Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/19/2002 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 248-PERS BENEFITS FOR JUV INSTIT EMPLOYEES Number 1365 CHAIR COGHILL announced the next order of business, HOUSE BILL NO. 248, "An Act relating to retirement contributions and benefits under the public employees' retirement system of certain juvenile detention employees and juvenile correctional institution employees." Number 1331 MIKE TIBBLES, Staff to Representative William K "Bill" Williams, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 248 on behalf of Representative Williams, sponsor. He explained that HB 248 would give juvenile officers the same 20-year retirement system currently enjoyed by peace officers and firefighters. Under current law, peace officers include correction and probation officers who are trained to deal with dangerous individuals and who have powers of restraint and arrest. MR. TIBBLES said juvenile officers have the same or very similar training and, like correctional officers, are asked to place themselves in a dangerous work environment. He asked the committee to keep in mind that juvenile officers are asked to deal with what the court believes are individuals who pose such a threat to society that they need to be placed in an institutional setting; furthermore, they are charged with the difficult task of trying to rehabilitate those individuals. MR. TIBBLES concluded by saying the sponsor believes this legislation takes an important step to correct an inequity in the law and "will go a long way to help the State of Alaska retain its quality employees and attract new employees in the juvenile officer field." Number 1180 CHAIR COGHILL noted that [HB 248] is "standing in line" with other bills regarding the 20-year retirement - many have compelling cases as well. He explained that he'd agreed to hear this bill because equity [has been an issue]. VALERIE MILLER, Juvenile Probation Officer, Kodiak, Alaska, testifying via teleconference, told the committee she began working for the state in 1978 as a youth counselor at McLaughlin Youth Center. She worked in detention and on both boys' and girls' treatment units, until leaving there in 1988. She noted that she'd worked as Youth Counselor I, II, and III, "through to unit leader." During that time, she was assaulted physically, including being spit upon and often verbally assaulted. MS. MILLER said safety for the youth, staff, and public was of utmost importance and was a constant consideration. The level of stress increased with the level of supervisory responsibilities, and the "alertness to duty was intense, making this work exhausting." She noted that the incarcerated youths felt they had nothing to lose and were often impulsive, unpredictable, disturbed, angry, and dangerous. MS. MILLER stated that unlike in the adult system, there are no armored or electronic barriers for protection. She said she knew, as a youth counselor, that she was a "frontline worker between the youth and the public." She added, "It was a skillful, interpersonal balance to win the trust, respect, and cooperation of these youths, which comes with experience, maturity, and inner confidence." Number 0898 MS. MILLER continued as follows: At the time I transferred to the probation officer [job class] series in 1988, I remember feeling a sense of relief at the difference I perceived in the level of anxiety I experienced with respect to the duties and responsibilities when I became a probation officer, as compared to a youth counselor in the institution. [As a youth counselor] I had no break, and I ate institutional food with the youth. I worked with the most severe clients ... with the highest risk factor - who were either a danger to themselves or others, and could not be placed in a lesser restrictive placement. As a juvenile probation officer, I have variety and flexibility in my job. As a youth counselor, I worked within the same walls day after day, with little opportunity to leave. As a juvenile probation officer, I can call for backup from law enforcement for any occasion. As a youth counselor, I needed to remain calm and work through the situation, no matter how hostile [or] out of control the youth were. As a juvenile probation officer, in most emergency instances, I am concerned for my safety [and the safety of] possibly one or two youths and those immediately around me in the community. As a youth counselor, I was concerned for the safety of up to 20 (indisc.), the staff, and the community. As a juvenile probation officer, I can hire a guard to sit with and transport or escort youth. As a youth counselor, I was the guard and escort and often had to sit with youth for long periods of time, until the youth would gain control. There is, indeed, a disparity within the juvenile justice job classes, and youth counselors have earned more recognition. Youth counselors should have an equitable incentive to remain at their posts in the institutions and not be attracted to better benefits offered in the probation officer series, thus promoting and ensuring the quality of workers that are needed in this field of work. This inequity needs to be rectified. MS. MILLER concluded by asking the committee to support HB 248. Number 0739 ARTHUR KONEFAL, Youth Counselor, Fairbanks Youth Facility (FYF), testifying via teleconference, told the committee that he has worked at FYF for 21 years and was speaking on behalf of youth counselors across [Alaska]. MR. KONEFAL described the environment in which a youth counselor works as "a watched dormitory, [with] anywhere from 15 to 60 kids on one single unit." He said youth counselors work face- to-face with residents for eight hours a day, without 15-minute breaks, and they eat their lunch with the residents, needing to be always on the alert." He said those committee members who have had the benefit of visiting their district's facility would know the environment he'd described. MR. KONEFAL noted that the residents with whom the youth counselors work are primarily 16- to 19-year-old males; these aren't little boys, but often are 175- to 250-pound, six-foot- tall men. Developmentally, however, they are immature and exhibit the same impulsive and reckless behavior of young boys, and "here is where they become dangerous." MR. KONEFAL said there are stories from each youth facility. He recalled being attacked during an AWOL [absent without leave] attempt, choked from behind to the point of blacking out, and being "the bearer of two black eyes to take back home and show my own children." He said, "The visceral, verbal assault expressed at me and my family are regular, and so accepted, that when I file charges with the troopers I am told it is just a part of my job. And in fact, it is." MR. KONEFAL reported that some coworkers haven't been as lucky in this career. He told the committee of a friend who was lured into a room and beaten so severely that he missed two weeks of work; when he returned, he was too traumatized to continue working, knowing such an incident could happen again. He continued: With drug and alcohol abuse being such a pandemic issue, every facility is taking in kids who go through the pain and unpredictable behavior of withdrawal. If [you] then combine these problems with our increasing population of mental health issues, it gives you some insight to the multifaceted problems that youth counselors face each and every day. As for residents with mental health issues, in Fairbanks alone we've had a number of residents so removed from their faculties of reasoning that they would repeatedly bash their heads against cement walls or floors, if upset. What did we do? Staff sat there with this unfortunate kid's head in their hand, cradling it for hours, until this chaotic episode subsided. The resident turns out well under such care, but the staff are left emotionally and physically drained. On a lighter side, youth counselors do routine escorts to offsite locations such as the courts and medical facilities and, when necessary, [fly with] the residents throughout Alaska to the Lower 48. We do this all without the benefit of uniform or sidearm, as a judicial services officer would have. If [a resident is at] court and does not like the decision of the court, we must [act when he tries to flee] or [lash out at someone]. Youth counselors are the protective shield between the juvenile and the public safety. These situations can be harrowing. Physical confrontations are the worst and were easier to handle when I was 28 and just starting out as a youth counselor. I'll be 50 next year, and I believe that most of us know how that age stacks up [against the brash], no-limits [assertiveness] of youth. Luckily, I have picked up some other skills along the way. I now have the insight to quell argument and quash some violent behaviors, but this has come over a period of 21 years. Most staff, by far, do not stick around and develop this wisdom, nor are there staff there to pass on these insights and set the example for new staff. As a result, we get the new teaching the new. It is my belief that if we can recruit and, more importantly, retain the best and brightest available, we'll be more effective in preventing future societal damage and save significant resources. One of the ways to do this is through 20-year retirement. We are shouldering similar responsibilities of other peace officers in the 20-year retirement program, and I'm here to ask your support to bring the youth counselor series under the same retirement program. MR. KONEFAL thanked members for their attention to this issue and asked that they pass [HB 248]. Number 0342 ANDY LEE came before the committee to testify that he had spent ten years, from 1991-2001, as a youth counselor at the Johnson Youth Center [in Juneau]. During that time, he noted, he was spat upon, urinated upon, and cried upon; however, he said, because he held what he considered to be "the best job in state service," he also considered that to be a part of the job. MR. LEE noted that over that ten-year period, people in only 3 of the 32 positions have stayed ten years. It is not often that people stay in the youth counselor service for 20 years, he said, because of the risk, "the daily exposure to violent, unpredictable, ever-growing numbers of young people who the courts and the community have said, 'These people are in your charge.'" For that reason, [youth counselors] approach their jobs with great vigilance. He said some of the best individuals in the community are attracted to this position, but "we're unable to keep them" because there are other, equally attractive jobs that have 20-year retirement. MR. LEE told the committee about several people whom he had supervised who became juvenile probation officers or "went to corrections." He related a story of having recruited one individual who had worked at the Lemon Creek adult facility for ten years and returned after only one year, because he was 47; he could retire as a correctional officer (CO) at 57, whereas he would have had to work until age 67 at the youth center. MR. LEE noted that over the years [the legislature] has "seen fit to improve the youth facilities [and] build facilities, in response to the growing needs of the juvenile community." He offered his belief that the "missing link" is in addressing the needs of the people who work in those facilities. He indicated support for restorative justice as a model for treatment and support for DJJ [Division of Juvenile Justice, Department of Health and Social Services] in terms of the way it delivers service. This [bill] is an opportunity to support the people who work in those facilities, he said. MR. LEE brought up one of the arguments against 20-year retirement in areas such as the university and the state troopers: "There's a brain drain." He countered that it doesn't happen, however, because the brightest people are recruited as youth counselors but aren't retained long enough to become the best; they become the best as JPOs [juvenile parole officers], as adult POs [parole officers], and as COs. MR. LEE stated his belief that [HB 248] would close "that loop in services." He said, "As we've met the needs from a facility, we've met the needs from a restorative justice - choosing that as our model for treatment - and I think the last piece in that puzzle would be 20-year retirement." Number 0005 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she appreciated [Mr. Lee's] testimony and that it wasn't a job she could do. She indicated her first reaction was to figure [out how to make job less difficult]. [The last portion wasn't on the tape, but was recorded in the committee secretary's log notes.] TAPE 02-13, SIDE A Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked, "When people move from this job to one of the other jobs, do they also get more money, or is the money the same?" MR. LEE answered that the money is not the same. Youth counselors are recruited at a range-11 salary, "YC1" [Youth Counselor I] in the job series, and stay in that class until promoted to a "YC2" [Youth Counselor II], a range 13, which pays, to his belief, approximately $14 per hour. Correctional officers [in adult facilities] work "26-50 a year" and receive 20-year retirement in addition to a higher range of pay; he mentioned "their ability during those other 26 weeks to also go into overtime and other benefits." He also offered his belief that JPO pay is range 15-19, whereas youth counselor pay is [range] 11-15. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that was only part of the solution. She asked how long a person would have to be "one of these counselors" before being able to move to higher levels. MR. LEE replied that it is expected that youth counselors will move from a YC-1 to a YC-2 within 12 to 18 months; then they move up the stepladder from a range 13A, on an annual basis, similar to other state employees. In the ten years Mr. Lee has worked in the field, he said, he has seldom heard the argument, "We don't get paid enough." Rather, often the argument is, "There are other jobs that are more attractive." MR. LEE cited the following: JPOs work an eight-to-five [shift], whereas [youth counselors] work three shifts. Correctional officers work 26 weeks a year, whereas [youth counselors] work overtime, work 52 weeks a year, and are in Class I [a strike class that precludes striking]. Mr. Lee relayed that one of his most difficult jobs as a supervisor was attempting to figure out which employee had not worked the last five Christmases. He remarked, "While it is a part of the problem, I think what you find is a very sincere class of individuals, who come into this with service in mind ... and youth as a priority." He continued: While I think there is pay inequity, while I think there are some other inequities in terms of work schedule and ability to transfer, I think this is the critical one, because it has come up the most often. And when youth counselors reach that three- to five- year mark, it's when the debate comes: "Where am I going to be ten years from now; where am I going to be 15 years from now." And if you're a youth counselor, its "where am I going to be 20 years from now, 25 years from now." MR. LEE mentioned [the decision of whether to] stay in that Youth Counselor class. He indicated some coworkers sitting behind him, noting that some were in their mid-40s. He noted that he and Kate Sullivan, who was present in the room, had been doing restraints for ten years, spending as many as four hours at a time lying on top of an out-of-control individual - because plastic cuffs and their bodies are all they can use, rather than mechanical restraints, lethal weapons, or chemicals. He explained, "If someone's out of control, all we have is the ability to rotate bodies onto that individual until they regain control of themselves." Mr. Lee said that could happen in a cafeteria, gymnasium, courtroom, or community, for example. Number 0435 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Lee what the educational requirement is to [start at the entry level] as a youth counselor. MR. LEE responded that the requirement is a high school degree and one year of experience in a related field, ranging in diversity from childcare to law enforcement. He pointed out that the entry pay of a Range 11 is usually reserved for administrative clerks and is an entry-level range with low requirements. He added: I agree that there should be an entry-level range, because we do get, you know, very good people. And it's been very tough to recruit over the past ten years, because ... we have not kept up with the private sector [pay], we have not kept up with adult corrections, so I think it's very difficult to recruit at the entry level. And also, when we do get someone who has a degree, we also must recruit them at a range 11 or range 13. Number 0514 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES mentioned "these other steps up" and a higher-paid job. She asked if there were more educational requirements in that regard. MR. LEE answered that the job speculations read, "Education, or experience." Youth counselors garner experience on the job and may combine that with an [associate] degree, he suggested, or [on-the-job] training, which would qualify them for the entry level as a JPO, Adult PO, and Correctional Officer I. CHAIR COGHILL clarified that juvenile justice is under the Department of Health and Social Services, while the adult corrections is under the Department of Corrections. Number 0630 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON noted that she had read that youth counselors are required to complete a minimum of 160 hours of training in their first year of employment. She opined that that is a considerable amount. MR. LEE concurred. He explained that that training ranges from first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to garnering basic counseling skills. He said, "The one area that I think that we're very strong in - or have been very strong in recently, since the move to Division of Juvenile Justice - is training." He continued: When you consider that there's 160 hours of training, you're working shifts, you're caught in a shift bid where maybe your schedule is determined by your seniority, so you have to work 26 weeks of graveyard, yet you're still required to meet [the] training requirement. MR. LEE noted that some training requirements are through a national affiliation for correctional officers and are done by correspondence. He said people see youth counselor [positions] as a good jumping-off point, not necessarily as a place to stay for ten or fifteen years. He told the committee that he himself left after ten years, and asks himself whether he'd have stayed if the 20-year retirement were in place. He said it would have been a tremendous for him to stay, and that he believes he would still be there. Number 0770 CHAIR COGHILL asked if there was any typical scenario Mr. Lee could draw for the committee [regarding other dimensions of the youth counselor's job]. MR. LEE cited the following primary areas of work for a youth counselor: prevention, detention, adjudication, treatment, and aftercare. It is the only job class within the Department of Health and Social Services that has direct contact with the juvenile in every phase through his/her journey through the system. In comparison, he noted, a juvenile probation officer only interacts through adjudication and placement, or perhaps during the detention phase. He depicted the following scenario: As a youth counselor, if you report to work at eight o'clock in the morning, you're waking up 25 individuals who might not want to be awakened. You're then charged with having ... their first meal of the day, seeing that their beds are made, inspecting their rooms. ... We're making sure that there are no "shanks," that ... there's no paraphernalia, or a list of communications, [and] that there's no attempts at self-harm. There are ... typically 2 or 3 youth counselors and 20-25 youth. They have to be transported from one part of the building to the other, in direct contact with the youth counselor. They may not like each other. They may be from different gangs. They may be [of] different ethnic backgrounds. They may simply be [affected by] fetal alcohol [syndrome] and a sex offender who can't understand basic directions. Yet you're charged with meeting the needs of each of those 25 individuals. You're charged with case management. Correctional officers don't have case management. So we have the duty of vigilance, we have the duty of security, we have the duty of case management, [and] aftercare - determining when this young person goes back to the community. Youth counselors, during a typical day, will meet with parents, will meet with juvenile probation officer[s], will meet with officers of the court to determine the progress of the youth through the system, what phase of treatment [they are] in, [and whether they are] ready to be reintegrated into the community. Those decisions, by and large, are made by youth counselors - those decisions as to whether a sex offender or a burglar returns to the community. When that happens, that recommendation is typically made with the information garnered by a youth counselor, given to a probation officer, and ... then provided to the court system. But the person that guides that person through that journey, from prevention to adjudication to release back into the community - and then through the aftercare phase, while they're in the community - is done, in most cases, by a youth counselor. MR. LEE said during a typical day, a youth counselor may eat breakfast with a young person in the morning, restrain that person in the afternoon, and administer [medications] to 25 people. He said he is certain [the youth counselor class] is one of the few in the state to administer medication. He explained: Just that one task alone is very daunting: to make sure that someone gets their meds. Yet, while you're giving someone their meds and making sure their not "cheeking" them or passing them to someone else, you're also in charge of [the] person in cell B who's banging his head against the wall. You're in charge of the conversation that's going on across the room about who we may assault, or should we steal cookies. And you still have a caseload to manage. MR. LEE concluded that a typical day for a youth counselor involves multitasking "to the nth degree." He told the committee that [for a youth counselor] there is no such thing as an eight-hour day. He stated that Youth Counselor III unit leaders - the mid-management position in the series - are on call for as many as 25 weeks a year and respond to requests for backup immediately and without question. Mr. Lee recalled that after he'd been doing that ten years, his wife told him what she missed the least about his job was his leaving in the middle of the night, not knowing what he would face, and [her finding out], when he returned home, that he had been spat or vomited upon [that day at work]. He described work conditions: A graveyard shift, many times, is one person per unit, with the entire unit locked, and you can only call for backup. If the person in the cell is getting ready to hang themselves, or screaming and yelling or challenging the person in the next cell, there's one youth counselor on duty until backup arrives. Number 1175 CHAIR COGHILL said one reason he'd agreed to hear this bill was because he thinks [the realm of the youth counselor] is "a whole different world." He said [Mr. Lee's testimony] was compelling. He mentioned the lockdown and control system of the corrections officers and "doctors doing [medications]." He indicated he believed the equity issue to be significant. However, he noted that [HB 248] presents a problem. He mentioned retroactivity, 240 employees, and a $7-million change in "the way we're doing business here." He said he was willing to move the bill out of committee and allow [the House Finance Standing Committee to debate] "the $7-million question." Number 1249 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON paraphrased a portion of the fiscal note analysis, which read as follows: Our actuarial consultant has estimated the total cost (the net present value of fully projected benefits) of this legislation to be $7.2 million, producing an increase in the state's contribution rate of 0.14 percent and an annual cost to the State of $896,000. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he didn't think it was intended to be. He added, "They just axed it." Number 1364 JANET PARKER, Retirement & Benefits Manager, Division of Retirement and Benefits, Department of Administration, told the committee that she had just recently viewed the bill for the first time and had not participated in the development of the fiscal note. She said, however, that [the division] does take every retirement bill "put into the legislature," sends it to its actuaries - currently Mercer - and asks for a projection of what the cost will be at the time. MS. PARKER pointed out that the fiscal note in question shows asterisks, which means there will be a cost; however, the true cost is not currently apparent and won't be known until "everyone files." Depending upon whether the bill is retroactive, she added, there may be people with prior service that [the division] was not told about. She said [the division] was given a list of current employees in the department [and used that list] to project the potential cost. MS. PARKER said the actuary believes eventually this will produce an increase of .14 percent of payroll. Although there will be a cost to the system, it won't show up today. Instead, it will probably show up in the year 2004, "and it may actually be a little bit more or a little bit less." She noted that actuarial science is not exact. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if the estimated $896,000 was a total, rather than per year. MS. PARKER answered that it is per year. She explained that [the division] is saying it will increase the state's contribution rate by .14 percent. The $896,000 is against the current state salaries, she added. Number 1500 REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD noted that he was in complete agreement with [the proposed legislation]. He said he had spoken with youth counselors over the years. He stated his belief that it is a job that needs to be done, and said, "I think this is a way to keep people in that employment for 20 years." He said he would like to see [the bill] moved out. Number 1533 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES mentioned her concern about the actuarial and said, "I assume that that is presuming that everything else is the same." She asked if there weren't some investments of retirement money that "can kind of change that over a period of time." She indicated the state is making a lot of money in the retirement system. MR. PARKER indicated an affirmative response. She added, "And for the last 18 months, we're in a deficit position." She said this is a long-range term, and [the division] assumes there will be earnings over a 20-year period. CHAIR COGHILL commented that this would create a significant draw, as well. MS. PARKER concurred. She suggested that people like Mr. Miller who have moved from one job to another will try to "gap those ten years of service." She said she didn't think that was considered when "they produced this," but that consideration was given to what happens if this group is allowed to retire at 20 years - ten years earlier than they could today, potentially. She added that [the division] would pay benefits and health insurance for those ten years, which is why it carries a cost. Ms. Parker noted that the actuary comes in every year, looks at his prior guess, and attempts to "match it up and see how it's tracking." Number 1661 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS commented, "It's very confusing, once you get into actuarial or consultants." He noted that current employees could take the opportunity to retire after 20 years or could stay for 30 years, which he said he believed would result in "more in terms of retirement." Representative Stevens said he did not understand why the state would have to pay more if these people were to retire at 20 years, because the employee continues to put in the same amount. He asked Ms. Parker if she was saying the state would then have to put in an additional amount. Number 1700 MS. PARKER explained with the following example: If I'm allowed to retire after 20 years, ... under the peace officers system, it is a 50-percent benefit, of my high three average years. However, instead of waiting until I'm 55 or 60 to get that benefit, I'm now going to be able to get it anywhere between [the age of] 40 and 50. And I wasn't eligible to retire for that time, so I'm going to get benefits for at least for ten years more than I would have received, even though ... if I sit and wait 30 years, I'm going to get a higher benefit under the "all-other" system. It would be about two-thirds of your salary at 30 years. But I have to wait 30. ... I'm saying ... that if you let me go at 20, that sounds pretty nice. ... We draw retirement for ten extra years. And it's that amount money that needs to be paid: ten years of health insurance and ten years of retirement benefits that the system hasn't been thinking about in the past. And that's why this costs money. CHAIR COGHILL indicated his [former] reluctance in hearing [HB 248] was because of the "retroactive part" and "the prospective part." He surmised that it could be "a significant hit in a year when we really can't take a significant hit." He reiterated that this is a compelling issue, but noted that "if one [bill] goes out, you have to give reasons why you're not going to allow the other four or five [bills] to go out in that same thing." CHAIR COGHILL referred to previous testimony regarding retention, and noted that recruitment is a real issue. [The youth counselor field] isn't the only career field where this issue exists, he remarked. Regarding the fiscal note, he said, "We could stumble over it, or we could let it go." Number 1847 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked what the average time is that juvenile officers are staying in their jobs. [MR. LEE shook his head.] REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked if there wouldn't be a cost-savings from hiring a new employee at a lower [rate of pay], while letting the higher-paid employee retire after 20 years. MS. PARKER answered that it is a cost savings to the department, but not to the retirement system, because as soon as that person comes to the door, "we're starting to collect contributions to pay for their retirement, whenever that may be." REPRESENTATIVE HAYES commented that it "could be a wash for state dollars in general." He clarified, "You might pay $896,000, but then on this other hand, the department might be paying, or having less ... going out." MS. PARKER responded that she didn't think it worked that way. What is being looked at is total, overall salaries; furthermore, some people at a lower range will not make much difference, because there is always turnover within the state, and the salaries remain approximately the same on a larger basis. She added that what she looks at is the large basis, for retirement purposes. CHAIR COGHILL stated that "we're going to be paying out ten years earlier for 'x' amount of people." That money will just be going out of the retirement system. He suggested there would still [within the system] be the same number of employees "paying in," so the payout would be greater than the income. Number 1992 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that it has always been her belief that people who have been on the job longer and are getting paid more are a benefit to the job because of their experience and knowledge; therefore, she has never considered that getting people with no experience at all at a lesser pay is a better deal. When just measuring dollars, that may be the case, but not when considering effectiveness on the job, she added. Number 2030 REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked how effectiveness is measured in terms of youths that are released. Number 2073 ROBERT BUTTCANE, Administrative Juvenile Probation Officer, Division of Juvenile Justice, Department of Health & Social Services, told the committee that "effectiveness is measured, really, through mandates from the legislature in our missions and measures." He listed the following three [missions and measures]: reoffense rates, restitution payments, and community-work-service hours completed. Subjectively, he said, success is measured in reunification of families and reengagement in school - completion of high school and entry into college, for example. REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked Mr. Buttcane if there was a method by which to measure success regarding the longevity and stability of personnel. MR. BUTTCANE replied that although it may be possible to do so, that correlation has not been made in the existing comparisons. CHAIR COGHILL referred to Mr. Lee's previous testimony regarding the number of [youth counselors] who don't stay that long anyway. He asked, "If you don't have those people that have been there for more than 20 years, how are you going to measure their effectiveness after 20 years?" That, he said, is the problem as he understands it. Number 2137 REPRESENTATIVE FATE indicated that the question was as Representative James had pointed out, that an individual becomes more valuable the longer he/she has worked. He clarified that he had been attempting to draw a correlation between the parameters of success in the youth and the longevity of [youth counselors] - "the experience ratio between that success." MR. BUTTCANE responded that subjectively he would say that was "quite on point": the more experienced and educated a juvenile justice professional is in working with youths and their families, he noted, the better the results. He added that he could not document that statistically, but thinks there is a correlation. MR. BUTTCANE noted that there comes a point of diminishing returns if, for example, a 57-year-old [youth counselor] were to attempt to wrestle with a "15-year-old, hormone raging, out-of- control, six-foot-ten, 280-pound sophomore." He said [HB 248] would address some of the inequities "in dealing with some of things that we're faced with in our youth counselor series." He noted that [HB 248] is the fifth bill that has come before the legislature in the last ten years in an attempt to correct that inequity. CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Buttcane to explain the 20-year and 30- year difference in the percent paid by both the employee and the state. MR. BUTTCANE answered as follows: The bill does speak to that and does lay out a formula where both the employee, as well as the state, would pay a higher percentage contribution into PERS [public employees' retirement], in order to make the 20-year retirement. MR. BUTTCANE indicated page 1 [Section 1] of [HB 248] and paraphrased [lines 8-12, which read]: Beginning January 1, 2002, each juvenile officer shall contribute to the system an amount equal to seven and one-half percent of the juvenile officer's compensation. Except as provided in (d) of this section, beginning January 1, 1987, each other employee shall contribute to the system an amount equal to six and three-quarters percent of the employee's compensation. MR. BUTTCANE added that he believed it was the same for the state; however, he deferred to the Division of Retirement and Benefits for further comment. CHAIR COGHILL announced his intention to hold the bill over, saying there were significant issues for the committee to consider. He reiterated that this issue is compelling. Chair Coghill indicated the "look-back" provision is a big policy decision; he said he wanted to stand before the House Finance Standing Committee and be able to say, "This is why I did that, guys." He encouraged testifiers to also speak at the House Finance Standing Committee hearings. He added that he wanted to spend more time on some of the issues "of the technical side of the bill." Number 2361 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said he would like to hear more from "the retirement people." He said it seems the system is a healthy one - many people retire at 20 years. [The employees] as well as the state pay into [retirement]. He said, "It seems to me in this analysis, they're mixing up apples and oranges, saying that, 'If we go to a 20-year system for these people, they will have to pay back what they would have paid if they'd been in a 20-year system.'" REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS mentioned the actuarial consultant information that, in fact, "raises it higher." He said it didn't make sense: if the system is a healthy one for people "at 20 years" - giving the contributions that they have always made - then why isn't it a healthy system for those who are "at 30 years" but are putting in the money that they would have paid if they had been "at 20 years." CHAIR COGHILL said that was an excellent question and suggested that both Ms. Parker and Guy [Bell, Director, Health Benefits Section, Division of Retirement of Benefits, Department of Administration] could perhaps [return for the next hearing regarding HB 248] to answer that question. Number 2414 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded that if [an employee] contributes an amount during 20 years [of employment] that would allow that employee to retire in 20 years, but if "the period has gone by and the state hasn't matched it," then that would change the actuarial amounts "down the line," and the state would have to "catch up on that." She clarified that "the match" is what [the employee] pays and the state matches. She added, "That's the issue, and it's not involved in that." CHAIR COGHILL thanked all the members of the juvenile justice system for their work and their patience. Although there were several who may have wanted to speak before the committee, he said those who did had done a good job of representing the case. He noted that he would not yet close public testimony. [HB 248 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|