Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/11/2006 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB93 | |
| HB485 | |
| HB447 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 308 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 447 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 470 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 475 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 485 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 93 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 485
"An Act amending the State Personnel Act to place in
the exempt service pharmacists and physicians employed
in the Department of Health and Social Services or in
the Department of Corrections and corporate income tax
forensic auditors employed by the division of the
Department of Revenue principally responsible for the
collection and enforcement of state taxes who
specialize in apportionment analysis and tax shelters
of multistate corporate taxpayers; and providing for an
effective date."
Co-Chair Meyer noted the seven fiscal notes that would be
addressed.
JIM DUNCAN, ALASKA STATE EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION, responded to
a question from Co-Chair Meyer, Mr. Duncan commented on a
letter sent to the administration. He noted that he had
only a brief opportunity to review the administration's
response. He related that the April 6 letter by Art Chance,
Director, Labor Relations, Department of Administration,
complimented his testimony on the bill.
Mr. Duncan stated that he did not believe that removing
these jobs from the classification system was
unconstitutional. He also clarified his understanding that
legislators maintained the right to move positions from
classified service to exempt service. He maintained,
however, that passing a statute during a contract period
moving positions from classified to exempt status would
impair the contract status. He recalled that positions had
been moved in the past.
Mr. Duncan questioned the policy reason for moving the
positions. He asked if the issue was rate of pay rather
than policy. He spoke in support of raising salaries. He
suggested that to impair a contract was in conflict with the
Alaska Constitution. He suggested that there should be a
systematic way of amending a job class.
2:37:30 PM
Representative Weyhrauch asked what the legal problem was
with this method. Mr. Duncan pointed to the process in the
contract, which allows for positions to be moved within a
class, but to do the move by statute is prohibited.
Representative Weyhrauch followed by asking if the main
issue from a management view was to hire positions quickly
and if the process was otherwise too cumbersome. Mr. Duncan
again asked if the goal was to pay more money. He suggested
that there was a process that could be started to reclassify
and amend the pay plan. He maintained that the situation
was not so critical as to impair the contract process.
Representative Weyhrauch asked if it was possible to open
one segment to address this issue. Mr. Duncan commented
that in discussions with Mr. Chance, he had suggested adding
three additional levels of salary and to pay the same amount
as in exempt service.
2:40:16 PM
Representative Hawker asked if to open a pay plan could be
restricted to certain jobs, or if it would set a precedent
for others seeking to raise their pay scale. Mr. Duncan
responded that the pay plan would only be opened to add
three ranges. That would give latitude to reexamine pay
scale. He referred to reclassification within job families.
He noted that there should be care given to which jobs were
compared.
Representative Hawker commented on the level of belligerence
on the part of the administration, but expressed concern
over raising the level of pay scale for all job classes.
Mr. Duncan noted that paying a higher rate in exempt service
was also possible in classified service, as long as the
proper process is followed.
Representative Hawker reiterated his offense at the tenor of
the letter from the administration, and again expressed
concern over opening up a job classification.
2:43:41 PM
Representative Kerttula observed that even if the entire job
family were raised, jobs still needed to be considered case
by case. Mr. Duncan concurred, and added that he did not
negotiate ranges, but rather overall percentage increases.
He also noted that it would not open the way to moving other
positions into Ranges 28, 29,30.
2:45:11 PM
Representative Weyhrauch observed that the policy choice was
whether to create a new classification range, or to simply
move positions into exempt service. He asked if another
bill is needed to accomplish the new ranges. Mr. Duncan
replied that that is bargainable and a letter of agreement
could be signed. Representative Weyhrauch questioned if it
was a good public policy decision to bump specialized jobs
or high demand positions out of exempt classification. Mr.
Duncan agreed that this was the central question, and
maintained he had not been satisfied with the argument for
creating the exempt status.
2:46:51 PM
Representative Hawker asked if anything prevented crafting a
law to allow additional salary ranges in only certain job
classifications. Mr. Duncan observed that this was the
affect of creating exempt positions. He noted that it was
not appropriate for the legislature to change the pay plan,
as it was subject to collective bargaining. He again
cautioned that the policy decision to move the positions to
exempt service would set a difficult precedent.
2:48:40 PM
Representative Kelly asked for clarification about whether
the Attorney General agreed with Mr. Duncan's definition of
the contract process, and whether it was within the right of
management to change the pay scale.
Mr. Duncan stated that he would advocate adding three ranges
to the pay scale for all bargaining units. He noted that it
would require using the process available to challenge the
statute. He stressed that he did not wish to challenge it,
but felt clearly compelled by the Constitution as it
pertains to contracts.
2:51:20 PM
MILA COSGROVE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL, DEPARTMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION and ART CHANCE, DIRECT, LABOR RELATIONS,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, testified regarding the bill.
Co-Chair Meyer asked whether time was critical in this
matter. Mr. Chance responded that public policy decisions
were made in the Department of Revenue, and stated that he
was not concerned with the time, but the manner of the
process.
Ms. Cosgrove verified that the Department was not able to
recruit the personnel needed within the existing pay plan to
accomplish the work forthcoming.
2:53:41 PM
Representative Hawker asked whether pharmacists and high-
grade accountants, since they shared a high level of
independence, could be recruited privately. Ms. Cosgrove
stated her understanding that pharmacists must be hired by
the Department, although she conceded that they were
occasionally hired on a contract basis. She maintained that
hiring on a contract basis was not a good business practice
in the state.
Representative Hawker asked if it was possible as an
immediate solution, to hire on a contract basis while
bargaining representatives sought a long-term solution. Mr.
Chance commented that many disputes resulted in the
contracting out of employees. He conceded that it may
result in a cost savings, but questioned whether it could be
done within correct public policy. He emphasized the need
for a public policy decision.
2:57:00 PM
Representative Kelly reiterated his question over whether it
was a management right to decide and if it could be done
immediately. Mr. Chance responded that, in the past,
positions had been moved to exempt service, and that there
was language allowing for it. He gave the example of a
vacancy, and noted that the right existed within a contract
to move a position. He admitted that they would oppose
moving the positions within a job classification after they
had become exempt, since they would become a different body
with different legal rights. He noted that this question
had not been answered by any court, although there had been
disputes in past years. He stated that it was unclear
whether a "contract bar" existed to prevent moving positions
from classified to exempt.
2:59:52 PM
Representative Kelly summarized that a management right
existed and that it could occur immediately. Mr. Chance
stated that the management right existed with legislators.
He conceded that since the positions were vacant, a debate
could ensue.
3:00:56 PM
Representative Kerttula asked if the wage increase were
accomplished, whether it would solve the problem. Ms.
Cosgrove noted that the issue was more complicated. She
pointed out the need to compete with the private market for
these types of positions. She also noted that pharmacists
are primarily in the supervisory unit and not represented by
Mr. Duncan's union. She pointed out that classified
employees are subject to various criterion, and that by
applying these criterion to pharmacists, they were currently
accurately classified at their salary rate. She noted that
to move a position by seven salary ranges creates a
precedent problem, rather than seeking other medical
professions to create a new precedent for paying a higher
salary. She stated that she does not believe this could be
accomplished in the classified service.
3:03:29 PM
Representative Weyhrauch observed that if these positions
were moved to exempt status, many of the same issues would
still be in play. Ms. Cosgrove agreed that to some extent
that is correct.
Ms. Cosgrove spoke to good qualifications and licensing.
Representative Weyhrauch said they would not be encumbered
by the collective bargaining agreement. Ms. Cosgrove said
correct.
3:05:22 PM
Representative Joule wondered if exempts run the risk of
being left out by a new administration. Mr. Chance
addressed the mythology about exempt status. Teachers are
exempt because of rights under Title 14. Alaska Marine
Highway employees are exempt because they were originally
hired out of Seattle. Most exempts are so far removed from
ranges 5-30, that they can't be paid without distorting the
scale. Addressing the status of being released by a new
administration, Mr. Chance reported that almost no "at will"
employees exist. Division directors, special assistants,
and some partially exempt employees can be dismissed - the
rest have to have probable cause.
Representative Kelly asked if exempt people could organize.
Mr. Chance said they could. Representative Joule asked how
many people it takes to organize. Mr. Chance reported that
there is no numerical limit. A community of interest must
be demonstrated.
3:09:04 PM
Co-Chair Meyer addressed the fiscal notes: zero fiscal note
#1 by the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development, fiscal note #3 by the Department of
Corrections, three new indeterminate fiscal notes by the
Department of Health and Social Services, and a new
indeterminate fiscal note by the Department of Revenue.
3:10:47 PM
Co-Chair Chenault commented on the fiscal notes: all are
zero for this year, but indeterminate for next year. He
pointed out the certainty of costs in the future.
Co-Chair Meyer said the bill was set aside in hopes of
organizing a collective bargaining process, but that didn't
happen. The legislature needs to take action soon on the
bill, but it needs additional discussion.
3:13:06 PM
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT HB 485 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Hawker OBJECTED. Representative Hawker
maintained that he has heard no solution for this issue and
that there would be litigation. He said he is not
comfortable with this bill. He suggested that raising
classifications could accomplish the same goal without
litigation. He said he is not endorsing labor's side, but
taking the least risky route.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to REPORT HB 485
out of committee.
IN FAVOR: Holm, Kelly, Stoltze, Foster, Chenault, Meyer
OPPOSED: Hawker, Joule, Kerttula, Moses, Weyhrauch
The MOTION PASSED (6-5).
HB 485 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with zero fiscal note #1 by the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development,
fiscal note #3 by the Department of Corrections, three new
indeterminate fiscal notes by the Department of Health and
Social Services, and a new indeterminate fiscal note by the
Department of Revenue.
Representative Weyhrauch concurred with Co-Chair Chenault's
concerns about future costs related to this bill.
3:17:44 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|