Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/20/1993 08:00 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 148: EXEMPT U OF AK FROM APA PROCEDURES Number 053 LOIS FOSTER testified by teleconference from Ketchikan in opposition to HB 148, and said university employees had fought long and hard for grievance procedures. She also said the University was spending money to rid itself of procedures to weaken employees, and noted that while the University is taking personnel cuts, it is increasing the size of its legal staff. Number 097 CHAIRMAN VEZEY then called for a sponsor statement on HB 148. Number 103 SARA FISHER, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 148, joined the committee and read the sponsor's statement. She stated the University was never intended to be covered by the provisions of the Alaska Statute creating the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). She said the APA was not designed for student or employee grievances, but rather for citizens' grievances against boards and commissions. She noted the University is spending a great deal of money defending itself needlessly against APA filings. Number 145 JAKE WARNER testified by teleconference from Mat-Su in opposition to HB 148, saying as a parent of two university students, he felt exempting the University from the APA would lessen the ability of students to be heard. He stated the University would be given more power over the appeals process, and students would previously have had a much tougher time gaining access to grievance procedures prior to the APA's application to the University. Number 192 TERRY BILL testified by teleconference from Ketchikan and opposed HB 148. He stated the University could not be trusted to protect its employees without the APA. He cited the McGrath v. University of Alaska and Odum v. University of Alaska cases as proof. He also said the University's claim that the APA costs too much was irrelevant. Number 230 BRUCE LUDWIG, BUSINESS MANAGER FOR APEA/AFT testified in opposition to HB 148. He stated the APA sets a standard of conduct for administrative employees who review the cases, and removing that standard could allow abuse. He also said that without the APA in place, the only redress employees might have would be a court case, which for most employees is not practical because of the cost. Number 267 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER was under the impression there were dual systems in place: The University's original grievance procedure, and the APA. She asked why. MR. LUDWIG stated classified employees are not satisfied with the grievance system and said many felt they would not get their "day in court" without the APA. Number 290 CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked if the APA's procedures were tedious compared to the internal process. MR. LUDWIG stated the APA process was fair but not tedious. Number 314 CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated it seemed the APA gave employees a right to what amounted to a jury trial in front of a hearing officer. MR. LUDWIG stated the APA does give employees the right to such a hearing, but that it rarely happens. He said usually, administrators hear the grievance themselves or hand it off to another personnel officer to hear. Number 356 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER stated it seemed that employees' biggest concerns are who does the grievance hearings, and how the hearing is done. She asked if there is a compromise possible for employees and the University to agree upon. MR. LUDWIG knew of no discussions on such a compromise. Number 383 WENDY REDMAN, VICE PRESIDENT OF UNIVERSITY RELATIONS FOR THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM joined the discussion in support of HB 148. She stated Mr. Ludwig's group, APEA/AFT, was not a recognized bargaining unit for university employees, and they were only involved in early discussions with about 20 mechanical employees in the system. She went on to say that university employees have worked under the old grievance system for several years, and only after Judge Brian Shortell ordered the university to use the APA's procedures in the Odum case were they modified. MS. REDMAN stated the University had no interest in dismantling the grievance procedure, but wanted to clarify the procedures as the Supreme Court later ordered in the Odum case. She also stated the APA's procedures were costly to the University, and pointed out employers under the APA bear the entire cost of holding such hearings. She said the APA was never intended for employees under the original intent of the statutes. Number 515 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked if HB 148 passed, what guarantee would be given to employees to have their grievances heard. Number 526 MS. REDMAN stated the University and the employees' assembly had been working on a grievance procedure for more than two years, and if that plan is adopted by the regents, the grievance procedure would likely return as written by the employees' assembly prior to the APA decision. Number 543 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER felt there were a number of employees who did not like the idea of returning to the old procedures. Number 553 MS. REDMAN stated the APA's procedures had been in effect for slightly more than two years, and she felt confident employees would return to the old procedures. Number 565 CHAIRMAN VEZEY knew of no other employer who subscribed to the APA's style procedures, including the use of an outside hearing officer. Number 585 DONNA CHANTRY, PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES GENERAL ASSEMBLY joined the committee to testify for HB 148. She stated university employees are not represented by any union. She said as president of the assembly, she went through every grievance procedure with every claimant, and knew the procedure well. She said most of the time, problems are easily resolved even if an employee has a grievance. She stated under the procedures, an employee's supervisor or the other party is usually called in, and the problem can usually be solved. MS. CHANTRY said under this system, employees have had great success with grievances, and the system was working very well. If HB 148 is passed, she said the assembly was prepared to devise and pass a formal hearing option for employees to pursue in place of the APA procedures. She stated removing the APA from university procedures is fiscally wise in the face of budget restraints, and she urged the committee to pass the bill. Number 674 CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked when the assembly might move on such a procedure if HB 148 is passed. Number 676 MS. CHANTRY stated the assembly would move quickly upon HB 148's passage. Number 692 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER MOVED to AMEND HB 148 to make the resulting law effective when the assembly and then the regents adopt the plan. Number 696 CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked if removing the APA from the University's procedures might have an effect elsewhere beside labor relations. TAPE 93-31, SIDE A Number 000 MS. REDMAN replied, "It might." Number 012 CHAIRMAN VEZEY expressed concern that Representative Ulmer's proposed effective date might be too ambiguous. Number 028 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER stated it would not be a problem, since previous legislation tied effective dates to actions outside the legislature's control, such as appropriations. Number 46 CHAIRMAN VEZEY noted HB 148 does not apply to situations like receiving checks, and stated it could eventually involve labor groups and the National Labor Relations Board. Number 060 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER did not see the problem, since the University and the regents wanted it, and so did the employees. Number 064 REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG felt the standard effective date of 90 days might be acceptable. Number 075 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER stated the 90 day limit might create a window between the abolition of the APA's procedures and the time when the new procedures are in place. Number 121 REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG stated the old procedures would be in place anyway, with the exception of the APA. Number 132 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS was in favor of the amendment, and had no problem accommodating people nervous about the changeover. Number 145 MS. FISHER stated Representative Therriault would have no problem with the change in the effective date. Number 170 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT MOVED acceptance of the AMENDMENT. Number 192 The AMENDMENT to HB 148 PASSED by a 4-2 vote. Number 196 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT MOVED passage of HB 143, as amended. REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG OBJECTED. HB 148, as amended, PASSED 4-2. Number 199 CHAIRMAN VEZEY noted the Committee Substitute to HB 148 would be drawn up as amended and then moved. Number 216 REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG RESTATED his OBJECTION. Number 229 CHAIRMAN VEZEY CHANGED his VOTE, which forced a tie. HB 148, as amended, was NOT MOVED from committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|