Legislature(1995 - 1996)
06/04/1996 10:00 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 1003
An Act relating to public employees.
Discussion was had with Senator Mike Miller, Wendy
Redman, Art Snowden, Mark Boyer, Jim Baldwin, Don
Valesko, Bruce Ludwig, and Bob Stalnaker. A draft CSSB
1003 (Fin), version "O" was adopted and REPORTED OUT of
committee with a "do pass" recommendation.
After convening the meeting, Co-chairman Halford announced
that the committee would review work on SB 1003, done by
Senator Miller, and would then proceed to SB 1005. He
explained that SB 1005 was returned to the drafter since a
drafting change impacted "a whole number of sections of the
bill." The bill, with newly drafted portions relating to
appropriation versus allocation, will be before committee
later in the day.
SENATOR MIKE MILLER came before committee, referenced CSSB
1003 (Fin) (9-LS1893\O), and explained that the only
difference between the new version and that discussed
earlier in the special session reflects the fact that the
administration came forward with a different retirement
benefit for new employees. Under the old bill, new
employees entering the system after July 1, 1996, would be
eligible for paid health care benefits upon retirement and
would be able to buy one-half for their dependents or their
spouse. That was eliminated in the new version. Under the
new version an employee entering the system would have to be
in the system for ten years before they could "vest out" for
health benefits only. An employee would still be in the
system for five years for vesting for the plan itself. The
costs savings are the same or very close. The
administration feels there is less objection to this
particular health benefit area than what was contained in
the previous bill.
The bill covers five major items:
1. Geographic differential, as passed by the Senate.
2. Tier III retirement system which requires ten
years of services prior to eligibility for health
benefits upon retirement. For police and
firemen, vesting occurs after five years, but
an individual must be 50 years old to retire.
3. Calculation of the high five years of salary when
computing retirement.
4. Restructuring of cost of living differential
language to utilize permanent fund data as proof of
residence.
5. Leave is cashed in at the rate it is earned.
Senator Miller directed attention to Sections 30 through 43
and noted that they represent the retirement incentive
portion of the bill. Section 50 approves monetary
contracts. Other sections also approve pay raises for non-
covered employees throughout the state.
Co-chairman Halford voiced his understanding that the
retirement incentive applies to the state, university, court
system, and court administrator. He then referenced the
teacher retirement incentive passed during regular session
and asked if teachers excluded from that legislation were
included in CSSB 1003 (Fin). Senator Miller direction
attention to Section 34 and noted authorization for a
retirement incentive for employees of regional resource
centers. Co-chairman Halford voiced his understanding that
it includes central correspondence. Senator Randy Phillips
requested clarification, for the record.
BOB STALNAKER, Director, Division of Retirement and
Benefits, Dept. of Administration, explained that one group
of teachers were missed in HB 354. They were previously
called correspondence study teachers for the Dept. of
Education. They are now designated Alyeska Schools. They
are included in the proposed bill. AVTEC and Mt. Edgecumbe
were included under HB 354. Two of the three schools under
the Dept. of Education were funded in the earlier
legislation. The proposed bill picks up the third.
Senator Zharoff referenced earlier concerns regarding
whether all items within the bill fit under the initial
special session call. He then asked if the contents of the
proposed bill fit under the expanded call. Senator Miller
responded affirmatively.
Co-chairman Halford referenced a legal opinion from
Legislative Legal Services "on the way the call actually
works." He explained that the constitution says a call can
be limited to subjects. While the call may be more limiting
than subjects in its wording, limitations beyond what the
constitution considers subjects would be ineffective. There
should be no question that everything within the bill is
within the call. The one question might be the effective
date. The Co-chairman said he did not believe putting an
effective date in a call has "any impact at all."
Legislative attorneys agreed with that opinion.
Senator Rieger directed attention to Sections 44 and 45 and
noted the description of "non-covered employees" in the
executive branch and "non-collective bargaining employees"
in the university system. He then asked if the difference
in wording was intended to have different effects. Senator
Miller said he did not know. He explained that the proposed
bill was intended to "pick up everybody . . . eligible for a
salary increase, whether they were under union contract or
not." He voice his belief that the only "folks that are not
covered in this particular bill are legislators themselves."
Senator Rieger asked if funding for Section 45 is sufficient
for the 1.5 percent increase to apply to university
employees "the same as to the other executive branch
employees." Senator Miller deferred the question to Finance
Committee chairs. Co-chairman Halford advised that the
funding bill includes a substantial amount for the
university, both in a FY 96 supplemental and FY 97 funding.
He then voiced his understanding that the university gets
the 1.5 percent. Co-chairman Frank clarified the situation,
saying that the University would actually receive less than
that because the Governor "put in 1.5 percent times their
entire personnel costs." Some contracts are higher than 1.5
percent. The resulting funding is $300.0 to $400.0 less
than the cost of fully funding approved contracts plus 1.5
percent for non-covered. Funding was provided, however, at
the Governor's number.
Co-chairman Halford noted that the funding is not contained
within the proposed bill. Schedules within the bill reflect
"whatever is necessary to pay the total amount." The
funding is in SB 1005. Senator Rieger suggested, "in a way
it's in this bill, by omission." He then directed attention
to Section 44 and noted language saying:
Employees who are not otherwise covered are entitled to
receive salary adjustments comparable to those received
by the classified and partially exempt employees of the
executive branch under sec. 13
University employees have been carved out and not made
subject to that provision. Co-chairman Frank stressed that
the university "has its own way of doing things." It
recently implemented a new merit-based program. He
suggested a representative of the university be asked to
further clarify the situation.
WENDY REDMAN, Vice-President, University of Alaska,
Statewide Systems, came before committee. She said that the
language in the proposed bill is appropriate. The
University is not under the same pay scale as the State of
Alaska. The board of regents has its own scale. The
companion bill containing the funding does not contain the
same amount of money other state employees are receiving.
Ms. Redman said that could be dealt with "in the other
context."
Senator Rieger asked if the board of regents would implement
a 1.5 percent pay adjustment for employees if that funding
was forthcoming. Ms. Redman said the university does not
give across-the-board increases or annual step increases.
The university system is merit based. It will apply to no
more than 80 percent of the employees. The cost of the
program will be approximately $1 million less than what is
presently in the draft companion bill. The total is
approximately $2.3 million for non-covered employees. The
university now has $1.3 million "that is left in what the
Governor put in." Senator Rieger asked if the funding would
cover anticipated merit increase costs. Ms. Redman
acknowledged it would not cover all the employees. The
draft bill contains $1,389.0 for the 3,150 non-covered
employees of the 3,500 total university employees. The
amount needed to cover salary increases for non-covered
employees is $2,353.0 million. The university is thus $1
million short.
Senator Zharoff asked why items within the proposed bill
(retirement incentive, contract approval, etc.) were not
dealt with in separate pieces of legislation. That approach
was the preference of the administration, minority members,
and bargaining units. Senator Miller voiced his belief that
the items should be handled as a package. He acknowledged a
likely floor amendment to separate the issues.
Senator Donley asked if judges are included in the early
retirement incentive. Co-chairman Halford voiced his
understanding that a different system is involved. Court
employees and the administrative director are included,
however. ART SNOWDEN, Administrative Director, Alaska Court
System, said that judges are not included.
MARK BOYER, Commissioner, Dept. of Administration, came
before committee. He said the Governor does not support the
bill as currently drafted. Many provisions go beyond
"anything that the Governor could support at this time."
Some of those items include a change in benefit calculations
(the so called ramp). The bill also lacks the separation
incentive plan listed on the expanded call.
Mr. Boyer attested to an issue which places a cloud over the
legality of the bill as drafted; specifically, the effective
date. He suggested that a representative of the Dept. of
Law speak to the problem.
Co-chairman Frank directed attention to area cost
differentials within Section 10 and voiced his understanding
that they do not apply to revenue sharing and municipal
assistance. Commissioner Boyer concurred. He explained
that the differential for municipal assistance and revenue
sharing is also used for non-covered (statutory) employees.
While those differentials have been restated, no changes
have been made.
JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental
Affairs Section, Dept. of Law, next came before committee.
He referenced a June 3, 1996, legal opinion by Tam Cook, and
voiced his belief that it does not reflect the contents
earlier suggested by Co-chairman Halford. The opinion spots
the issues but does not resolve them. Mr. Baldwin said that
the Governor's call should not be characterized as
stipulating an effective date for various provisions. It is
intended to stipulate a class of employees to which the new
tier III, or other aspects of the call relating to cost
saving measures, would apply. That is the way court
decisions characterize how changes in retirement systems
apply. It is meant to characterize when a new class of
employee, to which tier III would apply, would be created.
The stipulation is to the class of employee to which the law
is applicable rather than to a stipulated effective date.
Mr. Baldwin acknowledged that the subject is restrictive and
narrow. The legal question is, Is it overly restrictive?
Are we attempting to excessively limit the power of the
legislature? Mr. Baldwin said he did not know the answer to
the foregoing questions. Only a court could make that
determination. A cloud is placed over the validity of the
law because established court decisions in other states have
said that if the legislature exceeds the call, the resulting
legislation is void. Mr. Baldwin reiterated that the Legal
Services opinion correctly spots the issues but does not
resolve them.
Commissioner Boyer emphasized that the Governor's intent is
one of fairness in treatment of new employees impacted by
changes in the retirement system per the proposed bill. He
further attested to need to treat those impacted by
reductions in geographic differentials with a fair and even
hand. That is why the administration is seeking a uniform
effective date for all provisions. To the extent that the
proposed bill does not provide a fair and even approach to a
class of employees, the Governor is in opposition.
Commissioner Boyer suggested that one means of clearing up
the cloud would be to address the issue of effective dates
within the bill.
Co-chairman Halford asked if the foregoing approach would be
consistent with what the administration proposed as
geographic differential changes "far more drastic than in
this bill." The administration's changes were to take
effect this year. Commissioner Boyer responded negatively.
He noted that the bill, introduced by the administration
last year, contained a one-year grace period that would have
protected everyone at current levels until June 30, 1997.
Co-chairman Halford pointedly inquired concerning the
effective date of the administration's original geographic
differential bill. Commissioner Boyer acknowledged June 30,
1996; however, provisions allowed for a one-year hold
harmless. The practical effect was June 30, 1997. Co-
chairman Halford noted that the entire bill became effective
as of that date while CSSB 1003 (Fin) provides a five
percent ramp so the effect takes (in some cases) four years
to apply.
Senator Rieger asked if the grace period in the original
bill applied to people hired after June 30, 1996.
Commissioner Boyer responded negatively. Senator Rieger
suggested that the Governor's call referred only to the June
30, 1997, class of employees hired after that date.
Commissioner Boyer concurred. Senator Rieger noted lack of
consistency in treatment of employees under the Governor's
original bill versus the Governor's position at this time
and asked why the issue of fairness was now being raised.
Commissioner Boyer explained that the issue at the time the
bill was introduced was more narrowly focused on ability to
reopen contracts at the heart of this discussion. Threshold
percentages would have allowed for a quick reopening of
contracts, with area cost differentials, in July of 1996.
The differentials could then be renegotiated to more closely
match those in statute. That was the reason for the
immediate effective date for new hires. Senator Rieger
voiced his understanding that the issue was not fairness but
logistical consideration. Commissioner Boyer commented that
the issue has become more complex since then. He stressed
that the theme of fairness has been "absolutely clear in
this bill since we introduced it." That continues to be the
administration's theme.
Senator Rieger said that in discussion of different
treatment for new hires versus former hires, he failed to
see "the magic of one effective date versus another," as
long as the date is not retroactive. Commissioner Boyer
stressed that the effective date of the original bill ("not
unlike the effective date in this bill, either as it
currently is drafted or as the Governor had suggested it
might be in the amended call) treats all new hires equally."
It makes no difference whether the new hire would be
entitled to a geographic differential. It would treat them
all similarly, regardless of the timing. Co-chairman
Halford noted that the proposed bill would do likewise.
Commissioner Boyer agreed but added that what the proposed
bill does not address is, "What happens to those people
already enjoying a benefit--for instance, the geographic
differential?" It differentiates between those employees.
Co-chairman Halford noted, "Your bill knocked them off--all
at once--in one year." The proposed bill limits the effect
to no more than five percent in any given year. In the case
of large geographic differentials, in bush communities, the
proposed bill requires four or five years to implement. The
administration's bill "cut them off in one year." The Co-
chairman then asked which would be more fair.
Senator Rieger suggested that there would always be a point
at which new hires are treated differently. He said he did
not see a difference between a 1997 start date, a 1996 date,
or "anywhere in between." He again questioned what would
be accomplished by delaying the effective date.
Senator Sharp asked if the administration would look
favorably upon delay of the RIP until next June 30. He
suggested that if that is not done, the state will not gain
the advantage of the lower benefit level scheduled to become
effective July 1, 1997.
DON VALESKO, Business Manager, Public Employees Local 71,
next came before committee. He advised that Local 71
represents approximately 1,700 labor, trades, and classes of
employees working for the state. He informed members that
the proposed bill contains "some good parts." He focused
upon pay increases for judges and advised, "It's nice to see
that people that make $99,996.00 a year are going to be up
to $110,436.00 a year." He noted that both judges and
employees within his union work for a living and voiced his
expectation that when union members "come to the table with
a ten to fifteen percent raise," the committee will look
upon it as favorably.
Mr. Valesko voiced support for the retirement incentive
program, noting that it would allow workers to leave state
employment early and effect savings by replacing retirees
with lower range employees. He expressed doubt that any of
the members of Local 71 would qualify for the RIP, since
they have seldom qualified for past incentives. Layoffs
have instead been implemented for union workers. Mr.
Valesko stressed that Alaska has "less equipment operators
working for the state now than we had before oil dollar one
flowed into the state."
Approval of collective bargaining agreements is another
favorable aspect of the bill. Noting that labor feels
betrayed by the process, Mr. Valesko provided a brief
history of bargaining negotiations. Local 71 came to the
bargaining table twice in the last two years. In the first
agreement, the union agreed to reduce the leave package by
nine days a year in converting from sick and annual leave to
personal leave. It further agreed to hold the line on wages
for a three-year period. It also proposed to increase
productivity (maintain more buildings and roads) and go to a
forty-hour work week. That was rejected, and the
legislature indicated that the 6.7 percent "extra money"
members would receive by going to a forty-hour work week was
too much, but that if the percentage was lowered to 2 to 3
percent, it would have been approved last year. The union
thus returned to the table and reached an agreement that
contained the leave reduction and a 1.4 percent increase for
1996. Battles over approval continued. Mr. Valesko
stressed that indication from legislative leadership was
that if agreements came in at a reasonable rate of 2 to 3
percent, the contracts would automatically be approved.
That did not happen. That is discouraging. The proposed
bill further reduces areas that have already been addressed
in collective bargaining agreements.
Mr. Valesko took exception to the proposed tier III for new
hires and lack of a separation incentive for long-term
employees at Harborview. He said that tier III would reduce
the standard of living for future Alaskans and questioned
whether the legislature wished to have on record a lower
standard of living for future retirees. That approach
appears to be contrary to past legislative encouragements
(such as the longevity bonus) to remain in Alaska. Tier III
would instead encourage retirees to leave the state and find
a cheaper place to live. That is a step backwards. Mr.
Valesko urged that members take "a look at that."
Referencing provisions relating to geographic pay
differentials, Co-chairman Halford voiced his belief that,
because of the longer transition period, the proposed bill
would be less of a problem than legislation introduced by
the administration. Mr. Valesko voiced his understanding
that bill provisions would impact those not represented by
collective bargaining. If approved, the contract between
Local 71 and the state would call for the union to go back
to the bargaining table on geographic differentials. He
acknowledged that a phase-in over a number of years would be
preferable to an immediate effective date.
Mr. Valesko referenced the geographic differential for Local
71, and Co-chairman Halford advised of his understanding
that the union had "already negotiated down to about the
numbers that are in the bill." Mr. Valesko attested to the
fairness of the differential in place since 1976 in that a
person making $45,000 a year receives approximately the same
as one making $25,000. Co-chairman Halford noted that the
proposed bill limits differential reductions to 5 percent
annually, over a period of time.
Senator Randy Phillips voiced his understanding that the
Local 71 bargaining unit does not receive merit increases.
Mr. Valesko concurred. He then noted, for the record, that
union members receive two, three percent longevity steps
after seven and nine years of service.
In response to a question from Senator Sharp regarding
inability of Local 71 members to qualify for the retirement
incentive, Mr. Valesko said members are journeymen
craftsmen. They do not need a training period to learn
their jobs. New employees come on and within six months go
up to full journeymen pay.
Co-chairman Halford advised that the merit system creates
the steps that make the retirement incentive economical.
That is why it does not work for Local 71 employees.
Discussion followed between Senator Miller and Mr. Valesko
regarding the pay differential within Local 71. Mr. Valesko
advised of payment of roughly a $2.00 differential for
workers in Fairbanks. Senator Miller noted that in the
Governor's original bill "he would have taken Fairbanks to
zero which would have allowed him to reopen your contracts
to bring your workers down." He then inquired concerning the
union's position on the bill. Mr. Valesko voiced
opposition, stressing that the bargaining unit presently has
a system in place. He added that he had no fear in going
back to the bargaining table and justifying "what we have as
far as a subsistence schedule, throughout our contract." He
stated his belief that there is a geographic differential in
Fairbanks, for which employees should be compensated.
Senator Randy Phillips voiced his understanding that some
trade and craft employees, within the bargaining unit, are
paid less than the private sector. Mr. Valesko responded,
"tremendously less." As an example, he noted that an
equipment operator makes approximately $20 to $22 an hour
after nine or eleven years. As a comparison, he told
members his youngest son, with no experience, had recently
gone to work for a contractor, as a flagman, at $22 an hour.
A labor under Local 71's contract starts at approximately
$14 an hour.
END: SFC-96, FSS #4, Side 1
BEGIN: SFC-96, FSS #4, Side 2
Mr. Valesko acknowledged that in some classifications union
members may earn a bit above what is paid in the private
sector. He noted difficulties associated with comparisons
when the jobs being compared are not equal.
Mr. Valesko attested to union responsibility for maintenance
of roads, airports, and buildings and reiterated that the
state now has fewer equipment operators today than in 1978.
There is need for more. Previous governors and the
legislature have acknowledged deferred maintenance needs.
Mr. Valesko cited situations in which three maintenance and
three custodial positions for the international airport were
eventually filled as an administrative position. Letters of
frustration to both the Governor and the legislature did not
do much good. Co-chairman Halford acknowledged, "We remain
over managed and under staffed."
Senator Randy Phillips stressed that employees in Local 71
perform the basic functions of government that the public
expects. More attention should be paid to this area.
Senator Zharoff voiced his understanding that the Governor's
geographic differential only impacted non-covered employees.
Mr. Valesko said that unless certain items are removed from
collective bargaining, legislation impacts those who are not
covered. The tie-in with the Local 71 contract was that the
agreement contained a reopener in the event of introduction
and passage of the administration's geographic differential
legislation. He acknowledged that renegotiation may produce
the existing differential system. He also advised that the
reopener would allow him to ask for improvements.
Senator Zharoff referenced lack of a separation program for
employees of Harborview and asked if others would also be
separated. Mr. Valesko said there may be others, but he was
aware of those at Harborview because of labor/management
committee meetings attempting to facilitate employee needs
through transfers or a separation package. The union covers
maintenance workers, cooks, housekeepers, and laundry
workers at the facility.
BRUCE LUDWIG, Business Manager, Alaska Public Employees
Association; Alaska Federation of Teachers; and secretary-
treasurer of the Alaska State AFL-CIO, next came before
committee. He voiced opposition to portions of the bill and
noted that Mr. Valesko reviewed the good portions. Two
major areas of disagreement relate to:
1. Drastic changes to the retirement system.
2. Drastic changes in the geographic differential.
Mr. Ludwig expressed his belief that neither of the
foregoing are warranted. There has been no study indicating
that state pay or benefits are out of line. Present
geographic differentials result from a 1984 study that
measured spending patterns and how "people bought things in
the bush and in town and what the prices of those items
were." Actual living expense differences were highlighted.
The study showed that it cost 38 percent more to live in
Bethel. The cost of living in Bethel has not gone down, yet
the proposed bill would cut the differential to 20 percent.
Mr. Ludwig said he represents state supervisors,
municipalities, school districts, boroughs, and university
employees. The greatest concern over lower differentials is
ability to hire people. The chief probation officer in
Bethel has serious concern whether he can find a qualified
person to fill a job when it comes open. He further noted
that union jobs for auditors are far below those of the
private sector. He stressed that the state should have
"just as good an auditor that looks over Exxon's books as
what Exxon has putting them together." A comparison of pay
and benefits indicates they are not comparable. The
situation is similar for engineers.
A decrease in the differential will inhibit willingness to
transfer and injure employees who take transfers. Both
troopers within the Dept. of Public Safety and staff at the
Dept. of Corrections face forced transfers. It becomes a
hardship upon the individual to "take that kind of a pay
cut." A transfer from Kotzebue to Nome would entail a
reduction from 42 percent to 22 percent. That will cause
the state to lose people who would be unable to take the
cut.
Senator Miller characterized the approach within the
proposed bill as much "softer than the Governor's bill."
Mr. Ludwig acknowledged that it is "less unfair." He
expressed opposition to the Governor's original proposal,
and indicated that both approaches would have "a devastating
effect on the quality of people that you're going to be able
to attract."
Senator Rieger referenced staff attendance at pension board
meetings and advised of his understanding that state policy
is to "only attempt to achieve 95 percent of full funding of
the actuarial soundness of our two major pension funds." He
then asked if that was true. ROBERT STALNAKER again came
before committee. He explained that a system is actuarially
funded over a certain number of years. Alaska's funding
time frame is twenty-five years. Twenty-five years is much
more conservative than 40 years and puts more pressure on
"trying to collect the money immediately." There is
volatility in funding a system over time. That volatility
means "you're going to guess the right way, sometimes, and
you're not going to guess the right way other times." The
funding ratio will also be higher and lower than
anticipated, in wave-like actions. Managers attempt to
develop a process that removes as much volatility as
possible. The actuary funds at 95 percent for several
reasons. It does an employer no good to collect 110 percent
since it means holding money the employer could otherwise
use. The real question is, "What's a fair target . . . over
a twenty-five year period?" The 95 percentile was selected.
The reality is that PERS is currently funded at 96.5%. By
funding at 95 percent, the expectation is that there will be
times it will approach 100 percent and other times it will
be down to 93 percent. The end result is that the state is
collecting the money needed to fund the system. Selection
of 100 percent would be arbitrary because at times the level
would be 105 percent, and the state would be returning money
to the employer. At other times the level would be 95
percent, which "is still very well funded."
In his closing comments, Mr. Stalnaker reiterated that the
target over the long term is 95 percent. At that rate,
adequate moneys are collected to sufficiently fund the
system at a rate better than most in the nation and at the
same time give proper deference to the employer, since the
state is not holding more moneys than needed.
Senator Rieger voiced his understanding that the PERS and
TRS fund totals $7 or $8 billion. A 5 percent underfunding
equates to $400 million. He said he found it distressing
that the state is "almost intentionally shooting for $400
less than what 100 percent would require . . . ."
Further discussion followed between Senator Rieger and Mr.
Stalnaker regarding fluctuation in stock market investments
and impact on retirement systems. Mr. Stalnaker stressed
that funding assumptions for the system are conservative.
He voice his belief that "for the most part we will be
overfunding this system as we go through time."
Additional discussion followed regarding operation of
private pension plans. Mr. Stalnaker attested to
flexibility in private sector funding of retirement systems.
Co-chairman Frank MOVED for adoption of CSSB 1003 (Fin) (9-
LS1893\O). Senator Zharoff OBJECTED, saying that he
believed matters incorporated within the draft should be
handled separately. Senator Donley also OBJECTED. Co-
chairman Halford called for a show of hands. The motion
carried on a vote of 4 to 2 (Senator Sharp was temporarily
absent), and CSSB 1003 (Fin) was ADOPTED.
Co-chairman Frank MOVED for passage of CSSB 1003 (Fin) with
individual recommendations. Senator Zharoff OBJECTED. Co-
chairman Halford called for a show of hands. The motion
carried on a vote of 5 to 2, and CSSB 1003 (Fin) was
REPORTED OUT of committee. Co-chairmen Frank and Halford
and Senators Phillips, Rieger, and Sharp signed the
committee report with a "do pass" recommendation. Senators
Donley and Zharoff signed, "do not pass, use separate
bills."
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|