Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
04/26/2022 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 | |
| SB220 | |
| SB195 | |
| SB119 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 220 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 220-STATE EMPLOYEES: STATE RESIDENCY
3:35:07 PM
CHAIR SHOWER announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 220
"An Act relating to a residency requirement for permanent full-
time state employees in the classified, exempt, or partially
exempt service; relating to allowable absences for permanent
fund dividend eligibility; and providing for an effective date."
He noted that this was the first hearing.
3:35:23 PM
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of SB 220, introduced the legislation speaking
to the prepared sponsor statement.
There is no current law that requires State of Alaska
employees to be residents of Alaska. In the wake of
the Covid-19 pandemic, accessibility to important
technological resources accelerated rapidly, enabling
many members of the state work force the ability to
avoid the congregate office setting. But while the
"remote work" options appeared necessary at that time,
at least one negative consequence of those
advancements may be a shift toward state employees
moving to work from out-of-state, living away from the
locales their work affects and spending their state-
earned salaries Outside.
Senate Bill 220 would mandate that Alaska's permanent,
full-time state employees are residents of Alaska and
would establish procedures to ensure that residency is
maintained. Under this bill, employees who have
maintained residency with a clear showingto the
extent that they qualify for a Permanent Fund
Dividendmay continue state service. Using PFD
eligibility automatically incorporates allowable
absences that are already established in statute.
Nonresidents could still be hired for state positions
but would have to demonstrate residency through the
next full calendar year, at the first instance of
possible PFD eligibility.
The bill tasks the State Director of Personnel with
annually verifying that employees are in good standing
with the residency requirement by reviewing their PFD
eligibility status or otherwise confirming that an
employeedespite not applying for the Dividendwould
meet the same eligibility criteria. The personnel
director's duties should be relatively easy to carry
out; in most cases she can simply verify whether the
Department of Revenue, Permanent Fund Dividend
Division, approved the employee's Dividend
application.
If they live and work in the state they serve, our
public employees will experience higher morale, better
productivity, improved collaboration, and will have
more care for the tasks over which they are entrusted.
This bill in no way restricts the ability of
departments or agencies to offer work from-home
arrangements within the state.
This legislation provides necessary, reasonable, and
important safeguards against an exodus of our talented
and valuable state employees. I ask for your support
for this commonsense legislation ensuring that
Alaska's public employee services are performed by
Alaskans.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI relayed that the Senate Finance Committee
recently learned that nearly 10 percent of the Permanent Fund
Corporation employees had moved out-of-state in the last year.
They must fly back to Alaska for quarterly meetings and the
state is paying for that travel and per diem. He emphasized that
this practice does nothing to help the state's economy or its
unemployment rate.
He opined that allowing state employees to live and work outside
the state creates a host of problems and SB 220 offers a
reasonable solution.
3:37:42 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked if he had explored the constitutionality of
telling State of Alaska employees they could not work for the
state if they didn't live in the state. He also asked if he was
aware of any other states that had a similar requirement and if
they had been challenged.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he asked his staff that question and
she directed him to a Legislative Legal Services memo that
opined that this would not be subject to a constitutional
challenge. He read the following quote and offered to provide
the full opinion to the committee.
Continuing residency requirements in order to maintain
government employment have generally survived
challenges alleging violations of various provisions
of and rights guaranteed by the United States
Constitution.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI clarified that the bill was confined to
state workers; it did not apply to private industry.
CHAIR SHOWER said he'd like the opinion and it would be posted
on BASIS.
SENATOR REINBOLD commented that she did not support most
telehealth because the provider sees more in a face-to-face
appointment with the patient. She added that she wasn't a big
fan of Zoom because there was much more value of meeting one-to-
one. She asked the sponsor if he thought that was a good
analysis of why he believes fulltime state employees should be
present.
3:39:58 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he shared that concern, but the bill
does not address telework. SB 221 addresses [state employees]
who work out-of-state. He restated the premise that Alaskans are
better served when state employees work within the boundaries of
the state.
SENATOR REINBOLD offered her view that the bill did relate to
telemedicine because the point is to prevent undercutting the
workers in the state of Alaska. She noted that Legislative
Budget and Audit (LB&A) recently addressed this issue and
imposed tight parameters on auditors for the state. She opined
that any exceptions should be well justified.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI responded that he didn't disagree.
3:41:46 PM
SENATOR HOLLAND said he could see the use of telehealth if it is
a cost saving but it struck him as improper for state employees
to receive per diem to travel back to Alaska to do their work.
He asked if that was actually happening.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI replied that is what the Senate Finance
Committee was told about permanent fund employees. He wasn't
aware of what other departments might do, but he was shocked to
learn that the state pays for travel, food, and lodging expenses
for state employees who choose to live out-of-state.
SENATOR HOLLAND asked if he had other examples of this practice.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI relayed that his office asked Legislative
Research Services to look at how widespread this might be. They
reported that the state personnel director was unresponsive to
their multiple requests for this information, which was a
concern. He noted that Legislative Research Services also
reached out to the Alaska Gasline Development Authority (AGDC),
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), Alaska Energy
Authority (AEA), and the Alaska Mental Health Trust (AMHT) and
each reported that none of their employees worked from outside
the state.
3:44:31 PM
SENATOR HOLLAND asked if there were qualifying standards other
than eligibility for the permanent fund dividend (PFD).
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI responded that there are any number of ways
to check residency, but using PFD eligibility seemed to be an
easy way to verify.
SENATOR HOLLAND shared that he didn't qualify for a dividend the
first year he was eligible because of a technicality, and he'd
hate to think that somebody's employment could be at risk due to
a technicality.
3:45:47 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked the sponsor to send a request for the
employee information to the committee and he would forward it to
the Department of the Administration (DOA) personnel director as
a committee request.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI agreed to do so.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Ms. Kawasaki to present the sectional
analysis.
3:46:22 PM
SONJA KAWASAKI, Staff, Senator Bill Wielechowski, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the sectional analysis
for SB 220 on behalf of the sponsor.
Section 1 State Employee State Residency Required;
Determination; Termination; Regulation Authority
Section 1 creates three new sections in law:
Sec. 39.25.025 establishes the requirement that a
full-time employee of the state in a classified,
exempt, or partially exempt position must be, or
become, a resident of the state, for continued state
employment.
Sec. 39.25.027 provides that the State Director of
Personnel must annually determine whether state
employees who are subject to the residency requirement
and who have been employed for the entire previous
calendar year are not eligible for a Permanent Fund
Dividend in the current year, which links an
employee's eligibility for continued state service to
the employee's right to receive a PFD.
An employee who would qualify for a PFD but who is
ineligible because the employee did not actually apply
for a PFD, or an employee who does not quality due to
certain criminal convictions that do not prevent state
employment but disqualifies the employee for a PFD,
may still be eligible for continued employment.
The director must notify affected departments of an
employee who is not eligible for a PFD and who is not
otherwise excepted from the requirement, and the
employee shall be terminated.
Sec. 39.25.029 authorizes the Commissioner of
Administration to adopt regulations to implement these
provisions.
3:48:10 PM
Section 2 Clarifying Language Added for Employees
Who Must Work Out-of-State
Current law provides limitations on the duration that
a PFD applicant may be absent from the state and still
be eligible for a PFD. An exception exists for state
employees who work in "a field office or other
location"; the bill adds clarifying language that the
employee's presence in the location that is out-of-
state must be necessary to fulfill the employee's job
duties.
3:48:39 PM
Section 3 Applicability to Collective Bargaining
Agreements
The new residency requirement does not apply to
collective bargaining agreements entered into before
the bill's effective date.
Section 4 Transition Provision for Applicability to
Current State Employees
A current state employee may continue state employment
until January 1, 2024, despite ineligibility for state
service under the new residency requirement.
Section 5 Effective Date
The Act is effective July 2, 2022.
SENATOR HOLLAND asked if any state corporation employees were
required to live outside the state, specifically AGDC positions
in Texas.
MS. KAWASAKI relayed that AGDC communicated to Legislative
Research Services that their employees are not considered
employees of the state but that they all live in Alaska.
SENATOR HOLLAND clarified that his question was whether any
state corporations might have a requirement that certain
employees live outside the state.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he was only aware of the congressional
delegation for which there is an exception in the PFD statute,
the individual the governor hires to work in Washington, DC, and
congressional staff.
SENATOR HOLLAND said he brought it up to ensure the bill would
provide "carve outs" to protect those employees.
MS. KAWASAKI relayed that the carve outs were in the permissible
absence statutes for the PFD and SB 221 would link to those
statutes. The bill clarifies that employment out-of-state must
be necessary for the performance of the job duties.
CHAIR SHOWER conveyed information from his staff that the eight
PCNs for the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) that were
in Seattle had all moved back to Alaska.
SENATOR REINBOLD said she would like to see proof that no AGDC
employees work out-of-state. She added that the bill was
intriguing because she also recalled that US Senator Dan
Sullivan talked about the number of federal employees who work
on behalf of Alaska but reside in Washington state.
3:53:00 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI restated that his office requested the
information from Legislative Legal Research Services and the
response from AGDC president Frank Richards was:
We are not State of Alaska employees. All our
employees work in Alaska.
CHAIR SHOWER said he would be curious to hear whether the
Department of Law agreed with Legislative Research Services or
had a different opinion.
3:54:09 PM
CHAIR SHOWER held SB 220 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 220 Version I (SB0220A).PDF |
SSTA 4/26/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 220 |
| SB 220 Sponsor Statement - SSTA 4.26.22.pdf |
SSTA 4/26/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 220 |
| SB 220 Sectional Analysis - SSTA 4.26.22.pdf |
SSTA 4/26/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 220 |