Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/31/2022 03:00 PM House 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 | |
| SB7 | |
| HB226 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 124 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 226 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 226-PAY INCREASES FOR STATE ATTORNEYS
3:29:55 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be 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."
3:30:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, introduced HB 226. He paraphrased the sponsor
statement, which read in its entirety as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
The Alaska Department of Law, Public Defender Agency
and Office of Public Advocacy have struggled in recent
years to attract and retain attorneys. HB 226 provides
a much-needed boost in pay for these essential legal
personnel by raising pay rates for state employed
lawyers by 10 percent across the board.
The State, as an employer, is unable to compete with
salaries offered by the private sector and has even
started to lag other public sector employers in
compensation. Further aggravating this difficulty is
the fact that state lawyers fall into the
classification of "partially exempt" employees,
meaning they do not belong to a union and can only
receive pay increases at the behest of the
legislature. A pay increase for this employee class
has not taken place since 2015.
Factors that previously attracted attorneys to state
service like certain pensions or a chance for more
work life balance are no longer a reality. Lawyers
across state agencies are experiencing a higher-than-
average volume of work due to vacancies and this has
led to increased turnover. A lack of adequate
compensation and large workloads create a self-
perpetuating cycle of burn out and non-retention.
Our criminal justice system relies on prosecutors to
ensure that laws are being enforced and public
defenders to guarantee that low-income defendants
receive the representation they are entitled to.
Additionally, Department of Law attorneys deal with
litigation on varied and important topics like
consumer protection, oil tax disputes and child
support. Without quality pay we will not be able to
keep quality legal professionals working in the public
sector. HB 226 is a small and concrete step the
legislature can take to make employment as a state
lawyer more attractive and palatable to those in the
legal profession.
I urge your support for this measure. Please feel free
to discuss this issue with me in more detail.
3:41:14 PM
ELISE SORUM-BIRK, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Josephson, prime
sponsor of HB 226, introduced a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"HB 226 - Increase to Pay for State Attorneys" [hard copy
included in the committee packet]. She began on slide 2, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
WHAT HB 226 DOES-
.notdefSection 5 of the Bill is the Core
.notdefIncreases Pay for State Attorneys by 10%
.notdefAs Partially Exempt Employees this must be done
through statutory change
.notdefApplies to attorneys under AS 39.25.120(c)(3)
.notdef"attorney members of the staff of the Department
of Law, of the public defender agency, and of the
office of public advocacy in the Department of
Administration"
3:43:48 PM
MS. SORUM-BIRK skipped slide 3 and proceeded to slide 4, which
highlighted the aging attorney pool in Alaska. She explained
that the aging segment of attorneys would lead to a shortage of
lawyers in the state, ultimately threatening people's access to
justice.
3:45:56 PM
MS. SORUM-BIRK advanced to slide 5, which displayed graphics
from the annual 2021 salary report. The graphics illustrated
the median salary for prosecutors in anchorage in addition to
the recommended salary of $87,576.
3:46:38 PM
MS. SORUM-BIRK concluded on slide 6, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
EXAMPLES OF OTHER SIMILAR JOB CLASSES TO CONSIDER
ADDING
.notdefPartially Exempt Legal Support Positions in
Department of Law
.notdefe.g. Associate Attorneys
.notdefAdministrative Law Judge Positions
.notdefWorkers' Compensation Adjudicators
3:47:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON shared that the administration had
indicated unequivocal support for increasing attorney pay.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN shared his understanding that the process
by which salaries were adjusted in statute was a slow and
cumbersome process. He asked how the process could simplified.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON deferred to Ms. Reardon.
3:49:56 PM
CATHERINE REARDON, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Josephson, prime
sponsor, opined that the legislature could consider passing
legislation that provided flexibility through regulation or
other processes to make adjustments within the partially exempt
category of employees.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked which public officials would be
impacted by the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered attorneys in 39.25.120(c)(3),
which included attorney members at the Department of Law (DOL),
the Public Defender Agency, Department of Administration (DOA),
and the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA), DOA.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked why those positions were classified
as public officials, as opposed to "attorney" or "staff" within
a non-public official category.
3:52:42 PM
MS. REARDON shared her understanding that "public officials" was
the general term for different subsections of partially exempt
employees.
3:53:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE requested information on retention rates in
the Municipality of Anchorage. She asked whether the increase
in pay by 10 percent, or roughly $6,200, was lower than the
bonuses that were included in the subcommittee process.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE requested a comparative analysis that
illustrated a scaled approach to salary increases. She agreed
that an increase of 10 percent was not enough.
REPRESENTAIVE JOSEPHSON conveyed that a 10 percent increase
would be in the $5 million range for all three agencies. He
agreed to follow up with the requested information.
3:59:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN directed attention to Section 1, which
detailed the new salary schedule. He inquired about the
reflected increase from current levels.
MS. SORUM-BIRK clarified that sections 1-3 would not make
changes to the current salary schedule, which was adopted by the
legislature in 2013. She directed attention to Section 2, AS
39.27.011(e), which reflected the updated salary schedule from
2014. She continued to note that Section 3 reflected the
updates from 2015. She reiterated that Sections 1-3 were
updating the salary schedule in Section 1 to reflect the current
reality, as opposed to increasing the salary schedule.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN recognized that the legislature should be
considering increases for other classes of state employees as
well. He pointed out that faced with current inflation rates,
the 10 percent increase would not go very far towards addressing
the hiring problems. He wondered whether the increase should be
greater and whether the effective date should be earlier.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said those suggestions would be
considered friendly amendments.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS associated himself with Representative
Claman's comments and Representative Eastman's question
regarding flexibility within the executive branch.
4:03:51 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
[Chair Kreiss-Tomkins passed the gavel to Vice-Chair Claman.]
4:04:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether the state [attorney] salaries
would have to be increase by approximately 40 percent to be
reciprocal to attorney salary in the Municipality of Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE requested a comparative analysis of benefit
packages. She directed attention to Section 6, which stated
that Section 1 would apply to employees hired before, on, or
after the effective date. She asked why the sponsor worded the
language as such.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON deferred to Ms. Sorum-Birk.
MS. SORUM-BIRK said the intent was to ensure that all current
state attorneys in DOL, OPA, and the Public Defender Agency were
included.
4:08:15 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
[Vice-Chair Claman returned the gavel to Chair Kreiss-Tomkins.]
4:08:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON offered to follow up with the
information requested by Representative Vance.
4:08:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN recalled the DOL budget subcommittee
meetings that shared the starting salaries for attorneys in the
Washington Office of the Attorney General. He requested a
comparative analysis that included attorney salaries in
Washington and Oregon in addition to DOL and the Municipality of
Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON acquiesced.
4:11:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN inquired about the effective date in
Section 5.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON was unsure whether the effective date
was a quick decision or a method "to coax the administration and
legislature into seeing the wisdom of the bill by not
implementing it too fast."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that essentially, Section 5
would create a new effective date for Section 5; however, there
was no separate effective date clause to be voted on by the
legislature. He characterized it as "strange."
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON pointed out that the bill would take
effect July 1, 2022, per Section 9.
4:18:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR wondered whether a sunset provision was
considered by the bill sponsor as a mechanism to prompt the
reconsideration of the bill in five years, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said that had not been considered.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR remarked:
If we put the bonuses in this year, that would be the
FY 23, and then if this dovetails on the July 1, 2023,
then that would be the FY 24, so it should be a
seamless transition into this bonus then to pay raise.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON opined that it was drafted in a
seamless way; however, he expressed concern about what could
happen in a conference committee or by veto, which explained the
two-pronged approach.
4:20:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR opined that the FY 23 bonuses should match
the salary increase, so that in FY 24, attorneys would not
experience a pay cut even if that meant increasing salaries by
13 percent, for example, as opposed to 10 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON agreed that Representative Tarr had
highlighted a reason to increase Section 5.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether someone from the bill
sponsor's office could calculate what percentage pay increase
would stabilize the bonus pay from FY 23 to FY 24.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered yes.
4:23:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY commented on the high turnover in OPA.
4:23:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether it would be simpler to
remove the bonuses entirely and make the effective date July 1,
2022, with a 25 percent pay increase.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON touched on the difficulty of turning a
bill into law. He indicated that it would depend on the
administration.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN recalled that in the DOL Budget
Subcommittee, the department repeatedly declined to answer where
they stood on the proposed legislation.
4:26:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether anyone had analyzed State of
Alaska employee salaries at the macro level.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered no. Nonetheless, he shared
his belief that this was a problem that stretched across
departments.
4:29:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY emphasized the importance of this issue for
all state employees. She expressed concern that a two-parent
household could not afford to let one parent stay at home with
the children on a current state employee salary.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 226 would be held over.