 as amended was
later rescinded at the 5/6/22 9:00 a.m. meeting. The
original version of Amendment 3 without any modifications
was adopted on 5/6/22 at the 9:00 a.m. meeting. See
separate minutes for detail.]
3:13:37 PM
AT EASE
3:20:14 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4, 32-
LS0960\G.7 (Klein, 5/2/22) (copy on file):
Page 1, line 14:
Delete "10"
Insert "25"
Representative LeBon OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson explained the amendment. He MOVED
to AMEND Amendment 4 conceptually. The conceptual amendment
1 to Amendment 4 would remove amendment 3 therefore, the
Judicial employees would not receive the additional
increase in wages requested in Amendment 4.
Representative Carpenter asked for a restatement of the
conceptual amendment.
Representative Josephson explained that Amendment 4 applied
to the bill as written and was currently modified to
everyone who worked in a courthouse. Therefore, conceptual
amendment 1 excluded amendment 3.
Representative Thompson requested further clarification.
Representative Josephson stated that the court system was
satisfied with the pay increase in Amendment 3, therefore
the conceptual amendment would strike Amendment 3 from
Amendment 4.
3:22:17 PM
AT EASE
3:23:47 PM
RECONVENED
ELISE SORUM-BIRK, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON,
explained how the adoptions of the previous amendments
changed the bill. She offered that Amendment 1 included a 5
percent pay increase for all exempt and partially exempt
employees.
3:25:15 PM
AT EASE
3:25:40 PM
RECONVENED
Ms. Sorum-Birk pointed to page 1, line 14 of version G of
the legislation and read the words, are increased by 10
percent. The conceptual amendment would change the 10
percent to 25 percent. She detailed that the original
intent of the amendment would apply only to state
attorneys. In Amendment 3, the increase was passed on to
the Judicial branch employees. Therefore, Representative
Josephsons proposal was to have the Judicial branch
receive an additional 10 percent increase as adopted in
amendment 3 and the state attorneys and legislative legal
attorneys (as added by Representative Thompsons Amendment
2) would receive an increase of 25 percent [excluding the
Judiciary.]
Representative Carpenter interjected that the conceptual
amendment excluded the Judiciary branch.
Co-Chair Merrick asked for the specific conceptual
amendment language.
Representative Josephson provided the specific conceptual
amendment language. He stated that on a new line 4 of
Amendment 4 insert the language, "the increase on line 14,
page 1" from 10 to 25 percent was not operative for Court
System employees, justices, and judges."
3:28:05 PM
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 4 was ADOPTED.
Representative Josephson spoke to the reason for the
amendment. He characterized the increase as ambitious but
felt it was justified. He reminded that committee that the
state attorneys were desperately needed in the public
sector on behalf of the public and heard that the
department contracted out for legal services at up to $600
per hour. He stated that contracting would still be
necessary for things like oil and gas matters. However,
when the state nurtured the legal talent in the oil and gas
section, they resigned due to low wages. He relayed an
earlier meeting with the Attorney General of the state and
his team informed him that municipal attorneys starting
salary was $87 thousand and the executive branch started
its attorneys at $60 thousand. Therefore, the starting
salary increase in HB 226 increased the wage to $69
thousand and although generous it was insufficient for
retention. The starting salary in Washington state was $69
thousand including geolocation differential pay. He asked
the committee to recognized that attorneys were highly
skilled and educated, often had education debt, and passed
the toughest bar in the country. He believed that they
deserved to be paid accordingly.
3:31:34 PM
Representative Rasmussen asked for an explanation why the
original bill did not start at 25 percent if it was
important to achieve that type of increase. Representative
Josephson answered that sometimes decisions were made
quickly when drafting a bill. He had not known that
municipal attorneys started at $87,000. He had not heard
the compelling testimony from attorneys nor from DOL
regarding the incredible turnover among its ranks. He
faulted himself for not including a higher number in the
bill. Representative Rasmussen was very comfortable with
the original bill at the 10 percent. She was uncertain that
the additional 15 percent would increase job satisfaction
enough to retain employees. She spoke to other meaningful
benefits that could boost morale including student loan
repayment, childcare, etc. She thought there were other
factors that needed consideration besides pay. She reasoned
that improving benefits would help. She remained
unconvinced it was only about pay.
3:33:53 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked how the amendment would impact the
existing fiscal note. He asked for the cost. Representative
Josephson responded that the fiscal note for just attorneys
was in the range of $8 million. He noted that Workers
Compensation attorneys were classified employees.
3:34:56 PM
AT EASE
3:35:46 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Josephson deduced that the fiscal note would
grow from $8 million to $20 million.
Representative Thompson wondered if the amendment would
have a waterfall effect on the Court System.
Ms. Mead replied it was her understanding that the
amendment would exclude the court system and was a 25
percent pay increase for attorneys. The Judicial salaries
would increase by 10 percent under Amendment 3 but not the
additional 15 percent as proposed in Amendment 4.
Representative Wool understood the amendment sponsors
reasoning. He ascertained that 5 percent was added by
Amendment 1 and currently the other amendments increased it
by 15 percent and the last amendment would bring it up to
30 percent overall. He took issue with the proposal because
other state employees would appreciate a significant
increase and there had been many years with no increases.
He noted single digit increases for other state employees
and highlighted that the university had gone many years
without raises for anyone. He clarified that he was not
questioning that the attorneys did not deserve more. He was
not convinced that attorneys would quit unless the increase
was 30 percent. It gave him caution to give one group a
significant raise when others deserved it as well. He heard
that Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOT) equipment operators were paid less than the private
sector and the state ranks were decreasing. He remarked
that teachers were also struggling. He restated his
reticence towards the amendment.
3:39:32 PM
Representative LeBon MAINTAINED his OBJECTION to Amendment
4 as amended.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Josephson, Edgmon, Foster
OPPOSED: LeBon, Ortiz, Rasmussen, Thompson, Wool,
Carpenter, Johnson, Merrick
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 4 as amended FAILED (3/8).
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual
Amendment 2 to Amendment 4 deleting 15 and inserting 25
on line 4 resulting in an approximately 20 percent pay
increase.
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
3:42:05 PM
AT EASE
3:42:32 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick asked for Representative Josephson to
restate the amendment.
Representative Josephson clarified that Conceptual
Amendment 5 pertained to page 1, line 14 of the
legislation. The conceptual amendment would increase the 10
percent increase in the bill to 15 percent, which would
result in a net 20 percent increase in pay for attorneys
and administrative law judges. He clarified that the Court
system would not be included in the increase from 10 to 15
percent.
Co-Chair Merrick MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Thompson, Wool, Edgmon, Johnson,
Josephson, Foster
OPPOSED: LeBon, Rasmussen, Carpenter, Johnson, Merrick
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
conceptual Amendment 5 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Merrick would hold the bill for updated fiscal
notes.
HB 226 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 226 Amendments 1-4.pdf |
HFIN 5/3/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 226 |
| HB 283 Public Testimony Rec'd by 050322.pdf |
HFIN 5/3/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| HB 226 Supporting Document - Salary Increase Compare 050322.pdf |
HFIN 5/3/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 226 |
| HB 226 HFC Courts Meade letter correction 050422.pdf |
HFIN 5/3/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 226 |