Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/19/1997 01:30 PM Senate JUD
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 114 EMPLOYEES: POLITICAL CONTRIB & ACTIVITIES LAURA CHASE , legislative staff to Senator Taylor, sponsor of SB 114, gave the following summary of the measure. SB 114 was prepared in response to numerous constituent contacts regarding automatic deductions from paychecks by employers for political purposes. Once the deduction occurs, the employee loses control over which candidates and issues the money is used to support or oppose. SB 114 is written to protect the rights of workers to make annual decisions regarding their involvement in the political process. The reverse check-off process, as it is now known, was recently banned by a Michigan statute, and upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. SB 114 prohibits employers, or labor organizations, from giving salary increases with the intent the increase be donated in support or opposition of a candidate, issue, recall petition, or for similar purposes. The bill prohibits discrimination against an employee who fails to make a contribution intended to influence a political race and requires a public record be kept of all payroll deductions made for disbursal as political contributions. SB 114 also requires annual written authorization by the employee, prior to a deduction for political purposes and requires that employees be informed, at the time of signing, of the anti-discrimination provision that applies. SB 114 will enable employees to continue their employment without feeling intimidated about whether or not they are making contributions. Number 220 SENATOR PEARCE asked what sort of information employee PACs must keep and report under current law. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated it depends primarily upon the amount of the contribution made by the employee. SENATOR ELLIS asked for elaboration on the paperwork requirements proposed in SB 114. MS. CHASE replied the employer or labor organization, making the withholding, must maintain a record of that contribution for three years, and a record of employee consent. SENATOR ELLIS asked if the organizations would create their own forms. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR referred to page 2, line 11, and said the organization could, but APOC would most likely create a uniform form. Number 251 SENATOR ELLIS questioned whether the records would be maintained for three years and then become public. MS. CHASE referred to page 2, paragraph (c), which requires the record be maintained and made available to the public for at least three years after the deduction was made. SENATOR ELLIS asked how many organizations in Alaska would be affected. MS. CHASE did not have that information but offered to provide it at a later date. SENATOR ELLIS noted some of the back-up material is from The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, pertains to teacher unions and compares contributions of Republicans vs. Democrats, and plays up partisanship of donations. He asked if that argument is part of the justification for the bill. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR answered that material demonstrates that the rank and file did not support the decisions being made by their leadership, in the manner in which their contributions were being used. The bill allows rank and file members to make individual choices about how their funds are utilized. Number 284 SENATOR PARNELL noted SB 114 prohibits discrimination against an officer or employee, in the terms or conditions as specified on page 2, and asked whether any penalties or causative action would be available to a complainant. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR answered the remedy would be a suit for wrongful termination, because it becomes discrimination per se, if one can establish that was the basis for termination. SENATOR PARNELL commented the damages would be lost wages. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR agreed, and said he has not set up specific legislative parameters. He thought a violation of that section would subject one to liability under the Civil Rights Act. SENATOR ELLIS asked whether Senator Taylor considered coordinating the reporting requirements in SB 114 with the two-year election cycle. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied the state does not account on a two-year basis. Number 307 BROOKE MILES , Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), provided an overview of APOC's position on SB 114. Section 1(a)(1) is in current law so the Commission has no objection to its inclusion. APOC is concerned about Section 2, which prohibits discrimination, because it takes APOC into an area of law outside of campaign finance, and into the complex area of employment discrimination. APOC believes that provision may be better placed under the authority of a different statute, i.e., EEO or human rights. Regarding the 12 month time limit for the employee's consent in Section 1(2)(b), APOC would prefer the language on line 13 be changed to "one calendar year" to be consistent with the campaign disclosure statute. Regarding subsection (c) of Section 1(2), APOC is concerned that requiring information to be made public will have a chilling effect. Under current law, individuals or contributors who donate more than $250 file a disclosure statement independently of candidates and groups. People who donate $100 or less are not disclosed by name, address, occupation, and employer on the reports filed by labor groups, PACs, parties or candidates. SB 114 would create a new area of public information; APOC is concerned this requirement may discourage individuals from participating in the political process. APOC believes it should also keep a copy of the documents required to be kept by the employer since APOC anticipates that enforcement of this requirement will be through the complaint process. Last, APOC would prefer the records be kept for four years rather than three, to be consistent with other recordkeeping requirements under the campaign finance disclosure law. Number 395 SENATOR PARNELL asked if APOC would handle complaints because it has jurisdiction over everything under AS 15.13. MS. MILES said that is correct. SENATOR PARNELL stated APOC typically fines people for violating campaign finance laws and asked whether a complainant would be able to collect back wages under SB 114. MS. MILES replied, under campaign finance reform, a violation of this nature would be subject to a fine of not more than $50 per day. If a complaint filed with APOC is not acted on within 180 days, the complainant could take court action. SENATOR PARNELL asked if one would have to exhaust his/her administrative remedy in front of APOC before going to court, or whether one has a direct action to court. MS. MILES verified one has a direct action to court only after 180 days has elapsed with no action taken by APOC. Number 420 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if that is the rationale in the fiscal note for funding; three additional complaints in election years, and two additional complaints in non-election years. MS. MILES said that is correct and is based on APOC's recent experience with the area of law governing contributions in another's name. APOC estimated three cases would be filed in an election year, of which it would address two and one-half. In the non-election year, APOC would complete the third case, and an additional two complaints filed related to municipal or borough elections. Ms. Miles explained the fiscal note includes funds for contractual work but not for new positions. SENATOR PARNELL asked, if SB 114 passes, whether a complainant could go directly to court. MS. MILES repeated under the new campaign finance disclosure law, a complainant cannot go directly to court, but must first file a complaint with APOC. SENATOR PARNELL asked if APOC has the authority to award back wages. MS. MILES replied it does not. SENATOR PARNELL questioned how appeals are treated by APOC. MS. MILES said the complainant could appeal to Superior Court. SENATOR PARNELL asked if the appeal would include a complete review of the facts. MS. MILES answered that would depend on the nature of the appeal. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted the intent was not to give APOC exclusive jurisdiction over wrongful discharge suits because a peripheral aspect of that suit required a form be filed with APOC, nor was it to prevent a party from bringing a civil suit for 180 days. He noted his desire to get a legal opinion on the ramifications of the reference to AS 15.13 in SB 114. Chair Taylor asked why APOC believes that copies of the written authorization forms should be provided to the PAC receiving the contributions. MS. MILES replied the PAC should be able to verify employee authorizations. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if APOC receives that information now. MS. MILES said APOC does not, but she was not sure whether the PACs do. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked whether a bargaining unit that signs up dues- paying members for deductions in the contract itself, would have to report a cumulative total of those deductions to APOC. MS. MILES responded the group would have to report all of the contributors by name, address, etc., who contribute more than $100. Number 487 DON WANIE , Director of the Division of Finance in the Department o Administration, made the following comments on SB 114. About 10,000 employees are covered under collective bargaining agreements in the state employee workforce. Through the state payroll system, dues deductions are processed for those 10,000 employees. A portion of the dues deductions is used for political purposes and some unions also have PACS for which deductions are allowed. Because a portion of the dues deductions may be taken for political purposes, the Division of Finance would be subject to the annual renewal requirement and to file 10,000 authorization forms in employees' records. AS 39.25.080 specifically sets out what public employee information is public information. Dues deductions are not included in that statute. Placing those deductions in statute will set a precedent and open the way for disclosure of much less desirable information, such as garnishments or levies. He added the division believes any other public employer in the state, such as municipalities and private employers with unionized employees, will be subject to the same reporting requirement. SB 114 will burden employers with an additional paper-generating process. Number 534 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated the paperwork required by SB 114 is a fraction of the paperwork sent out annually to all employees for the retirement program. MR. WANIE asked whether the authorization forms would be renewed each year on the employee's hire date. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted APOC requested the paperwork be renewed on a calendar year basis. MR. WANIE agreed the calendar year time frame would be more manageable. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR moved to change the word "three" to "four" on page 2, line 15, to accommodate APOC's request. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR moved to amend lines 13 and 14 on page 2 to read, "The written request is valid for no more than one calendar year from the date of signing by the employee." There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. SENATOR PARNELL requested the committee get further information on what rights of action complainants would have, and whether SB 114 should be under the jurisdiction of Title 15. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated he would hold the bill until a legal opinion on those questions is prepared. He asked for further suggestions from the departments on how to implement SB 114 for less cost. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced SB 114 would be held in committee until the following week.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|