02/14/2017 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB91 | |
| HB3 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 14, 2017
3:01 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Chris Birch
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Andy Josephson (alternate)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair
Representative Chuck Kopp (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 91
"An Act relating to fees for certain persons filing disclosure
statements or other reports with the Alaska Public Offices
Commission; relating to a tax on legislative lobbyists; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 3
"An Act relating to the employment rights of employees in the
state who are members of the National Guard of another state,
territory, or district of the United States."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 91
SHORT TITLE: APOC REGISTRATION FEES; LOBBYIST TAX
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KITO
01/30/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/30/17 (H) STA, FIN
02/09/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/09/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/09/17 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/14/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 3
SHORT TITLE: NATL GUARD LEAVE/REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TUCK
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) MLV, STA
01/26/17 (H) MLV AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
01/26/17 (H) Heard & Held
01/26/17 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
02/02/17 (H) MLV AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/02/17 (H) Moved CSHB 3(MLV) Out of Committee
02/02/17 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
02/03/17 (H) MLV RPT CS(MLV) 7DP
02/03/17 (H) DP: LEDOUX, SPOHNHOLZ, PARISH,
RAUSCHER, SADDLER, REINBOLD, TUCK
02/14/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE SAM KITO
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, responded to questions
during the hearing on HB 91.
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff
Representative Sam Kito
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
during the hearing on HB 91, on behalf of Representative Kito,
prime sponsor.
HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
91.
PAM GOODE
Rural Deltana, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 91.
KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff
Representative Chris Tuck
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 3 on behalf of
Representative Tuck.
ROBERT DOEHL, Deputy Commissioner
U.S. Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA)
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER), Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 3 and answered
questions.
MARK SAN SOUCI, Regional State Liaison
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)
Lakewood, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 3.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:01:30 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:01 p.m.
Representatives Birch, Johnson, Josephson, Knopp, and Kreiss-
Tomkins were present at the call to order. Representatives Tuck
and Wool arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 91-APOC REGISTRATION FEES; LOBBYIST TAX
3:03:18 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 91, "An Act relating to fees for certain
persons filing disclosure statements or other reports with the
Alaska Public Offices Commission; relating to a tax on
legislative lobbyists; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 91. After
ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify, he
closed public testimony.
3:04:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAM KITO, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 91, expressed his concern that it is not clear
that revenue generated from the lobbyist tax proposed in HB 91
would directly benefit the Alaska Public Offices Commission
(APOC). He mentioned that staff is working on changes to the
bill to rectify this issue and make other improvements.
3:05:51 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Staff, Representative Sam Kito, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kito, prime sponsor of
HB 91, referred to discussions in the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting of 02/09/17 regarding raising revenue
for APOC to offset general fund dollars and doing so through a
tax or a fee. She mentioned that amendments to HB 91 are
forthcoming to respond to concerns expressed in the hearing.
MS. KOENEMAN referred to Section 1 of HB 91, which states that a
candidate, group, or nongroup entity is required to file reports
with APOC. She said that in response to a request from APOC,
staff will add "persons" to that section to broaden the intent
to include additional groups such as labor unions, corporations,
and other individuals. She stated that a candidate's
registration fee would be for the full election cycle instead of
just 12 months. She also noted the addition of language
specifying the civil penalties for non-payment of filer
registration fees, which was inadvertently left out of one
section of HB 91.
3:08:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH expressed that he doesn't support an income
tax, but wouldn't oppose a flat rate, whether it be per lobbyist
or per client. He opined that the flat fee is more manageable,
and it is fair and equitable.
3:09:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for the number of lobbyists.
3:10:24 PM
HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), responded that the five-year average number
of registered lobbyists is approximately 132.
3:11:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to the addition of "persons" to
Section 1 of HB 91 and said that "persons" is one of the reasons
we have Citizens United. He added that the courts haven't
differentiated between natural beings and artificial beings;
therefore, corporations have First Amendment rights and the
ability to use their general funds for unlimited contributions.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered that the burden of overseeing the
finances of lobbyists with larger revenue streams is greater
than for the smaller groups, so it makes sense to have a fee
structure based on revenue.
3:12:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH cited the information on page 2 of the
Department of Revenue's (DOR's) fiscal note: the average total
fees paid to lobbyists were about $17 million and a 2.5 percent
tax would generate about $425,000 in annual revenue. He asked
for an explanation of the discrepancy between the amounts of
anticipated revenue - $425,000 listed on the DOR fiscal note and
$244,000 listed on the sponsor statement. He offered that 130
lobbyists, each paying a $2,000 fee, would generate an amount
like that proposed.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO explained that the sponsor statement was
based on APOC information from a year and a half ago and DOR
used current information. He stated that the DOR estimate of
$425,000 does not acknowledge the removal of the existing
lobbying fee proposed by HB 91, which amounts to about $106,000.
He said deducting $106,000 from $425,000 yields about $380,000.
He promised a revised sponsor statement with the committee
substitute (CS).
3:14:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP offered that besides passing legislation to
raise revenue, it is the responsibility of legislators to
examine how departments conduct their business and then consider
modifications. He asserted that the legislative body has not
had that discussion, nor has it taken a balanced approach to the
budget process. He suggested that APOC fees and reporting
requirements discourage candidates and appointees of boards and
commissions from seeking public office.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP referred to the sponsor statement, which
states that APOC's budget was reduced from $1.3 million in
fiscal year 2015 (FY 15) to $866,000 in FY 16. He asserted that
the reduced amount occurred only in that one year. He referred
to the APOC funding document in the committee packet, titled
"Multi-year Allocation Totals with Funding - Operating Budget -
FY 2017 Conf Committee Structure," and noted funding for 2017 at
$1.033 million, with $1,050 million in the FY 18 governor's
budget. He reiterated his belief that the legislature needs to
have discussions about conducting business and a balanced
approach to the budget, not just for APOC but for all the
state's agencies and departments. He asked if those discussions
have taken place.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO asserted that APOC's budget was reduced and
the agency is struggling to meet its statutory obligations. He
said that the legislature authorized additional program receipts
- the $1,033 million figure on the document - which represents
what the legislature considered to be the appropriate level of
funding for APOC. He went on to say that his primary motivation
for introducing HB 91 is to create a mechanism for APOC to
collect receipts more than $106,000 and up to the $240,000
authorized by the legislature. His secondary motivation, he
said, is to increase APOC staff in Juneau to provide adequate
oversight of lobbying activities.
3:18:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP expressed his concern that there would be
additional oversight requirements for APOC and fees would
escalate.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO responded that APOC operated at a stable
staffing level before reductions put pressure on its ability to
do some of the audits. He mentioned that he did not foresee
uncontrolled growth for the organization. He said that the
legislature would continue to review the APOC budget and assess
APOC's performance annually through the Department of
Administration (DOA). He added that the legislature may audit
the agency to determine if it is performing the statutorily
designated functions. He emphasized the importance of allowing
APOC to collect revenue up to the receipt authority amount and
the need for additional support to perform its lobbying
oversight activities.
3:20:15 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked what oversight activities APOC has
been unable to fulfill.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO replied that his understanding is there is a
need to hire a professional who can understand and interpret
statute and provide advice to lobbyists filing reports.
Currently there is just a clerk performing those duties.
3:21:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if Representative Kito anticipated
that taxes on other professions would be "imbedded" in statute.
She expressed her concern with maintaining simplicity regarding
taxes in state law.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO responded that the lobbying profession
regulated under APOC is a unique function and is not related to
other professions that are regulated under the Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED). He said
that the professions performing licensing activities and
investigations under DCCED are already required to "pay their
own way," and the fees are adjusted every other year for those
professions. All the activities associated with the boards are
paid for by the licensees and registrants. He said that APOC
has been supported by general fund revenue and the $250 per
client fee, which has generated a little over $100,000
historically. He asserted that nothing requires that APOC
operations are supported entirely by the professions that they
regulate. He offered that such a requirement would greatly
increase APOC fees. He maintained that HB 91 was proposed to
raise revenue just to the level of program receipts authorized
by the legislature and to provide for better oversight in the
lobbying office. He speculated that requiring the professions
regulated by APOC to pay their own way would result in much
higher fees than those proposed in HB 91.
3:24:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL cited the financial disclosure reporting fee
of $50 in HB 91 and asked what the current fee was for financial
disclosure.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO responded that there is not currently a fee
for financial disclosure reporting.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked what the current candidate fee was for
filing with APOC.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO replied that there is currently not an APOC
candidate fee. The $100 filing fee in HB 91 would be a new fee.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested that other professional groups
with similar membership size are self-funded, and fees include
investigations; whereas, APOC's expenses are higher because
investigations are ongoing. He offered that investigations
involving the other boards are performed as needed.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO responded that he does not believe APOC's
oversight of regulation or licensing functions is comparable to
the Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional
Licensing (CBPL). He stated that there are two components to
APOC activity: one is oversight of the 132 lobbyists
representing the 400-plus clients accessing the legislature; and
the other is oversight of the group of candidates running for
political office. He said that for oversight of all the
registered candidates and groups, the estimated revenue is less
than $20,000. He attested that APOC would not have enough money
for candidate review and would still need general funds. He
offered that through HB 91, there would be an opportunity to
generate funds from professional lobbying to pay for the
oversight of their reporting requirements.
3:27:45 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 91.
3:28:21 PM
PAM GOODE testified that she opposes HB 91. She expressed her
belief that APOC should be downsized, as it has a very bad
reputation among anyone running for office. She opined that
APOC discourages "good" people from running for office. She
mentioned that when APOC was formed in 1976, there were no
computers, and now it is in violation of Article I, Section 22.
She asserted that APOC requests information that is not even
required by the IRS and publishes it on the Internet. She
opined that "the reason APOC is overloaded is because they do
petty things." She mentioned that APOC has wasted her time on
very simple matters, and it audits filings that are less than
$100. She offered that instead of looking for ways to fund
agencies, the legislature should look at ways "to release them
of the pettiness." She asserted that APOC is supposed to be
"going after the bad guys" and not deterring people from
participating. She opined that people running for office and
commissioners "won't step up" because of what is required from
APOC. She mentioned that her husband warned her against running
for office because of what APOC is doing. She relayed that she
let APOC "violate" her privacy so that she could "do the right
thing" and run for office.
3:31:14 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS closed public testimony on HB 91.
3:31:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON commented that his experience with APOC
has not been unfavorable, nor did he think the commission's
requirements unreasonable. He expressed his alarm over the
level of funding for APOC in the budget that was before him last
March [2016] and said he appreciated that some of the money was
restored. He opined that it would be impossible for the agency
to perform its work successfully with that [reduced] level of
funding.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON cited the U.S. District Court decision
of 2016 upholding the constitutionality of Alaska's $500 annual
personal campaign contribution limit, which has now been
appealed. He mentioned that the presence of money in campaigns
is only going to increase and "soft" money is growing every
election cycle. He stated the importance of information to the
public. He suggested that there be a waiver system for
candidate filing fees in the case of a plea of poverty. He
contended that in such a case, the money could not be raised
prior to filing. He expressed the need for creative funding and
for a fiscal plan.
3:34:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that $17 million in average annual
fees paid to lobbyists comes to $266,000 per legislator. He
asked for the number of lobbyist clients.
MS. HEBDON answered that there are 480 clients, and APOC raises
about $120,000 per year through the $250 per client registration
fee.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if the client pays the $250 fee.
MS. HEBDON responded that lobbyists pay the $250 for each of
their clients.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if lobbyists pay an additional fee.
MS. HEBDON responded no.
3:36:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if "$250 per client per lobbyist"
means that if a client hires four lobbyists, then four times
$250 is paid.
MS. HEBDON responded that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if HB 91 and a state income tax
together would result in the "double taxing" of lobbyists.
REPRESENTATIVE KITO conceded that to be one of the complications
of two taxes. He stated that the gross receipts that would be
taxed at 2.5 percent would be independent of the income a
lobbyist claims on his tax form, which is subject to income
adjustments. He asserted that a forthcoming CS will address the
issue of the 2.5 percent income tax in HB 91 to avoid the
perception of double taxation.
[HB 91 was held over.]
HB 3-NATL GUARD LEAVE/REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS
3:40:25 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 3, "An Act relating to the employment
rights of employees in the state who are members of the National
Guard of another state, territory, or district of the United
States."
[Before the committee was committee substitute (CS) for HB 3
(MLV).]
3:40:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK presented HB 3, as prime sponsor. He
relayed that HB 3 would allow for employment rights of employees
of the state who are members of the National Guard of another
state, territory, or district of the United States. He
paraphrased from the Sponsor Statement, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
House Bill 3 seeks to correct a deficiency in
employment protections for Alaskans who are serving in
the National Guard. This is a nationwide effort to
ensure those who serve their nation for all 50 states
when called to duty - regardless of their service
location - will have reemployment rights to their
Alaskan civilian job after completing the various
critical duties when called by a governor for state
active duty.
The National Guard is a hybrid state-federal entity.
While National Guard members are subject to federal
call to duty by the President of the United States,
they can also be called up for state active duty by
the Governor to respond to state emergencies such as
fires, tornadoes and floods.
The federal law Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects members of
the Army or Air National Guard when they are called
away from their civilian jobs for federal service.
However, USERRA does not apply when a National Guard
member must leave their job for state active duty. If
National Guard members are to have reemployment rights
after state active duty, it must be through state law.
Alaska currently has a law that applies to employment
protections to the public and private employees.
However, it is explicitly limited to members of the
Alaska Army or Air National Guard. There are several
Alaskan residents who serve in the National Guard of
another state. These Alaskans currently do not have
the reemployment protections for their employment.
By passing House Bill 3, we will extend the employment
protections to Alaskans who are serving in any
National Guard. The Department of Defense has
identified this legislation as a key quality of life
issue and is actively seeking to make this policy
change across the nation. So far, 28 other states have
passed similar legislation and 3 other states are
taking it up this session.
3:43:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for an explanation as to why an
Alaskan would be serving in another state's National Guard and
not Alaska's. He also asked how many people would be impacted
by HB 3.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that there are many Alaskan
workers, who live and raise families in Alaska, but are members
of the National Guard in other states. He asserted that if
those guard members are called back to the state in which they
serve, then HB 3 would enable them to resume their employment in
Alaska upon return, like a Guard member who was called to serve
oversees by the President of the United States.
3:44:38 PM
KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Tuck, prime sponsor of
HB 3, relayed that recent data from the U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD) identified 33 individuals in Alaska who serve in
the National Guard in 19 other states. She conceded that this
number is the result of self-reporting, and there may be more.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for clarification on how this
situation occurs. He asked if someone, who served in the
National Guard of another state and moved to Alaska, would have
the opportunity to transfer his/her National Guard affiliation
to Alaska.
MS. KLOSTER responded that there is a process for transferring
to another state's National Guard, and some members are called
back to the original state of service before the process is
complete.
3:46:27 PM
ROBERT DOEHL, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), cited reasons why members of the
National Guard would be living in one state and performing guard
duty in another. He explained that often the civilian
professional personal life of a guard member "gets out of sync"
with his/her military career. He relayed that this situation
occurs most often with students, military spouses, and those
with civilian careers requiring frequent work out of state. He
stated that for professional reasons, guard members go out of
state to get training and experience that cannot be obtained in
Alaska. He added that this situation also occurs due to the
time it takes to get into the Alaska National Guard (ANG). He
contended that when he moved to Alaska, getting into ANG was an
11-month process. He mentioned that guard members leave the
state for professional development. An Alaska guard member may
start his/her career Outside in a position not available in
Alaska, which would make him/her far more valuable to ANG upon
return.
MR. DOEHL related three personal examples in which his military
career was out of sync with his personal life. After graduating
from college, he moved to another state for a job while
continuing to "drill" in his original state. After getting off
active duty and finishing law school, he continued to affiliate
with the [Army] Reserve in the Midwest while living in
Washington, D.C., to finish command tour of the unit and
transition for two years. When he moved to Alaska and was in
the process of transferring to ANG, he continued to travel to
Newport News, Virginia, to command a unit and maintain pilot
proficiency.
MR. DOEHL noted the money spent by the United States training
him as a military pilot, which was "well into six figures." He
also noted the money saved because he maintained his pilot
proficiency in another state while he was in the process of
joining the Alaska Air National Guard (AK ANG). He offered that
"cross-state affiliation" may be common Outside, where one can
drive across three states in an hour; however, for the guard
member living in Alaska, the time, distance, and cost factors of
an Outside National Guard affiliation highly incentivizes
finding a path into ANG. He emphasized that DMVA supports HB 3
because it would be conducive to developing a professional
militia in Alaska; it would allow a continuity of service for
those Alaskans whose life plans require them to move Outside for
a period; and it also would incentivize new Alaskans to remain
engaged with the military from a prior affiliation, until they
can become a member of ANG. He concluded that maintaining the
participation and readiness of these guard members supports
recruitment, saves money, and provides for a more capable
National Guard serving Alaskans.
3:50:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if there are employers who won't take
back employees who have been serving in the National Guard in
another state.
MR. DOEHL answered that since there is currently no mechanism in
place to address this situation, no incidents have been brought
to the attention of DMVA. He mentioned that USERRA protects
[the employment of] guard members who have been mobilized for
periods of service for federal duties. He mentioned that most
state active duty is of short duration; however, in the case of
[the after effects of] Hurricane Katrina, guard duty lasted for
months, resulting in difficult decisions and adverse actions by
employers.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for confirmation that currently there
are no guard members who have been denied the opportunity to
return to his/her job. He suggested that HB 3 was introduced to
be proactive and not to address any current situations.
MR. DOEHL responded that is correct.
3:52:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if a member of the National Guard
serves one weekend per month and two weeks per year. He asked
if a guard member, who is currently living in Alaska but is a
member of another state's National Guard, flies back to that
state with that frequency.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded yes.
MR. DOEHL answered that the bare minimum participation averages
one weekend per month and two weeks of continuous training. He
offered that National Guard duty has not been at that "bare
minimum" level of training since [the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001]. He added that in his case, to maintain
flight proficiency, monthly and twice monthly training periods
were required. He said that depending on the military
occupational skills, some guard members can go out once a
quarter for six days to fulfill the training requirements rather
than monthly, to save time and expense. He added that there are
already federal protections in place for drill weekends and
annual training. He asserted that HB 3 would apply to state
active duty for specific disasters and state needs.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL mentioned that he didn't realize there was
so much specialized training associated with the National Guard.
He offered that by joining other states that allow the
[employment] protection, Alaska would increase the number of
guard members joining ANG, as opposed to maintaining their
membership in another state's National Guard. He suggested that
a guard member from another state would move to Alaska and keep
up his/her out-of-state National Guard membership until he/she
could transition to ANG.
MR. DOEHL responded that the protections [in HB 3} would allow
an individual to continue to participate with an Outside
organization. He maintained, however, that travel time and cost
incentivize affiliation in ANG for those guard members and added
that Alaska is the best place to train.
3:56:18 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 3.
MARK SAN SOUCI, Regional State Liaison, U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD), testified that 28 states are providing the
protection that would be offered in HB 3 and three other states
have introduced legislation. He offered the example of an
Alaskan resident, who is a member of the National Guard in
Washington or Oregon, being called up for 30 days to fight a
forest fire. He suggested that without the protection that
would be offered under HB 3, he/she might be fired because of
his/her absence. He mentioned that DoD addressed this as a key
issue three years ago. He reiterated that there are 33 self-
reported guard members in Alaska serving in 19 other states. He
went on to list the states: Alabama, Arkansas, California,
Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Nevada, New York, Oregon,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia. He added
that these guard members are serving in the other states either
for professional development or because they are in the process
of transferring to ANG. He concluded that the intent of HB 3 is
to protect those Alaskans who are doing that "good duty" of
serving in the National Guard in other states.
3:59:44 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS closed public testimony on HB 3.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked if HB 3 would apply to people who
work two weeks on and two weeks off in Alaska and are members of
a National Guard in another state.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK replied yes, because their place of
employment is in Alaska. The proposed legislation would apply
to Alaskan employers.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK mentioned that HB 3 was amended in the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting [of
2/2/2017] to insert a new subsection (h) under Section 3, which
states that there would be an exemption for the reemployment
rights of a guard member "if the employer's circumstances have
changed, making employment impossible or unreasonable, or the
employment would impose any undue hardship on the employer." He
asserted that this amendment created a balance: making sure
that a National Guard member, serving honorably, would have the
ability return to his/her job if it didn't create any hardship
on the employer at the same time.
[HB 3 was held over.]
4:02:52 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:02
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB003 ver D 2.7.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB003 Sponsor Statement 2.7.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB003 Memo of Changes 2.7.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB003 Fiscal Note DOLWD 2.7.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB003 Fiscal Note MVA 2.7.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB003 Supporting Document-Letter Dept of Defense 2.7.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB003 Supporting Document-Dept of Defense One Pager 2.7.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |