Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/11/2000 08:05 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 444-STATE GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES Number 2874 CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HOUSE BILL NO. 444, "An Act relating to nongovernmental activities of state agencies, including the University of Alaska; and providing for an effective date." ANNETTE DEAL, Staff to Representative John Cowdery, Alaska State Legislature, read the sponsor statement for HB 444 as follows: House Bill 444 requires state agencies to annually list which of their activities are "not inherently governmental." Inherently governmental function is defined as "a function that is so closely related to the public interest that it requires performance by state governmental employees." Section 2(c) of the bill contains several paragraphs of elaboration for this definition. What does that mean? Two things ... and let us use the court system as an example. Obviously our judicial branch is inherently governmental because they make decisions that bind our state, our lives, our liberty. However, the support staff that collects the fees, records the transcripts, and gathers information are non-inherently governmental. House Bill 444 first of all requires each state agency to identify activities that are not inherently governmental in nature. Secondly, upon decision to out source an activity by the agency, it requires consideration of all realistic and fair costs of government agency performance when comparisons are made with private sector costs. Interested persons may challenge the inclusion or omission of an activity on a list. A challenge and appeal process is defined in the bill. While a modest requirement, making a list is an important first step. House Bill 444 does not mandate any type of privatization, but does provide the basis for long-term, consistent efforts toward cost effective government. Also provided for you is Public Law 105-270. It is the "Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act" (FAIRA). It passed congress in 1998 and was signed into law by President Clinton in October of that year. House Bill 444 is a mirror of this law, only it applies on a state level. Since 1998 federal departments have complied with this requirement. These lists are available on line to the public. There have been challenges to the list by employees, private industry, and unions. These challenges and appeals work through the process and often the decision is reversed upon gathering of new information. I recently spoke with an individual in Washington, D.C. from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Office of Management and Budget is currently working on an amendment in congress that would take the FAIRA legislation one step further. This amendment would list all activities and categorize them either as inherent or not. This allows the private sector to make informed decisions. There is currently no easy way for individuals to figure out what the omissions from the list are. House Bill 444, however, does not go that far, it simply requires a list be made of the non inherently governmental activities. This allows future policy makers to become more informed. It is merely the first step in making intelligent decisions about government services. Number 2704 REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY asked Ms. Deal if she had any idea what the fiscal note might be. MS. DEAL replied that she had not heard from the administration what the fiscal note may be. CHAIR JAMES asked if Ms. Deal had any idea what the fiscal note was on the federal law. MS. DEAL answered that she is not positive about that, but she does know that HB 444 only requires a listing. She said that in missions and measures some departments are already identifying which services are non governmental. She explained that HB 444 provides access for the public to the information that departments are gathering and allows unions and employees to challenge a decision. Number 2660 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the fiscal note was requested in a timely manner. BARBARA COTTING, Staff to Representative Jeannette James, Alaska State Legislature, replied that the fiscal note was requested last Friday (4/7/00). REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the chair has the authority to issue a fiscal note if administration drops the ball. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved that the committee issue a zero fiscal note. CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objection. Number 2628 REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER requested a two-minute at ease to think about the motion. CHAIR JAMES said it was her prerogative as chair to issue a fiscal note, but she believes that the committee can mandate or tell the chair what it wants her to do. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN withdrew his motion. He informed the committee that HB 444 does have a House Finance Committee referral, and that would give the administration adequate time to come up with a fiscal note at the next hearing. MS. DEAL said she does not have any evidence that the administration is against HB 444. As far as she knows, the administration was very cooperative when the Commission on Privatization did its studies. She explained that the administration had also worked with the House Finance Committee on a regular basis in performing missions and measures, which do include some government core activities. Number 2573 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Deal where attorneys and the Department of Law fit into HB 444. She mentioned that HB 444 is bothering her because she sees the section about the interpretation or execution of the laws, and then the section on page 3, line 14, talks about gathering information for providing advice, opinion, recommendations, or ideas. It looks to her as if attorneys fit in both places. MS. DEAL replied that each department is responsible for making the decision on its own, and then the attorneys have the right, if they do not agree with the department, to challenge the decision. Those are the checks and balances that are built into HB 444. However, she thinks that if an attorney makes a decision that binds the state in an economic matter, military action, or it affects life, liberty, or property, then that is an inherently governmental function. Number 2511 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked what about a legal assistant under HB 444 who is gathering information that is necessary for the attorney to provide advice. MS. DEAL answered that there is authority to delegate. The person responsible for ultimately making a decision is the person who is inherently governmental; that person can delegate authority to somebody to gather information without giving away his/her inherently governmental authority to make a decision. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA reiterated that a legal assistant would not be inherently governmental. MS. DEAL replied that she did not believe that a legal assistant would be inherently governmental. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she envisioned that a situation could arise in the Department of Law whereby attorneys for the department were designated governmental but everybody who worked with them would not be inherently governmental. Number 2465 CHAIR JAMES said that private industry who provide staff sometimes are very successful and have specific types of people. The problem with private industry is that the staff change jobs quite often, and there is no job guarantee for those folks because the company can decide that it is going to do something differently. She agreed that there certainly is a benefit in hiring temporary people because all of the benefits are paid for by the company they work for as opposed to this company. She indicated that over the years [businesses] have used those kinds of companies quite a bit, and they are still being used. She remarked that the North Slope very often contracted work out to temporary-hire companies. She added that if contracting out is what is under discussion here, and she thinks it might be, then there certainly is an advantage in identifying both kinds of jobs which could be provided by some manpower company. Number 2346 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that he had read lines 14 and 15 on page 2 in answer to Representative Kerttula's concern. He said it seems those statements would remain in the judgment of the agency; therefore, legal assistants would be considered non- inherently or inherently governmental as the agency judged, so he does not think the problem would be created that Representative Kerttula foresees. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said HB 444 defines what inherently governmental activities means, which she thinks is just going to be extremely difficult to figure out. She sees how HB 444 is going to go in big circles, and she thinks the sponsor is trying to get correct information from the agencies. If HB 444 means staff versus decision-making responsibilities, then it should be stated clearly. She commented that she thinks that HB 444 is going to cause big internal arguments about what is or is not inherently governmental. She mentioned that HB 444 just will not work with attorneys being hired by the state but not staff because a big problem will be created of people coming on and off the job. She was just seeking clarity and is afraid that HB 444 will cause confusion for the agencies. Number 2267 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON remarked that he has reviewed Section 44.64.050 on page 4, line 29, as the principle purpose behind HB 444 in that it would provide, contrary to almost every signed labor contract with the unions, an alternative way of privatizing positions in state government. He recognized that HB 444 directs the administration, and OMB as its backup, to list every position that works for it following the description in legislation. Every job is to be listed that does not fit within this inherent government activity, and then it will be declared a free position outside the labor contract's control. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON directed the committee to page 4, line 9, where it can be seen that there is a challenge and an appeal section wherein individuals can appeal the fact that their job has been listed outside of the governmental realm and is susceptible to be literally bid out. He directed the committee to go on down to the procurement-listed activity because in his way of thinking that is the nut of HB 444. Now that government has this list of non-inherently governmental employees, all of those positions are no longer in a protected class if the administration, the legislature, or anybody else wanted to contract out the positions. He asked if he is reading HB 444 correctly. Number 2147 CHAIR JAMES agreed that Representative Hudson is reading HB 444 correctly. It seems to her as if that is the issue, and as painful as it might be to discuss this issue, she thinks it is extremely important. She acknowledged that whenever dealing with people, their lives, and their ability to make a living, it is very sensitive; therefore, the committee needs to make sure that it is doing its job in that respect. MS. DEAL remarked that unions are generally opposed when services are transferred to the private sector. However, when unions have the chance to bid at the same level and with the same criteria as private industry, they do not oppose. She added that HB 444 creates more efficient, effective government and the quality of service that is being performed goes up. Number 2067 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY, Alaska State Legislature, said last year the U.S. Army came down [to Juneau] and gave a briefing to legislators [regarding FAIRA]. He said that HB 444 is not going to take everything away and all union contracts are going to be off. He did not want to sound like he was into privatization here and reiterated that what the Army did was allow anybody who had been displaced by FAIRA to have first right of refusal to work for the new entity who was now taking over the federal job. He said that all HB 444 does is to identify non-inherently governmental jobs, but it is not saying that [those jobs have to be privatized]. He is just asking the agencies to identify within their own agency what is inherently governmental. MS. DEAL explained that the gist of HB 444 is to have non- governmental activities listed; that is all it is so it is not [targeting] any one person's job, but it lists a type of activity that is performed. She commented that no out source or privatization is required rather it is the agency's decision if it would like to take building maintenance or electrical work and out source it. Number 1966 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON mentioned that the explanation is nothing novel or new because he out sourced when he was commissioner of the Department of Administration. He indicated that much work temporary in nature was put out to contract, and that provision is in labor contracts. He remembered writing that provision into the contract, and the unions did not like it. The administration had written into the contract that management could contract out services anytime it wanted, and the union agreed, providing that management could show that contracting out cost less than having a state employee do the work. He remarked that the level of privatization that already goes on in state government is fairly large. If HB 444 is only trying to identify what government is doing, then that goes along with what the legislature does every year in examining every line of the budget. Every budget that comes before each subcommittee requires a mission and measurement provided by the director of that budget. He assumed that if there are things in the budget that should be privatized, nothing in the labor contracts (and the committee can ask the union people here) would deny the state's opportunity to do that. He said that the state already has the power requested by HB 444. Number 1879 CHAIR JAMES stated that it is very difficult to find job qualifications to compare what and how people do their jobs. She said that HB 444 would provide the job qualifications, and as painful as it might be, this would be a good idea. It is her personal belief and opinion that a private industry could not be found to provide the services that many state employees currently do at the same wages. She explained that HB 444 [information] would be available to the general public, whereas the public does not have a clue as to what goes on in government now. She commented that all the public knows is that government is a big bureaucracy that costs a heck of a lot of money, and the public thinks it is unnecessary. If HB 444 did nothing more than inform the general public about what goes on in government, it would be worth the money. Number 1792 MS. DEAL said that the basis for HB 444 is to create a list of activities and to provide it to the public for them to review. She indicated that OMB on the federal level wants all government activities on a list because the public does not know where to go to figure out what the government is doing or where to go for information. She agreed that it is almost impossible for a layman to read the budget even when missions and measurements are provided by departments. PAMELA LABOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, testified that the Chamber is in support of HB 444. Over the interim the Privatization Commission reviewed a number of issues regarding privatization, and it was unanimous among all the subcommittees that understanding what is involved in state agencies (who does what jobs and what the costs are) is very difficult to find out. She noted that lack of knowledge made it really impossible for the Commission to determine what the costs were and what could be privatized and what could not or even what the jobs were. MS. LABOLLE explained that HB 444 would go a long way toward creating understanding and making knowledge available to the public about what jobs state agencies do, and which of those can only be done by state agencies. She commented that HB 444 leaves it up to state agencies if they want to procure other sources for doing the job. In answer to Representative Kerttula's concern, the federal government is listing its job activities, and Ms. LaBolle considers the state to be a microcosm compared to the federal government. If the federal government can figure it out, she would think that the state could figure it out; it is better to do it now while the state is relatively small than to wait 20 years when the state has become a much larger government trying to wrestle with this problem. Number 1552 CHAIR JAMES said that there is definitely a difference in the way things are done between the private sector and government jobs. She noted that leaders in government bureaucracy are elected and are politically motivated; therefore, being politically motivated they want to do a good job because that gives them credibility. Government leaders change every four years or at the maximum eight years, so there is no real interest in getting to the bottom line of these issues because it never appears on the radar screen. She commented that with HB 444 the legislature can set in motion rules and regulations that the administration would follow which would naturally give the needed information to make those decisions, as well as let the rest of the state know. She mentioned that she thinks that HB 444 is one of the best pieces of legislation that has come before the committee, and she is very impressed. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked the sponsor if he saw HB 444 as having potential to produce many time-consuming activities for departments or would HB 444 provoke litigation. Number 1351 MS. DEAL indicated that she saw that in federal reorganization alone, the federal government immediately saw a cost savings. She recognized that there is always the chance of possible litigation, and that is what the appeal process hopefully would take care of. The example she has been tossing around in her head is about legislative staff. She asked if legislative staff are inherently governmental or not. Some people would say that legislative staff are inherently governmental because they gather information to help elected officials who are core governmental units. Other people would say that legislative staff are non- inherently governmental because they do not make decisions or push the buttons. Therefore, she does not know the answer to Representative Green's litigation question, but she does acknowledge that litigation can occur. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he was not thinking as much of making a list as defending the list. He noted that the first pass through is done through the OMB and the department, and then an appeal can be made to the department on the decision. His concern is whether HB 444 ties up somebody in the department and asked Ms. Deal if she had seen any indication of that on the federal review. Number 1233 MS. DEAL commented that challenges are made by unions and by the private sector. CHAIR JAMES mentioned that the difference between inherently governmental and non is a little cloudy to her because what really is important is who is doing the job and how much time it takes to learn the position. If the activity is not core government activity, the state could stop doing it; if it needs to be done, the private sector will pick it up. She acknowledged that HB 444 does not just identify job classifications but also identifies what the position does and net result of the activity. She remarked that a service activity or an informational position can be identified and then it can be ascertained if someone in the private sector could do the same thing. She added that HB 444 is not about contracting out necessarily, but it could be part of that, and she thinks it gives people who are managing the government a much better handle on what government should be doing. The legislators would also have a better understanding of whether or not they would want to make policy regarding activities listed under HB 444. Therefore, HB 444 is not really a privatization issue, but it certainly opens the door to decide what is the best way to do a job. Number 1070 MS. DEAL stated that HB 444 is a road map. She reiterated that HB 444 starts the process here and can go into many different directions. She said that privatization is a broad word, and there are many forms of privatization such as transferring a job to a different level, department, putting it on a volunteer basis, or putting it out to the private sector. She explained that out sourcing or contracting out is totally up to the agency who is the policy maker. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN assumed that the committee is in the stage of deliberating HB 444. CHAIR JAMES said there was one more person to testify. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that he would hold off. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON mentioned that historically the big battle in government has always been between union and non-union exempt service employees because exempt service employees can be hired off the street at the will of the person who is doing the hiring. Every department head, including himself when he was commissioner, wanted to have as many exempt positions as possible. He indicated that having exempt positions meant that he did not have to go through the union list, and the union knows this. The manager wants to have flexibility, and HB 444 will go one major step further because it will potentially produce a list of people throughout state government who are not really in a protected service whatsoever. He emphasized that the people will be in the union and in a job but when they take the job they will have to know that the job is up for bid anytime someone wants to come along. If HB 444 becomes law, many government jobs will be at risk of out sourcing without any union protection. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated he is nervous about the fact that every time the legislature meets, it gives departments new responsibilities, takes away old ones, moves responsibilities around, and gerrymanders how government is supposed to function by virtue of the budgeting process. He noted that if HB 444 passes, many jobs that people thought were stable will now be at risk because they will fall into the non-inherently governmental. In the meantime employees bought their houses, committed to their children's education and everything else, thinking they had stable jobs. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON agreed with Ms. Deal that HB 444 lists the jobs at this time but the list is not being prepared just to have something to do. He informed the committee that the list is being prepared so that government has a definition and many defined jobs will be susceptible to page 5, line 6 "when a state agency decides to obtain a private person to perform a listed activity they use competitive sealed bidding." At that point, the job comes under the purview of a sealed bidding process, which might be good or not. He acknowledged that some elements of HB 444 are good, but page 5, line 6, makes him think about many of his neighbors who are going to be in jobs that are potentially at risk. Number 0709 CHAIR JAMES remarked that she does not think that every line in HB 444 is perfect but she is not judging that at this point in time. She is looking at HB 444 strictly from a policy point of view. Passage of HB 444 is very remote, however, she thinks that the discussion taking place is very good and the idea is good. Any idea like HB 444 so far afield from where government is right now takes much time and deliberation to figure out what the consequences would be, but she thinks the theory is excellent. Government does not shrink very well by itself; rather it has a tendency to grow over time because the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. State government is not large like the federal government, but there are similar things that happen in state government as in federal government wherein the state does not know what is happening in every department. If she were governor, she would love to have HB 444 as a mandate because it would tell her exactly who is on her payroll, who should continue to do what they are doing and who should not, and what better ways there might be to do that job. She noted that she thinks that HB 444 is an excellent tool, and she can understand that the unions would have some trepidation; however, when the time comes for union negotiations, the legislature would not be fighting the battle over union contracts if HB 444 was in place. She explained that HB 444 is an eye opener for the public, the legislature, and the administration. She commented again that the theory of HB 444 is excellent. Number 0473 MARCO PIGNALBERI, Legislative Assistant to Representative Cowdery, Alaska State Legislature, mentioned that he wanted to address Representative Hudson's concern about subparagraph (D) on page 5, lines 6-11. He indicated that it was superfluous language, and it has already been discussed to take it out. What that subparagraph says (and it has been misconstrued) is that if the agency is going to go out to contract, it must follow the procurement statute as it is. He emphasized that the subparagraph adds no additional burden on labor contracts or anything else. If the paragraph is taken out, the content of HB 444 would not be changed. CHAIR JAMES remarked that the subparagraph is talking about replacing what is being done by government with private sector, but to do that a comparison must be done and cost savings must be demonstrated. She asked if it was true that these requirements are part of union contracts. MR. PIGNALBERI replied in the affirmative. He added that language in union contracts requires feasibility studies and cost analysis prior to privatizing state jobs. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked what line that was on. MR. PIGNALBERI said he was looking at subparagraph (D) and HB 444 does not change the requirement to follow the union contracts rather the sponsor is saying that if an agency contracts out it must follow the state procurement code. He noted that agencies have to follow the code anyway, so the subparagraph could be taken out because it really is redundant. Number 0336 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked why (a) was on page 4, line 29, referring to a "listed activity." MR. PIGNALBERI replied that the reason "listed activity" is in there is to do cost comparison of all reasonable and fair costs because what the private sector always wants, and what the legislature wants, is to know what it costs to perform a certain activity. He explained that when something goes out for bid, the manager knows what the private sector is going to charge because that is listed in the bid response. What is not known is how much it is costing the state; also the question of how to deal with indirect costs must be solved. He mentioned that HB 444 will require that fair and reasonable costs, or most people will interpret it as indirect costs, must be considered when putting something out for bid. Number 0236 CHAIR JAMES indicated that she wanted to provide an example of what Mr. Pignalberi was talking about by relating what happened when she tried to get the Taylor Highway opened this year. She related that there is a very aggressive person who lives in her area who does road work, so she asked him to get money to open the highway because there was no money in the city budget to do it. She said that the man did talk with the Department of Transportation (DOT) people, found out what was in the budget to open the highway, and came back and told her that he could not do the work for the amount of pay that was budgeted. Because of that experience, she thinks the result of HB 444 will be that the state will find that many jobs cannot be contracted out, whereas some jobs that the state is doing now really should be done by the private sector. She really likes the concept of HB 444, is excited about it, and sees it as a management tool that could maximize public confidence in state government. Number 0042 MR. PIGNALBERI stated that the difference in views expressed by people on this committee is exactly the strength of HB 444 because it will generate state and public discussion about activities that ought to be on or off the list. Healthy discussion is desirable, and there will be debate because HB 444 is a debate-generating bill. TAPE 00-32, SIDE A Number 0056 JACK KREINHEDER, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Management & Budget (OMB), said that the administration does support considering privatization of state functions where appropriate, but the question is whether HB 444 is a good way to go about it. He had looked through HB 444 and compared it to the federal legislation, and HB 444 appears to be a copy of the federal statute. However, the OMB would question whether this process of doing annual lists of what is inherently a government function is the best way to go about privatization. He directed the committee members to page 2, line 21, where it defines "inherently governmental activity" as an activity that has to be done by a state government employee. He asked the committee who is going to agree on "inherently governmental activity." He just does not see even people in administration, much less the legislature, the public, and so on agreeing on what functions have to be done by state employees. MR. KREINHEDER cited the example of the legislature having its own staff that does payroll, computer services, building maintenance, and print shop and acknowledged that any of those activities could probably be privatized, but legislative leadership and executive management have made the decision that those are core essential functions that the legislature prefers to have done by its own employees for reasons of timeliness or cost effectiveness. Trying to reach agreement and spending much time arguing about what is an inherently governmental activity is a questionable investment of time in the view of the OMB. MR. KREINHEDER said that snow plowing could be contracted out to the private sector. He asked if snow plowing was an inherently governmental activity; probably not. He cited what had happened on the Seward Highway after the avalanche this winter. He noted that DOT did attempt to contract for some private snowplow assistance to come in and it was able to rent the equipment, but it could not find any operators willing to risk their lives to get the highway open. Those are some of the factors that come into this consideration. MR. KREINHEDER commented that one of the sections that is also of concern here is on page 3, line 14, paragraph 2, where it talks about functions that are not inherently governmental activities. He sees that this is modeled exactly after or very close to the federal statute, so apparently the federal sponsor made its own determination from the get go of what was not inherently governmental activity. He mentioned that subparagraph (A) which is about "gathering information or providing advice, opinions, recommendations... to government employees" seems like a very odd one to him because really that is management. He indicated that certainly managing and running state government would fall into that category. MR. KREINHEDER said that one of the previous speakers had mentioned legislative staff that do provide information and recommendations to legislators. He certainly could not envision legislative staff being privatized, but conceivably the legislature could contract out for non-government employees but managing and running state government is clearly a governmental function. He acknowledged that management cannot be contracted out but there are a number of employees who provide information and recommendations. MR. KREINHEDER reminded the committee that subparagraph (B) is a list of functions that apparently the federal bill sponsor decided were not government functions and (reading between the lines here) should be privatized. He added that building security, mail operations, facilities operations, and motor vehicle fleet management were listed as areas that need to be reviewed but OMB would object to saying that, for example, facilities operation and maintenance is not a government function. He said that his view of this is that such operations would have to be considered on their merits and not by default by tossing it into this definition. He reiterated that OMB is supportive of looking into privatization where it makes sense, but questions whether HB 444 is a good way to do it. MR. KREINHEDER apologized that the committee did not get a fiscal note for HB 444. He promised to provide a fiscal note by this afternoon. He thought the fiscal note would probably be an asterisk because the lists themselves will be done by departments under varied time commitments. He said that once the lists are put together, he does not know that they would vary much from year to year, so the major time commitment would be the first year. The challenge and appeal section is a little uncertain because anybody can challenge and appeal the list. Naturally, it is hard to say how many challenges and appeals there will be. He explained that challenges and appeals could be very time consuming, so he thinks there will probably be an asterisk on the fiscal note. Number 0719 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN acknowledged that the fiscal note will probably have to be an asterisk because OMB does not know how many challenges there will be. He commented that he understands that OMB will review the first pass [on the list] and either it would not agree and there could be a problem, or subsequently somebody else could appeal and there would be a review. He asked Mr. Kreinheder if he was familiar with what is happening in the federal government, so that he can be guided as to what the probability of appeals and how strenuous those appeals might be. MR. KREINHEDER replied that he will certainly review federal government results; however, he is not sure that the federal experience would necessarily match Alaska. He remarked that he had never heard of this federal act (FAIRA), and he does not know how many of the committee had heard of it before it came to their attention. He did not envision many citizens petitioning the federal government about FAIRA, whereas at the state level it is a little more visible. Number 0814 CHAIR JAMES said that she does not see HB 444 as being privatization in view of her understanding that privatization is not the same as out source. She added that she thinks privatization and out source are two different issues. She stated that she does not see HB 444 as out source, but she might see it as what she calls true privatization in that the state might identify some things that it ought not to be doing and somebody else should pick it up. However, that it would require statutory change to privatize because the state has already dictated by statute that many jobs must be done by state employees, so it would take cooperation between the administration and the legislature. She sees HB 444 as opening a door to cooperation between the administration and the legislature, but she is not sure about the language in this bill. She noted that she thinks the thought and theory in HB 444 is really a good idea, and the committee needs to discuss it more. Number 0930 ANDREE MCLEOD testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She noticed that the public has been absent from this discussion, and as a member of the public, she would appreciate any and all efforts to define what her state government provides. She explained that the list that would come forth from HB 444 would give the public a clue as to what is going on, then the public could make a better informed decision about its role in providing revenues in the form of taxes. She commented that generating discussion is nice, but the state's fiscal future demands action, and the public will be asked to pony up and pay taxes in the future. She asked the committee to do whatever it takes to provide the public with the most succinct information. CHAIR JAMES indicated that Ms. McLeod's testimony is exactly what many other folks all over Alaska would say, including her district, and that is why she thinks that putting the whole issue on the table in the best way should be the goal of the legislature. She emphasized that then the legislature could go from there with informed folks, including legislators and the administration, on how best to deal with these issues. Number 1020 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if he was hearing correctly that Chair James does not want to move HB 444 out. CHAIR JAMES replied that she thinks there are problems with some of the language, and the committee should review it a little more. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN noted that if the committee reviews it any more, HB 444 is not going to go anywhere this year. CHAIR JAMES answered that she does not think that HB 444 is going to go anywhere anyway. Number 1066 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON recommended that Representative Cowdery and Mr. Pignalberi seriously review page 5 at the B provision because he thinks that "competitive sealed bidding" should be removed and replaced with language as written in union contracts. He explained that if that change is made, HB 444 will face much less concern from labor unions. CHAIR JAMES asked if Representative Hudson was asking the committee to put a union contract in a statute. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied that the union contract speaks to privatization, and it simply is a series of standards. He commented that he thinks it is already in paragraph (A) anyway for the most part and he is just saying that as long as "competitive sealed bidding" is in HB 444, he is not going to be interested in this legislation. He does not think that the lion's share of state employees will have any interest in HB 444 either. He indicated that paragraph (A) is one area wherein some common ground could be found. Number 1147 CHAIR JAMES told the sponsor that if he is really interested in passing HB 444 on to Finance, the committee can bring it up again on Thursday (4/13/00), and the committee can work on it between now and then to see if there is any language that needs to be changed, however, it is up to the sponsor. She asked if the sponsor was disappointed that she is not going to move HB 444 today. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY replied no. CHAIR JAMES informed the committee that HB 444 has resulted in a good discussion and it is a great idea. She emphasized that legislators should do whatever they can to make the general public understand what government is all about. She remarked that legislative jobs would be much better if the public knew exactly what was happening, so that they could weigh their decisions based on the same information that legislators have. She acknowledged that in many cases legislative information is not fully available [to the public] and she thinks that HB 444 would make it available. [HB 444 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|